Profiles in Cowardice and Courage...
Nov. 18th, 2005 08:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
redneckgaijinIn response to Rep. Murtha's proposal that US forces be removed within six months from Iraq, with a small fast-reaction force to be left in the region to respond to threats to Iraq's sovereignty, House Republicans drafted and ramrodded to a vote a substitute motion.
The Republican substitute motion was a poison-pill. Instead of a rational, careful withdrawal as outlined under Murtha's proposal, the Republican motion (HR 571) only called for an immediate and complete withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq. The Democrats "protested" by voting against the motion... which means a lot of Democrat incumbents are now on the record as supporting the ongoing occupation of Iraq.
Now, there are sensible reasons to vote against an immedate and complete withdrawal. The most basic is this: some troops need to watch the others' backs during a withdrawal. Leaving an occupied country has to be done in stages for the safety of the troops involved. This point was covered in Murtha's proposal, which likely will never see the light of day again. It was deliberately ignored in the Republican proposal, in order to present Democrats the choice of either risking American lives in a rapid withdrawal or else declaring their ongoing support for the war.
The following three people, for this vote, must be regarded as courageous. They are the only YEA votes to the proposal. Only these three people believed in ending the war strongly enough to put their reputations at stake for the principle. (And considering one of the three, there's very little else GOOD in that reputation...)
YEA VOTES - HR 571
McKinney
Serrano
Wexler
Now for the cowards, the six who voted, "Present," i. e. those who could have taken a stand on either side, but deliberately chose to remain silent on the issue. A principled NAY vote could be explained on this issue, but silence is unacceptable. If any of these are your Congresscritter, please vote for their opponents in any future elections you can.
PRESENT NOT VOTING - HR 571
Capuano
Clay
Hinchey
McDermott
Nadler
Owens
The following were not present to vote. Thus I can't -necessarily- say they were cowards, but their absence from office when there is vital business before the Congress does not speak well for their work ethic, if nothing else. My personal view, until I have information to the contrary, as that these persons ditched the session to avoid going on the record.
ABSENT - HR 571
Beauprez
Berman
Boswell
Boyd
Camp
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Flake
Fossella
Gallegly
Hall
Jindal
Kind
LaHood
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Northup
Paul
Peterson (PA)
Shadegg
Towns
Young (AK)
(Yes, that's Ron Paul's name under those absent. No, I don't much like Ron Paul at all; he talks the small-governemnt talk, but when it comes down to brass tacks he's just a Republican machine tool.)
The Republican substitute motion was a poison-pill. Instead of a rational, careful withdrawal as outlined under Murtha's proposal, the Republican motion (HR 571) only called for an immediate and complete withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq. The Democrats "protested" by voting against the motion... which means a lot of Democrat incumbents are now on the record as supporting the ongoing occupation of Iraq.
Now, there are sensible reasons to vote against an immedate and complete withdrawal. The most basic is this: some troops need to watch the others' backs during a withdrawal. Leaving an occupied country has to be done in stages for the safety of the troops involved. This point was covered in Murtha's proposal, which likely will never see the light of day again. It was deliberately ignored in the Republican proposal, in order to present Democrats the choice of either risking American lives in a rapid withdrawal or else declaring their ongoing support for the war.
The following three people, for this vote, must be regarded as courageous. They are the only YEA votes to the proposal. Only these three people believed in ending the war strongly enough to put their reputations at stake for the principle. (And considering one of the three, there's very little else GOOD in that reputation...)
YEA VOTES - HR 571
McKinney
Serrano
Wexler
Now for the cowards, the six who voted, "Present," i. e. those who could have taken a stand on either side, but deliberately chose to remain silent on the issue. A principled NAY vote could be explained on this issue, but silence is unacceptable. If any of these are your Congresscritter, please vote for their opponents in any future elections you can.
PRESENT NOT VOTING - HR 571
Capuano
Clay
Hinchey
McDermott
Nadler
Owens
The following were not present to vote. Thus I can't -necessarily- say they were cowards, but their absence from office when there is vital business before the Congress does not speak well for their work ethic, if nothing else. My personal view, until I have information to the contrary, as that these persons ditched the session to avoid going on the record.
ABSENT - HR 571
Beauprez
Berman
Boswell
Boyd
Camp
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Flake
Fossella
Gallegly
Hall
Jindal
Kind
LaHood
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Northup
Paul
Peterson (PA)
Shadegg
Towns
Young (AK)
(Yes, that's Ron Paul's name under those absent. No, I don't much like Ron Paul at all; he talks the small-governemnt talk, but when it comes down to brass tacks he's just a Republican machine tool.)
