LJWorld.com weblogs Congressional Briefing

What Kansans said about the Iraq resolution


A special Saturday edition of the Congressional Briefing...[(AP) Kansas lawmakers split on resolution:][1] _Kansas lawmakers split along party lines Friday as the House approved a Democratic resolution opposing President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq. The 246-182 vote on the nonbinding measure came after four days of debate over a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops. The state's two Democratic House members - Reps. Dennis Moore and Nancy Boyda - voted for the measure, while Republican Reps. Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran opposed it._With 392 members of the House weighing in during the debate -- an unusually high number -- we go to the [Congressional Record][2] to find out what our representatives had to say.Some excerpts:Rep. Dennis Moore (D): "We have done militarily all we can do in Iraq. We need to ask and tell the Iraqi Government, this new Iraqi Government, to step up to the plate and assume responsibility for the protection of their people and their country, Iraq. We need to give them incentive, powerful incentive to step up to the plate and assume responsibility."Sometimes new governments are like some people. If you tell them you will do something for them, they stand back and let you do it and do it and do it and never, never assume responsibility."We saved the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein, but we can't save the Iraqi people from the Iraqi people if they won't put aside centuries of religious differences and support their new government. I am talking about the Shia and the Sunnis for more than 1,000 years have been fighting."Rep. Nancy Boyda (D): "Diverting resources from Afghanistan and invading Iraq may be one of the most dangerous decisions this country has ever made. Our Nation's civilian leadership took their eye off the ball. Instead of securing more resources to hunt down Osama bin Laden, instead of engaging in diplomacy, they put resources into what has become a civil war and have depleted our Nation's strategic readiness."Please, please understand me. Our military has not failed. What has failed is our civilian leadership. Our military and their families have repeatedly stepped up and done what our Nation has asked of them. And now, Mr. Speaker, President Bush proposes to send more than 20,000 more troops to this civil war. He asks us to trust him with our soldiers' lives, even after trust has been broken time and time again. "Rep. Jerry Moran (R): "Madam Speaker, despite my belief in the inadequacies of the President's new strategy, to vote for the resolution with the troops already deployed is a step I cannot take. I am unwilling to--after the fact--say to them, I oppose your mission."My vote should not be interpreted as approval of the administration's conduct of this war. I have had the opportunity to meet General David Petraeus, the new commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq. I believe he is one of the most capable military commanders America has available for this mission. General Petraeus has indicated there is a chance for success and that he will report to the American people in 6 months as to whether or not the President's plan is working."Let us give the new leaders and the new strategy this short period of time to see if stability can be achieved--an investment necessary to ensure the lives lost and families damaged thus far have not sacrificed in vain."Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R): "Today we are taking the first step towards defeat. No one likes where we are today, but our goal should be success, not to accept the defeat the Democrats are leading us towards."I am very disappointed that the new Democrat leadership will not allow a true debate on what should be our focus today: what can we do to help achieve success in Iraq, and what metrics should we use to measure that success. That is the debate we should be having on the floor this week. Our military, our children, our fellow citizens, and the people of Iraq deserve nothing less."Instead, this Democrat leadership is telling the brave men and women who serve in our military that their efforts have not been good enough and that they do not think they deserve the tools to fight this war." [1]: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/feb... [2]: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r110query.html


Jackson 11 years, 1 month ago

Democrats are trying to turn Iraq into another Vietnam (translation "loss"). Their entire platform is based on being "loosers". Too bad they are taking down the country in the process.

LiberalDude 11 years, 1 month ago

Jackson- in case you haven't noticed Iraq already is another Vietnam. It's a George Bush's war and it's a mess.

Good job Nancy and Dennis!

Jackson 11 years, 1 month ago

Vietnam was lost by politicians - not the military.

Larry 11 years, 1 month ago

Isn't it ironic that representative Moore makes this statement - "Sometimes new governments are like some people. If you tell them you will do something for them, they stand back and let you do it and do it and do it and never, never assume responsibility." Huh! Isn't it his party that wants to tax the crap out of anyone that has worked hard and made sacrifices to earn a good living just so that they can pay for abortions (over 90% of which are birth control) and pay unemployment, disability, yada yada yada for lazy Americans who can't take care of themselves. We are paying for a war, yet my wife and I are as financially sound as we've ever been, the economy is growing and unemployment is as low as it's been in years. Thanks to Bush's economic plan and tax cuts, we can finally afford to do some nice things for ourselves. Democrats are all about power! They want to raise taxes so they can buy votes from the poor and get back into the Whitehouse.

dagopman 11 years, 1 month ago

I cannot believe I voted for Boyda. She is such a disappointment.

Ceee 11 years, 1 month ago

Our occupation IS a failure not because of the military, but because the Bush administration lacked both strategic vision and administrative skills. They did not address the realities of the MidEast or they never would have invaded in the first place. They did not adequately plan for sectarian violence. They have failed our troops time and again with inadequate armor and training and rest. They have neglected diplomacy when all agree a military solution is not possible. They have wasted billions. The Bush administration has failed; they are losers.

Read Sunday's Washington Post to find out how the Bush administration is failing returning vets who are mentally and physically wounded. It'll make your stomach turn. Remember too the President is proposing budget cuts for long term veteran care. He waves the proverbial flag while the tragedy of Walter Reed goes on. What a loser!

Curious 11 years, 1 month ago

You cannot believe you voted for Boyda? She is doing exactly as she said she would. She couldn't vote any differently on this issue.

When you vote for a democrat you vote for an automaton. They cannot vote counter to the leadership without permission. For example: a pro life democrat cannot vote prolife on anything that matters. Supreme Court, committee chairmanship, cabinet position. They must vote pro choice or lose any chance they have for making their mark in Washington.

Same thing to a lesser degree for the Republicans. Vote for the party you mostly agree with. Voting for the individual is bogus these days and probably always was.

Godot 11 years, 1 month ago

I sent an email to Boyda. It did not even remotely resemble the emails she chose to share with the JW.

I tried to send an email to Pelosi. I went through all the hoops of identifying myself and my address and email address, wrote my message, hit the "submit" button, then got this message: "you are not a constituent"

and then I was bumped to Stenny Hoyer's website!

Pelosi is a colossal piece of junk.

Frank Smith 11 years, 1 month ago

Reader comments on this story are a bit below the bar for the LJW, although there are the usual fanatics (i.e., "Godot") represented.

I wholeheartedly agree with Boyda. Many Democrats were intimidated into giving Bush the power to illegally invade Iraq and almost no Republicans had the courage to resist. (Ron Paul was the usual, significant exception.) People who support making yet another bloody mistake (the "surge") because the first has dragged on for four years could possibly benefit from a course in logic.

We've helped to kill perhaps 700,000 Iraqis. How many will be enough for these oil thieves, scapegoaters, racists and Likudists?

The best advice may be from that old Democrat, Will Rogers: "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."

Curious 11 years ago

Let's give up! I should have given up on my kids when they became teenagers. Why fight the battle? I will give up on my health as I age. Why fight the battle I see my parents fighting?

Why fight the battle? Because the outcome matters, guys and gals. It is not for oil, it is not for four years, it is not for you. It is for a safe tomorrow. I believe that with all my heart. It is the same reason we should have defended continental Europe before WWII. You fight the little battles [and Iraq is a little battle except for those caught in the middle of it] so you don't have to fight the big battles. We should have defended ourselves in Beirut, in Somalia, in Kenya. We should have cared that people died then. But we are at heart full of ourselves. It only matters if they are American. And then if they are in a business tower it still doesn't matter cause they are the evil "big business." Are you condemned to live out the attitude in Germany? They came for all the others but I wasn't one of them. And when they came for me, no one was there to defend me.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.