[Gilowero]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi led the way Tuesday as the Democratic-controlled House embarked on an extraordinary debate over the Iraq war, declaring that the public has decided that President Bush's policies "have not worked, will not work and must be changed."

A vote is expected by Friday on a nonbinding measure that opposes Bush's recent decision to increase the number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq while pledging support for the troops already there. (Read the text of the resolution -- PDF)

"Instead of engaging in personal and partisan attacks over the next three days, we must focus on this question: How is the violence in Iraq most likely to be lessened so that our troops can come home safely and soon?" Pelosi, D-California, said in excerpts of her remarks released by her office.

"The president's plan is based on a judgment that the way out of Iraq lies in sending more troops in. History has proven just the opposite. Four previous troop escalations have resulted primarily in escalating levels of violence," she said.

Democrats expressed confidence the measure would prevail and said they would attempt to use it as the opening move in a campaign to pressure Bush to change course and end U.S. military involvement in the war. More than 3,100 U.S. troops have died in nearly four years of fighting.

Republicans conceded that the measure was headed for approval and said a few dozen members of the GOP were likely to break ranks and vote for it.

In a reversal, Pelosi and the Democratic leadership decided Monday night not to give Republicans a chance to propose an alternative measure -- a move that drew protests from Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the GOP leader.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/....ap/index.html For those with short memories, this is what Nancy Pelosi herself said the American people wanted from Congress:

"And the American people told us they expected us to work together for fiscal responsibility, with the highest ethical standards and with civility and bipartisanship.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...AG5ANCTQ27.DTL A month and a half later, we see what she was talking about - her genuine commitment to what she believed that we, the people, want in the House.

Yes, this echoes what the Republicans did as a majority. It was wrong then.

It is wrong now.

Somehow, though, I doubt that some of the people who were up in arms about this sort of conduct under Hastert will say a word about it now.

Matt

[xLQLRcXh]

I agree it's wrong. I didn't like it when the Democrats did this with the "first 100 hours" legislation, and I don't like it now.

My Congressman is a Republican, so I just emailed Pelosi's office and expressed my opinion of this.

link

On the other hand, and only for this particular resolution, after seeing how the GOP stopped the Senate for a simple non-binding (non-binding, fer chrissakes) resolution against the escalation of US troops in Iraq, I can see why House Democrats may feel justified in taking this route. Again, I don't agree with it, but for this bill anyway, I can understand it.

[cokLoolioli]

As if anyone believed her. What I still want her to answer is why only a non binding resolution. If they are so against the war, pass legislation cutting off funding. Or do not pass any more funding bills till the president withdrawls.

[popandopulus]

Yeah what a crock. Democrats were in a good position to gain support and then just piss it down the toilet.

[casinobonusa]

Yep. It is pretty contradicting of the Democrats. I do think that the Republicans (as much as I hate them) should have a chance to debate.

[Gilowero]

Yep. It is pretty contradicting of the Democrats. I do think that the Republicans (as much as I hate them) should have a chance to debate.

Do you hate all Republicans, or just some? How about the Republicans on this forum?

Matt

[24MurinivaMak]

On the other hand, 60 something percent of the American people want the troops to come home this year. So even the Democrats aren't doing enough to make that happen, to do what the people want.

[Ztcgtqvb]

The irony is that even the liberals know they support a lying coniving b*tch; they just can't see beyond their unreasoned hatred for republicans.

Varus

[casinobonusa]

Do you hate all Republicans, or just some? How about the Republicans on this forum?

Matt

Hate is a strong word... let's just say I don't agree with their actions and viewpoints. My "dislike" is toward the politicians. No, I don't hate anyone on here. I treat opinions one by one and I try not to lump people together based on their opinion, unless they proclaim they are a absolute member of a party.

[24MurinivaMak]

The irony is that even the liberals know they support a lying coniving b*tch; they just can't see beyond their unreasoned hatred for republicans.

Varus

It's not hatred of Republicans, it's hatred of being lied into war. It's not unreasoned, it's based on the fact that the Republicans had absolute power for all these years and look where we are today. In a pile of shit in Iraq.

[casinobonusa]

It's not hatred of Republicans, it's hatred of being lied into war. It's not unreasoned, it's based on the fact that the Republicans had absolute power for all these years and look where we are today. In a pile of shit in Iraq.

I agree with this statement

[annouhMus]

For those with short memories, this is what Nancy Pelosi herself said the American people wanted from Congress:



A month and a half later, we see what she was talking about - her genuine commitment to what she believed that we, the people, want in the House.

Yes, this echoes what the Republicans did as a majority. It was wrong then.

It is wrong now.

Somehow, though, I doubt that some of the people who were up in arms about this sort of conduct under Hastert will say a word about it now.

Matt

Frankly speaking, I think you have the wrong idea about what is happening. It is crystal clear to me. Pelosi wants an up and down vote on condemnation or not of the surge in troops. --WITHOUT additional garbage items thrown in as would be the case if other issues or amendments were allowed. The republicajs did the same thing on other issues when they were in power. Perhaps you will note that each representative will have a chance to speak on it and other allied issues perhaps to be taken up later.

That makes good sense to me..



"As is" it is a NON-binding resoloution on a simple question. How could changing the question find an answer to that question????

[Gilowero]

It's not hatred of Republicans, it's hatred of being lied into war. It's not unreasoned, it's based on the fact that the Republicans had absolute power for all these years and look where we are today. In a pile of shit in Iraq.

Yes, yes, but when the Republicans were in power, there was considerable protect when the Democrats were not given the opportunity to participate.

Where's the outcry now?

Matt

[xLQLRcXh]

As if anyone believed her. What I still want her to answer is why only a non binding resolution. If they are so against the war, pass legislation cutting off funding. Or do not pass any more funding bills till the president withdrawls.

I agree they should do more. But I'm hoping that the non-binding resolution is just the first step.

House Takes Up Resolution on Iraq -- Concise Measure Seen as Precursor to Binding Legislation on Funding, Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2007:

The Democratic resolution, just 10 lines in length, will frame three days of debate on the war, culminating in an expected vote Friday to put the House on record against President Bush's decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional U.S. combat troops to Iraq. In two short paragraphs, the resolution affirms Congress's support for "the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq" before breaking with the president's new strategy. Waiting in the wings is binding legislation that would fully fund Bush's $100 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but add four conditions: Soldiers and Marines could be deployed to Iraq only after being certified as fully trained and equipped. National Guardsmen and reservists could be subject to no more than two deployments, or roughly 12 months of combat duty. The administration could use none of the money for permanent bases in Iraq. And additional funding for the National Guard and reserves must be spent to retool operations at home, such as emergency response.

[MegaJIT]

I'm a registred democrat and I didn't believe it when she said it. In fact I've never been able to figure out why she said it.

[casinobonusa]

Frankly speaking, I think you have the wrong idea about what is happening. It is crystal clear to me. Pelosi wants an up and down vote on condemnation or not of the surge in troops. --WITHOUT additional garbage items thrown in as would be the case if other issues or amendments were allowed. The republicajs did the same thing on other issues when they were in power. Perhaps you will note that each representative will have a chance to speak on it and other allied issues perhaps to be taken up later.

That makes good sense to me..



"As is" it is a NON-binding resoloution on a simple question. How could changing the question find an answer to that question????

I agree with this. Good insight

[cokLoolioli]

I agree with this statement

Perhaps it was the democrats that got us into this war through inaction while they were in power? Or more directly, they voted to authorize force against Iraq, so they should be held as complicit.

[MegaJIT]

Perhaps it was the democrats that got us into this war through inaction while they were in power? Or more directly, they voted to authorize force against Iraq, so they should be held as complicit.

Complicit certainly. Even venal and spineless. But not as guilty as the man who instigated the invasion and lied to make it happen.

[gkruCRi1]

There will always be partisanship and that is why there are two major parties. Given the sour public sentiments on the war and Bush, the Dems will look to maximise on that sentiment and keep it as an albatross over Bush and those Reps in Congress who were fervent "Bush-backers" who rubber stamped Bush until the Dems won Congress.

Overall though, I don't expect this Congress to be as partisan for reasons such as: 1) the Dems control the Congress and a Rep sits as POTUS, 2) the Dem hold on the Senate is razor thin, 3) alot of the new Dems elected to the House and Senate are on the conservative or libertarian side of the Dem party, and 4) many Reps want to move towards the centre to regain better footing amongst the total number of voters.

Whilst it seems alot of voters like posturing moves and thus that is why politicians do them, personally I don't like politicians wasting time on 'nonbinding' resolutions. IMHO, politicians should spend their time working on things that have actual value such as enacting or amending needed laws, negotiating or studying something that needs attention, budgeting, etc. If they merely want to express a viewpoint, then they can issue a press statement and move on. I think voters should get their money's worth of their labour whilst they are 'on the clock' on the public's tab.

[funnyPasds]

what a glorious waste of time.....