The Morning Blend
Welcome
Complete Media Kit
Herald/Review report
WASHINGTON — Arizona’s congressional delegation split on party lines Friday in the vote over a non-binding resolution on a troop surge for Iraq.
The symbolic resolution passed by a vote of 246-182, with six members of the House of Representatives not voting.
The state’s Democratic House members — Gabrielle Giffords, Raul Grijialva, Ed Pastor and Harry Mitchell — voted for the resolution. Giffords represents the Eighth Congressional District, which includes Cochise County.
|
|
The state’s Republican House members — Jeff Flake, Rick Renzi, John Shadegg and Trent Franks — voted against the resolution.
On Thursday, Giffords spoke on the floor of the House of Representatives. She described Friday’s vote as “one of our most important votes yet.”
“Americans in my district of Southern Arizona, and across the country, want their Representatives to bring closure to the U.S. involvement in Iraq. This vote is the first step toward doing just that,” she said in her speech.
The congresswoman pointed out that President Bush has acknowledged that his Iraq plans and policies have failed to yield promised results, but he continues on a similar course of action regarding Iraq.
“The president’s plan fails to acknowledge the lack of willingness and capacity by Iraqi political and religious leaders to achieve these necessary goals — sectarian factions are more divided than ever,” she said. “Without the serious involvement and motivation of the Iraqi people, the president’s proposal to send more American troops into harm’s way amounts to little more than having 21,000 more soldiers stay the course. This I cannot support.”
She said the president should consider views from active and retired military generals, as well as the Iraq Study Group. She said some of the recommendations he should take into account are rapid reaction and special operations forces in Iraq to strike al-Qaida, benchmarks for the Iraqi government, providing economic assistance to Iraq to strengthen the nation, and beginning a new dialogue with Iraq’s neighbors.
“I will vote to support the resolution before this body because our brave men and women in uniform deserve a strategy that honors their sacrifices — the president’s plan does not do that,” she said.
In his floor speech on Thursday, Flake said that while he has little confidence a troop surge will change the situation in Iraq, he didn’t think opposing the president was a good idea.
“Inserting ourselves, as legislators, into the chain of command by passing a resolution, non-binding though it may be, that questions the president’s decision to conduct a mission that is clearly already under way, strikes me as folly,” Flake said.
Shadegg, in his floor speech earlier in the week urging defeat of the resolution, used the words of 1st Lt. Pete Hegseth in Iraq to make a point that asks the question why America doesn’t want to give the military the capability to win when it is trying to defeat terrorists.
“I believe that the safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad,” the congressman said.
“Pete Hegseth asks, and I quote, ‘Why then do we have just enough troops in Iraq not to lose?’ ”
nicole ray wrote on Jun 21, 2009 3:35 PM: