By Andrea Washington
Coastal Courier (Hinesville, GA) Staff Writer
awashington@coastalcourier.com
While 3rd Infantry Division commander Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch was wrapping up an announcement about accelerated troop deployment, members of the House of Representatives were passing a resolution challenging Pres. Bush’s plan for a troop “surge.”
This area’s representative, Jack Kingston (R-Savannah) voted against the non-binding resolution, which passed in the Democratic-controlled House by a 246-182 vote. Although Democrats hope the symbolic rebuttal will force Bush to change course and begin withdrawing troops from the war-torn country, in the runup to Friday’s vote the president insisted its passage would not deter him from proceeding with the deployment of 21,500 troops to assist in decreasing sectarian violence in Baghdad.
After the vote, many House Republicans expressed concern that the measure could lead to further binding resolutions or reduced funding for the war.
Others in the Republican ranks compared the resolution and nearly 45 hours of debate to childish politics.
“If the troops in Baghdad watched what Congress was doing today, they would be outraged. Fortunately for us in the Free World, they do not sit around and watch C-SPAN and what silly politicians do,” Kingston said in a statement released late Friday. “They live in a real world where there are real bullets. The resolution passed today, on the other hand, is not real. It is a political whip check designed for press releases and base politics.
“This resolution is great way to express opinion but if, as Speaker Pelosi has said, this war is a lost cause, why should Congress mess around with non-binding, do nothing resolutions? If this is the case, we should not be there one more day. If you believe the situation is so dire, why would you deny the troops in harms way reinforcements? A vote for this resolution is a vote for staying the course.”
Despite facing a much tougher road to passage, Democrats expected to have a test vote on a similar resolution opposing the president’s plan in the Senate on Saturday.
What it says
House Concurrent Resolution 63 reads as follows:
“Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That—
“(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
“(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.”
Coastal Courier (Hinesville, GA) Staff Writer
awashington@coastalcourier.com
While 3rd Infantry Division commander Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch was wrapping up an announcement about accelerated troop deployment, members of the House of Representatives were passing a resolution challenging Pres. Bush’s plan for a troop “surge.”
This area’s representative, Jack Kingston (R-Savannah) voted against the non-binding resolution, which passed in the Democratic-controlled House by a 246-182 vote. Although Democrats hope the symbolic rebuttal will force Bush to change course and begin withdrawing troops from the war-torn country, in the runup to Friday’s vote the president insisted its passage would not deter him from proceeding with the deployment of 21,500 troops to assist in decreasing sectarian violence in Baghdad.
After the vote, many House Republicans expressed concern that the measure could lead to further binding resolutions or reduced funding for the war.
Others in the Republican ranks compared the resolution and nearly 45 hours of debate to childish politics.
“If the troops in Baghdad watched what Congress was doing today, they would be outraged. Fortunately for us in the Free World, they do not sit around and watch C-SPAN and what silly politicians do,” Kingston said in a statement released late Friday. “They live in a real world where there are real bullets. The resolution passed today, on the other hand, is not real. It is a political whip check designed for press releases and base politics.
“This resolution is great way to express opinion but if, as Speaker Pelosi has said, this war is a lost cause, why should Congress mess around with non-binding, do nothing resolutions? If this is the case, we should not be there one more day. If you believe the situation is so dire, why would you deny the troops in harms way reinforcements? A vote for this resolution is a vote for staying the course.”
Despite facing a much tougher road to passage, Democrats expected to have a test vote on a similar resolution opposing the president’s plan in the Senate on Saturday.
What it says
House Concurrent Resolution 63 reads as follows:
“Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That—
“(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
“(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.”