What's next - a vote on whether people think kittens are cute? The House took a really controversial stand today. Not.
The nonbinding resolution, which declares "that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror," passed by a vote of 256 to 153, with five lawmakers voting "present" and 19 others not participating. Forty-two Democrats sided with 214 Republicans in supporting the measure. Three Republicans and one independent joined 149 Democrats in voting against it ... Republicans defended the resolution as necessary to show support for U.S. and allied troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan ... It "honors the sacrifices" of U.S. and allied forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and "declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of U.S. troops from Iraq ... The resolution also "declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq," and it congratulates the new Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, and the Iraqi people for participating in the 2005 elections and forming the first democratic government under Iraq's new constitution.
Now there are several points in this that I think people could rightly vote against it over - most notably the ridiculously broad wording, particularly as it pertains to our commitment to Iraq (actually that would would be an excellent reason to vote against it) and the wording that assumes members of Congress are seers with psychic power. But, c'mon folks. How about having actual hearings and real policy discussions, and engaging in much-needed oversight. I realize that's too much to ask - apparently, at least. But it's this wild dream I have. Stop voting on these entirely substantively meaningless resolutions - we all like elections and the troops, and few people if any are arguing for "arbitrary" troop withdrawals. Do your job and stop showboating.
Oh, in case you were wondering the No votes among the Republicans came from Leach (IA), Paul (TX) and Duncan (TN). Republicans Jones (NC) and McCotter (MI) voted present (along with Democrats Miller of NC, Sherman of CA and Boyd of FL).
Posted by armand at June 16, 2006 12:58 PM | TrackBack | Posted to PoliticsAnd now this. Apparently, deploring torture and other war atrocities requires a new congressional resolution. It's amazing how little law these people actually pass, what with all their bickering over what to non-bindingly approve and disapprove. So where in Article I does the Constitution task the Congress with regularly promulgating statements of policy?
Oh, and by the way, before anyone goes passing laws to compel (or urge, more likely) the new Iraqi government from granting amnesty to anyone who abuses American soldiers, need I remind everyone that every American at the officer level and above has, in effect, been granted amnesty for conduct every bit as reprehensible. Apparently, "It's war, sometimes bad things happen," only applies to United States troops.
I really can't imagine why the world takes such issue with us refusing to abide any international law that suits us. We won't even abide our own statements of principle, let alone international norms.
If we're going to take a stance, let's do it right: if you torture or your subordinates torture with either your approval or as a consequence of your dereliction of duty, you go to jail for a very long time, no ifs ands or buts, and no accommodations based on the flag under which you've committed your particular crimes against humanity -- do not pass go, do not collect $200, and Rummy? -- you're first in the dock.
Posted by: moon at June 20, 2006 03:42 PM | PERMALINKNow THERE'S an actual law/international treaty I can get behind - but sadly one this administration would fight, tooth-nail-and-SwiftBoaters, and just ignore if it actually got approved, b/c you know - George W. is the Decider and isn't to be constrained by little things like the law.
Posted by: Armand at June 20, 2006 05:53 PM | PERMALINK