By a vote of 246-182, the US House of Representatives today symbolically rejected President Bush's decision to deploy an additional 21,500 troops to
Iraq. The vote was non-binding, and did not address the issue of funding for the troops. The vote spurred Sen. Harry Reid to call for a similar vote
in the Senate on Saturday.
WASHINGTON -- The Democratic-controlled House issued a symbolic rejection of President Bush's decision to deploy more troops to Iraq on Friday,
opening an epic confrontation between Congress and commander in chief over an unpopular war that has taken the lives of more than 3,100 U.S.
The vote on the nonbinding measure was 246-182.
"The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, leader of Democrats who
gained power last fall in elections framed by public opposition to the war.
"The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home," Pelosi vowed after
leading the House in a moment of silence as a sign of respect for those who are fighting and their families.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
This vote is nothing more than an opinion poll, and sends the wrong message to our troops. The Democrats have yet to offer an alternative strategy for
Iraq other than "cut and run". This vote is the beginning of their "slow bleed" strategy.
This is not what the American public voted for last November. They did not ask us to send a "Dear John" letter to our troops. They were fooled into
believing that the Democrats had a plan that would work.
Actually this resolution is a "Dear George" letter and it shows that he is not the sole decider. It has two parts, one of them promises not to stop
funding the troops that are already there, and the other part states that it does not agree with the surge of more troops.
Call it what you will, but after four years something has to be done. It is certainly better than more of the same.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.