House to take up Iraq resolution.
By on Feb 6th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
House to take up Iraq resolution.
“With the Senate’s debate on an Iraq resolution stalled by partisan division, House Democratic leaders pledged today to begin debate next week in their chamber on a similar nonbinding resolution opposing President Bush’s decision to send more American troops into the war,” the AP reports. “Democratic leaders are considering the highly unusual step of holding a joint meeting of the foreign affairs and armed services committees later this week to debate a resolution.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
I’ll beleive they are representing us when they begin impeachment.
February 6th, 2007 at 3:06 pm“the highly unusual step of holding a joint meeting of the foreign affairs and armed services committees…”
Yes, I suppose that it would be “highly unusual” for different parts of the government to meet with each other to find out what each other is thinking.
February 6th, 2007 at 3:15 pmWhat are they waiting for. IMPEACHMENT TIME!!!!!
February 6th, 2007 at 3:22 pmC’mon, Dems!
February 6th, 2007 at 3:24 pmHot air & promises made in dark rooms are what we’ve put up with for the last 12 freak’n years.
Do something or go home.
We do have an election next year, you know!
#1 ForTruth
I would love to see impeachment, but I just don’t think it will happen. I’ve come to the conclusion, and I’m sure many Dems have, that it is not in the interests of the Democratic party to have Bush impeached. Neither is it in their interest to quickly pull out of Iraq.
February 6th, 2007 at 3:25 pmThe reason it is not in their interest is because the incompetence of this administration and the Republican party as seen through the Iraq war are strong cards to play in the 2008 election. While this may seem a disservice, if we have to put up with Bush two more years, and the Iraq war, in 2009 we’ll have the Dems controlling all branches. And thats a practical assessment on my part which I don’t particularly support.
Bush keeps talking tough about the ‘wanted poster’ and how things are done in Texas. Maybe he should receive some ’southern justice’. Would be a good taste of his own medicine.
I’ll beleive they are representing us when they begin impeachment.
Comment by ForTruth
Then you will not feel represented. Along with Pelosi saying that impeachment was off the table, I believe it was just last week Charlie Rangle said the same thing on O’Reilly.
February 6th, 2007 at 3:30 pmThe continued efforts of the Dems to pass this pointless resolution illustrate both their pandering nature and lack of patriotism. We have thousands of troops preparing for dangerous operations in Iraq, and thousands of families tensing up for the wait at home, but our democrtic leadership would rather play with pointless resolutions. They are unpatriotic. Imagine trying the same crap on the eve of Normandy. What a pathetic group all of them are.
Go ahead, start name calling, but we all know that based on the statements Gore and Hillary and Pelosi made about Iraq before 911 that they certainly would have gone to war with Saddam’s Iraq afterward–and all you people here would have cheered.
February 6th, 2007 at 3:32 pmRepublicans have a plan B and that is to blame the failure on Democrats. In future elections they’ll be talking about how Iraq was going just great until critics emoldened the enemy and hurt troop morale. They did it with Vietnam.
February 6th, 2007 at 3:33 pmThen you will not feel represented. Along with Pelosi saying that impeachment was off the table, I believe it was just last week Charlie Rangle said the same thing on O’Reilly. Comment by hacker bob — February 6, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
Attack Iran, and we’ll see what ends up on the table sport.
February 6th, 2007 at 3:38 pmComment by JasonsConscience
Remember, if the Iranians fire first, it is not preemptive on our part. That makes it defense.
For the record, I am opposed to attacking Iran, sport.
February 6th, 2007 at 3:50 pmeveryone here who has a republican rep or sen needs to call them and tell them you demand this conversation, this resolution…
TRY THESE TOLL FREE SWITCHBOARDD NUMBERS:
800.828-0498
800.459.1887
800.614.2803
866.340.2981
the operator will ask which office/member you want… be POLITE…
February 6th, 2007 at 3:52 pm.
Republicans have a plan B and that is to blame the failure on Democrats. In future elections they’ll be talking about how Iraq was going just great until critics emoldened the enemy and hurt troop morale. They did it with Vietnam.
Comment by cynical ex-hippie
Bad example considering Kennedy got us involved in Viet Nam and Johnson escalated our involvement in Viet Nam.
I guess I figured out the code. When a Republican starts a war, it is the Republicans fault. When the Democrats start a war, blame the Republicans.
February 6th, 2007 at 3:54 pmWho here hopes that debate on non-binding resolutions happen next week and the week after that? I say we give the Senate a Friedman or two to get their act together. I’m sure our troops and Iraqi civilians will be all right until then.
February 6th, 2007 at 4:01 pmHarry S Truman 1945-1953
Dwight D Eisenhower 1953-1961
John F Kennedy 1961-1963
Lyndon B Johnson 1963-1969
Richard M Nixon 1969-1974
So, it really started on Truman’s watch, but escalated on Johnson’s. Kennedy did not start the war or escalate it. I guess if you want to blame Kennedy for anything, it would be not stopping the war that was already ramping up when he came into power in 1961, with American troops arriving after he was killed.
February 6th, 2007 at 4:06 pmRemember, if the Iranians fire first, it is not preemptive on our part. That makes it defense.
For the record, I am opposed to attacking Iran, sport.
Comment by hacker bob — February 6, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
By your definition we should be attacking Saudi Arabia, since they’re supplying the weapons to shoot down our helicopters.
February 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pmImpeach Bush and try him for treason, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It can, and should, be done to regain our political foothold in the world.
February 6th, 2007 at 4:21 pmGood point, hacker bob. I forgot about all those pro-war liberals pushing for escalation in Vietnam, and the conservatives who protested against it. Thanks for the history lesson.
Oh, you’re trying to compare pre-Civil Rights Act and post-Civil Rights Act political parties and pretend they’re the same thing. I get it. Good one. Lincoln would be proud. Or is it Srom Thurmond?
February 6th, 2007 at 4:29 pmActually, we should be attacking ourselves, since we sold the weapons that were, in turn, sold. Come to think of it…
February 6th, 2007 at 5:46 pmHarry S Truman 1945-1953
You forgot (D) after his name.
Dwight D Eisenhower 1953-1961 (R)
John F Kennedy 1961-1963(D)
Lyndon B Johnson 1963-1969(D)
Richard M Nixon 1969-1974(R)
There I made the corrections for you. So, between Truman and Johinson you had how many Republicans? One. Who was in office when we got out of Viet Nam? A Republican.
Thanks for disproving my poit by reinterating my point. Dems start a war and the Repubs get the blame.
February 6th, 2007 at 6:20 pmComment by cynical ex-hippie
Don’t try to re-write history. Look at the facts. I may have had the name wrong in my previous post, but the fact stays the same. Dems got us involved in Viet Nam, not Repubs. Dems escalated pur force in Viet Nam. You can not blame Nixon or the Republicans without also blaming them. To do so would be dishonest.
And Lincoln would be proud. I can see the faults of all parties, unlike many others.
February 6th, 2007 at 6:34 pmhacker bob what exactly is your point? That Democrats are responsible for getting us in this war?
February 6th, 2007 at 6:35 pmAnd The Dems and Republicans have the same consituencies in the 1950s as they do today, hacker bob? Is it liberals who push for war now? Or are you simply obfuscating the two parties?
If you really believe Democrats are responsible for the escelation in Nam, and Republicans are responsible for getting us out, answer this: Why don’t Republicans take credit for ending that war? Why all the talk about how liberals allowed Vietnam to fall to communists? That was the big Republican foreign policy talking point throughout the 1980s.
February 6th, 2007 at 6:42 pmhacker bob what exactly is your point? That Democrats are responsible for getting us in this war?
Comment by cynical ex-hippie
I am not refering to Iraq, and I have not. I have refered to Afghanistan. Yes the Democrats are PARTIALLY responsible for that one.
And The Dems and Republicans have the same consituencies in the 1950s as they do today, hacker bob? Is it liberals who push for war now? Or are you simply obfuscating the two parties?
Here is your argument. In one breath you say that the Dems didn’t push for war then. (Good point, hacker bob. I forgot about all those pro-war liberals pushing for escalation in Vietnam, and the conservatives who protested against it. Thanks for the history lesson. ) When you are proven wrong, you use that, “But it is different now” approach. Sorry. Pick a position and stick with it.
By the way, research civil rights, since you tried to pull that card for no apparent reason. Another thing brought to you by the Republicans (read the voting record)
February 6th, 2007 at 7:18 pmAnd you completely missed my point entirely. So, I will show it to you.
You said:
To which I provided ample proof that:
My post had nothing to do with Democrat or republican. It was only to correct you on your assertion that John F Kennedy started the war.
February 6th, 2007 at 7:32 pmComment by Spudge_Boy
And , if I was remiss in doing so, I thank you for the correction.
February 6th, 2007 at 7:50 pmComment by hacker bob — February 6, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Yet your posts seek to deflect blame from Republicans by continually pointing to Democrats. And you always fail to respond when I point out your sophisms. There is a measured hypocricy about you, bob, and a subtle single-mindedness in supporting Bush.
February 6th, 2007 at 8:34 pmComment by Briseadh na Faire
Again, I do not see anywhere where I have supported Bush. But I do point out the fact that not only one party is to blame. There is plenty wrong done by both of the major parties. Yet the “Progressives” would look at only one party, actually one man is more precise.
And the reason I do not respond to you many times is because your ideology makes you instantly dismiss my statements without even examining the logic of them.
Sometimes what is, just is. Whether you like it or not.
February 6th, 2007 at 10:46 pm