House Vote a Symbolic Rebuke of Iraq War
Feb. 16, 2007 — -- The final vote in the House of Representatives was 246-182 against the president's increase of U.S. troop presence in Iraq -- a symbolic rebuke of the president's policy and the president's war.
After four days and more than 44 hours of full-throated, passionate debate among 392 members of Congress, today the congressional body delivered a strong vote against the president's increase of 21,500 troops to the war-torn nation.
"Today, in a loud voice, the Congress of the United States said to the president, 'Mr. President, we need a new direction in Iraq,' " said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., in a press conference following the vote.
Throughout the week, Democrats stood against the surge and against the war, both in votes and voices on the House floor earlier this week.
"I, for one, am tired of those who have been consistently wrong about this war lecturing those of us who have been right from the start," charged Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., on Wednesday.
"I'm not ashamed that I want our troops to come home," said Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio.
Some House Democrats acted as if the non-binding legislation was a sort of "tough love" for the Iraqi people.
"You have to get a grip on your country because you are very shortly going to have your own fate in your own hands," warned Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash.
Ultimately, 17 Republicans voted for the anti-surge resolution, some arguing that previous surges didn't work.
"We tried the same thing last summer. The benefits were temporary. The body bags were permanent." Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla., said on Wednesday.
Added Rep Walter Jones, R-N.C., a co-sponsor of the legislation, "Our troops have done a magnificent job and they cannot afford to be policeman in a civil war."
Most Republicans voted against the resolution, with conflicting arguments. Some -- like Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah -- argued that the measure was worthless.
"The resolution before us today is a non-binding resolution," Bishop said, "By definition, it means it does nothing. It changes nothing."
Conversely, others on the House floor described the resolution in terms cataclysmic if not downright apolcalyptic.
"I ask if we surrender this battlefield, which battlefield will our enemy choose next?" asked Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y. "Will it be New York? Will it be Los Angeles? Will it be Washington, D.C.?"
While Republicans argued the measure would embolden the enemy, they seemed just as fearful it would embolden Democrats to take up legislation against the war that would be more than symbolic.
"This resolution is in fact a first dangerous step to cutting off the funds our troops so desperately need," warned Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla.
Indeed, Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Penn., the chairman of the key defense subcommittee on the House Appropriations Committee, now plans to try and stop the surge by tying $93 billion in war funding to new troop restrictions that the military, stretched quite thin, will not be able to meet -- requiring that troops get at least a year at home between rotations, for example.
"If they can't send people back that don't have equipment and so forth, they can't continue the surge is what it amounts to," Murtha explained via Web video to the liberal anti-war Web site Movecongress.org.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says he will push for the Senate to vote on the House resolution tomorrow. Senate rules, however, require not just a majority but 60 votes -- a margin the Senate Democrats are unlikely to achieve.