Dems Unhappy With House Anti-Escalation Resolution Will Back It Anyway
So it looks as if House Democratic leaders are successfully persuading members to stay unified to pass a non-binding resolution opposed to escalation next week. Today's New York Times reports that several members who are pushing for a stricter resolution -- one that cuts off funding, for instance -- are nonetheless agreeing to back the leaders' preferred resolution as a necessary first step towards condemning Bush's escalation plan.
If House Dems do manage to stay unified behind the resolution, it will be a powerful gesture that (a) puts the President on notice that tougher House efforts are on the way, and (b) puts added pressure on GOP Senators up for reelection in 2008 to stop backing the filibuster of the Senate bill.
More after the jump on the House members who want tougher measures but are supporting the resolution.
From the Times:
Representative Joe Sestak, Democrat of Pennsylvania, a former three-star admiral who was elected in November, introduced legislation on Thursday calling for American troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by the year’s end. Under his plan, financing for the American forces in Iraq would expire on Dec. 31.“The nonbinding resolution is a necessary step, but it’s insufficient,” Mr. Sestak said in an interview on Thursday. “But even if it’s a half-measure, I will take any measure that moves us further down that line.”...
Representative Carol Shea-Porter, Democrat of New Hampshire, said the stalemate in the Senate had only added to the public’s frustration. But she said she was still likely to support the Democratic approach next week, while hoping for more significant legislation in coming weeks.
Nonetheless, at least one member -- Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York -- has not publicly clarified whether he'll support the resolution. After telling members in the closed-door meeting that tougher measures were required, he said in an interview: “The president is not going to listen to anything we have to say. There’s nothing we can do to stop him unless it’s the real consequence — the power of the purse.”
We're contacting his office to see where he stands on the reso, and we'll keep you posted.















SeeDee
I agree with Rep. Jerry Nadler...but, why is not action afoot in the House to bring felony charges against Dick Cheney and George W. Bush in the Plame case? And when is the President going to be called on his intel manipulation which has (to date) cost 3,120 American lives in an un-necessary war?
Lets get on with it! Pelosi for Prez!
February 9, 2007 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the right approach. Even if you (correctly) want some tougher medicine, get everyone on record with the biggest numbers and margin that you can, and then go for the big stuff.
February 9, 2007 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The House needs to pass this bill to pressure Republicans in the House and the Senate. In the meantime the surge will pacify parts of Baghdad while the war will move on to other provinces. Bush and the Army will try to claim at least partial success. But whack-a-mole only goes so far and there's no more US soldiers in the pipeline in the next year to pacify more than part of Baghdad as ethnic cleansing continues elsewhere. The Iraqi Army isn't going to change it's allegiances despite any upgrade in capability. Getting Republicans on record as supporting a failed strategy is important. The more they are forced to back a discredited policy the less credibility they have to fight the inevitable withdrawal later on.
February 9, 2007 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
jakc1997
fighting back starts with a push and a shove - the dems need to make this their first shove and put the fear of god into the republicans senators who are up for re-election
February 9, 2007 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink