Missouri's Congressional Delegation voted along party lines:
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Resolution
BILL TITLE: Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq
---- YEAS 246 ---
Carnahan (D-3rd)
Cleaver (D-5th)
Skelton (D-4th)
---- NAYS 182 ---
Akin (R-2nd)
Blunt (R-7th)
Emerson (R-8th)
Graves (R-6th)
Hulshof (R-9th)
Roy Blunt took to the floor to in opposition to the resolution, entering into the Congressional Record the latest wingnut talking point, courtesy of Politico:
2.16.2007
“Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to urge a no vote on this non-binding resolution. We have spent the week discussing the situation in Iraq, and trying to find out what the resolution may really mean.
“As I said at the start of this debate, it is hard to imagine a group less qualified to determine tactics on the ground in a time of war than 535 Members of Congress.
“There is disagreement on how we should fight this war on Islamic totalitarianism, but this fight is the challenge of our generation.
“Mr. Speaker, many of my friends on the other side of aisle supported this mission in the beginning, but now they’re ready to give up in the middle of this fight.
“Those who join me in opposing this non-binding resolution have been saying all week that, while this resolution will have no impact because it is non-binding, it is still the first step toward cutting funding on our troops.
“Yesterday we were told that this is the first step toward pulling the rug out from under our troops in the field.
“This week one of the veterans on our side of the aisle was accused of being ‘dishonest’ in her ‘representation’ when she said that this resolution we’ll vote on today did ‘not support those who are deploying.’
“But the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha said just yesterday during the unveiling of his strategy to pull the rug out from under our troops:
“‘They won’t be able to continue. They won’t be able to do the deployment. They won’t have the equipment. They don’t have the training, and they won’t be able to do the work.’
“Mr. Murtha also said:
“‘I think first of all we have to be careful that people don’t think this is the vote…, the real vote would come on the legislation we are putting together. This non-binding legislation, it is just an opinion.’
‘‘This resolution says just enough to not say anything at all, but we have already heard Democrats calling the debate this week the ‘bark before the bite.’
“The so-called slow bleed approach is a bite that will surely hurt those fighting under America’s flag overseas. “This non-binding resolution is the first step in an all too binding spiral toward defeat in a fight we cannot afford to lose.”
It appears that Clay (D-1st) was not present for the vote, but had this to say from the House floor two days before the vote:
February 14, 2007
“Mr. Speaker, honorable colleagues, I rise to declare my absolute and unwavering opposition to the President’s plan to escalate this tragic and unnecessary war. Four years ago, I stood on the floor of this House to oppose the original force authorization resolution.
I believed then, and I still believe today, that great nations do not start wars as a matter of policy, they exercise diplomacy and negotiation to avert threats and achieve security.
I was convinced that invading Iraq, without international support and without unequivocal evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11, would dangerously drain our military strength, distract us from fighting the very real terrorist threat and ultimately weaken our credibility around the world.
Today American troops are embroiled in a bloody quagmire that has already resulted in over 26,000 American casualties.
And now, just this past week, the Defense Department Inspector General reported that senior administration officials engaged in a deliberate misinformation campaign about Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. We have learned that officials in our government deliberately distributed altered intelligence assessments.
This administration is denying the facts. It has repeatedly misled the Congress and the American people and undermined our nation’s integrity in the world community.
Now the President is asking Congress to register more support for a policy failure. Escalating the military violence in Iraq by injecting 21,000 more U.S. troops into a civil war, reflects nothing more than this administration’s obstinate refusal to face present realities.
I want to conclude by quoting from one of this body’s most knowledgeable and trusted voices on military affairs and foreign policy, my good friend and fellow Missouri, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee: Ike Skelton.
In a recent statement he said,
“Only the Iraqis can change the situation there and bring lasting security to their nation. I remain convinced that a gradual and responsible redeployment of U.S. forces is the best way to help the Iraqis take responsibility for their security and to restore the full strength of our military.”
Mr. Speaker, our troops are magnificent.
Our brave sons and daughters have done everything we have asked them to do in Iraq, and much more. I honor their courage.
I commend their service.
I salute their sacrifice, and that of their families who await their safe return.
I urge the passage of the concurrent resolution and I pray that this is the first step towards bringing them home…soon.”
