Marshall & Barrow Vote with GOP

Jim Marshall and John Barrow voted against the House’s resolution to surrender in Iraq. The final vote was 223-201, putting Marshall and Barrow in the minority with all but 4 Republicans.

Ron Paul did not vote at all. BTW, I’ll have an interview that Presidential candidate tomorrow.

43 comments

  1. Icarus says:

    I hope you’re not planning on using that trickery lawyer language on Rep. Paul to confuse him. It seems to work on a lot of his supporters here.

  2. ToddH says:

    Kucinich voted against it b/c it doesn’t include defunding the war. But, hardeharhar it’s easier to snark.

  3. bowersville says:

    I am extremely disappointed in these Democrats. This is another example of pure political pandering that these Democrats bring to Congress. It’s disappointing to me and it’s disappointing to the American people.

    Perhaps these Congressmen need to look at the polls. It seems to me that the American people are speaking and these Congressmen aren’t listening.

    A little play on the words of Pye and Congressman Price.

    Instead of all these crickets, where is all the vitriol for these two gentlemen like that directed at Price?

  4. TPSoCal says:

    I don’t think making national security decisions via “polls” is a great idea. So, good for them, standing on principle.

  5. Joshua Patterson says:

    I think every Congressperson should vote how their constituents want. For Barrow and Marshall, they voted that way, kudos to them for not towing the party line and voting the way their constituents most likely want.

  6. Bull Moose says:

    They may have voted now against withdrawing from Iraq, but who did they cast a vote for in the election for Speaker and who do they support to be the President of the United States?

    That says a lot about where they both stand when it matters on this issue.

  7. Jmac says:

    That says a lot about where they both stand when it matters on this issue.

    Actually it says nothing. Listen, what member of his/her respective party is going to oppose the nominee for either president or speaker from within his/her party? Lending support is more of a reflection of a desire to have some sort of status in the future, not so much a sign of unyielding support.

    If what you say is true Bull Moose, then Marshall should be damned based on the actions of others and not his actual voting record or responsiveness to his constituents.

  8. steelfist says:

    What has Marshall actually accomplished since he was elected in 2002? or even since he has been in the majority?

  9. IndyInjun says:

    When I talked to Barrow last fall he was adamant that he was going to be one of the Blue Dog Dems who was going to limit Ms. Pelosi and the lunatic left.

    NOW he has probably hung too far right for longer than is justified given the situation in Iraq, but he is sensitive to the conservative nature of his district – except now even the conservs want out of Iraq ASAP.

    He is wrong and if he keeps voting this way, he deserves the boot – just not to Max Burns.

  10. Clint Austin says:

    Jmac,

    What are we surrendering? I think you’re trying to rationalize what would be a disaster for our country.

    We are at a dangerous crossroads. If we pull out of Iraq, it will be a clear defeat. Our country will be seen as weak and irresolute – which is dangerous in-and-of-itself (because it will make enemies believe we are on the ropes) and is particularly dangerous because it will validate al-Qaida’s strategic premise in Iraq: that America is weak and does not have the stomach for protracted bloody struggle.

    The idea that there is no downside to abandoning Iraq is unjustified by reason or history. It took our country 20 years to get over abandoning Vietnam, both here and around the world.

    Regardless of how we got here in Iraq (and valid criticisms can be made of the strategy), we must win. If it takes 100,000 more troops, we must win. Who cares who started it and what party he is in – America will lose this war, not one person or party.

    The degree to which some Democrats have so thoroughly abandoned the “politics stops at the water’s edge” principle is horrifying to me when one considers the likely consequences of failure in this war…

  11. Jmac says:

    Wow.

    Listen, for the record, I’m not an advocate of setting a withdrawal date despite my strong desire to get our troops out of there as fast as possible … and not because I think that will ’embolden’ the enemy or anything like that, but rather because I think continuing to work to train the Iraqi forces and rebuild the country is the proper thing to do.

    However, this talk of ‘surrender’ is hyperbole designed to make for a witty talking point. So, again, what ‘surrender’ are we talking about here?

    We’ve accomplished our primary military objective, which was removing Saddam Hussein from power, and now we’ve found ourselves stuck in the middle of a bloody secretarian conflict. Most intelligence estimates now figure that a U.S. withdrawal over the course of the next year will see continued in-fighting in Iraq, with the only thing galvanizing them is the desire to push out foreign al-Qaida fighters.

    Furthermore, al-Qaida and other extremist Islamic organizations are still working to attack us, regardless of whether or not we are in Iraq. The theater of battle is considerably larger than this one nation in the Middle East and the methods of combatting it are many, and it’s about time we recognized that.

    Is the war a political issue now? Of course it is, but also let’s not act like Democrats are the only ones playing politics as Republicans are just as guilty, and the extent both sides tend to do so is pretty unfortunate.

  12. John Konop says:

    Report: Al Qaeda steps up efforts to hit U.S.

    If we are taking the war to the terrorist in Iraq why is the threat level up here?

    WASHINGTON (AP)

  13. bowersville says:

    Barrow and Marshall have come under a harsh Flack Attack at Tondees Tarvern similar to the Flack Attacks on John Douglas and Saxby Chambliss for there war views. NOT!

    Is there a double standard?

  14. RJL says:

    Advantage Jmac @ 7:33.

    And bowersville, Barrow and Marshall have been previously raked at the Tavern on this issue and currently at Blog for Democracy. No double standard.

  15. bowersville says:

    Thanks RJL, I had already seen BfD, that’s why I didn’t mention them. I guess with all the venom Flock is currently spewing towards Douglas & Chambliss, I am a bit surprised Flock hasn’t jumped Barrow and Marshall.

  16. rugby_fan says:

    Clint;

    Few people are bigger hawks than I.

    However, define “success” in Iraq. And when you define “success” define it in terms of what is achievable.

    A liberal democracy in the Mid East is not achievable. Nor will US troops stop a civil war or promote a strong central government.

    So, define “success”.

  17. IndyInjun says:

    If those continuing to support this disastrous war are seriouc surely you would go along with deploying to the periphery long enough to reinstate the draft to provide the REQUIRED MANPOWER TO WIN and to ante up a 15% surtax to PAY FOR THE WAR.

    Barring these thing, you should just shut up, for your stay-the-course with a clearly failed policy, strategy and ‘leadership’ is just getting brave lads killed for no reason other than to run out the clock on Bush.

    The Vietnam lesson was that the US would thereafter wage war with its total resources, with clear objectives, and toward victory as defined by those objectives.

    Your disaster of a POTUS avoided Vietnam and the lesson, then blew off those who warned him.

    Now he is going to burn your party to the ground, so it might be advisable to deny him fuel and matches.

  18. patriot says:

    So, JMAC seems to think the war is being fought by secretaries? “… a SECRETARIAN conflict…” ? Surely he meant it is a SECTARIAN conflict, between 2 different SECTS of the MUSLIM EXTREMISTS.

  19. John Konop says:

    rugby

    You are right! The problem is until both parties understand that we need to go back to containing the situation and stop thinking of democracy as some type of sprinkle dust that will change years of hate and sectarian violence.

    The error we made in the past was not getting off the need of their oil. You cannot force people to change they most make the choice.

    On the Bill O

  20. Jmac says:

    Arguably patriot, that would be an interesting conflict … particularly if you knew the ones at my office.

    But yes … you would be correct. Mea culpa on my typo.

  21. IndyInjun says:

    Icarus,

    I take it that you are unwilling to send your kids to Iraq and don’t want to pay for it either?

    Unless you are willing to do both, you should be demanding an end to the war, for it falls short of the test of being a worthwhile effort.

  22. Skeptical says:

    Those who want to continue in this failed attempt to spread democracy have completely missed the point.

    You can fight an army. You cannot fight an idea.

    Just as with Vietnam, there is no clear cut victory and the longer we stay in Iraq, the worse it will get for all parties involved.

    Clint Austin said that if we pull out now our country will be seen as weak and irresolute. We don’t need to pull out to be seen as such. We’ve proven ourselves to be weak – weak in leadership at the highest levels (our generals on the ground were never given the proper support for fighting this war) – weak in logistical support for our men and women on the ground (how dare the Bush Administration send our citizens over there without proper armament and weaponry!) – weak in vision: the Bush Administration was repeatedly warned that this quagmire would happen if proper precautions were not followed and certain plans not executed. But their hubris and greed (and don’t you dare try to tell me they – or rather Dick Cheney – aren’t getting filthy stinkin’ rich off their no-bid Halliburton/KBR contracts).

    And now because this war has been so poorly executed, the entire world knows our weaknesses. You

  23. jsm says:

    Skeptical, where we are weak is in our lack of resolution. Name one battle or skirmish that we lost in Vietnam–or in Iraq, for that matter. We appear weak because of peacenicks screaming all their Woodstock-conceived “peace and love at all costs” mantra. Now those flower children are trying to run this country and don’t know how to stand up and fight for a valiant cause. THAT is our weakness.

    “…Democrats were put into power this past year on a wave of anti-war sentiment.”

    Show me proof. I say they won because GOP lawmakers left the principles of our party regarding spending and national security.

    The people of this country want strong leadership–not weak-kneed appeasement. I wish I could say the GOP is ready to do that. I know the Democrats aren’t.

  24. IndyInjun says:

    jsm – I hear ya, but how do you propose MANNING this war and PAYING for it?

    Reinstatement of the draft is not acceptable to the people.

    National bankruptcy is not acceptable to the people.

    In the final analysis, the people have given the verdict on Iraq and that is to pull out.

    The lesson of Vietnam was to NEVER, EVER AGAIN go to war with limits, always bring overwhelming force, and do not start a war to which the full resources of the nation are not devoted to WIN.

    Bush and Cheney dodged Vietnam and missed the lesson.

    Bush stupidly advised everyone to go shopping – THAT was hardly devoting the full resources of this nation to victory.

    All that is being accomplished now that Bush f—‘d up the war, as GOP senator Voinovitch bluntly puts it, is getting brave lads killed and maimed for nothing more than Bush’s ego.

  25. Rugby, I go by cycles. LOL. So I always consider it an election year for Representatives. Must have something to do with all the two year campaigns now. 🙂

Comments are closed.