Herseth to say no to more troops, Thune supports the surge

The Argus Leader is reporting tonight that Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth is planning to vote to denounce the president's decision to send in more troops to stabilize Iraq, after she had earlier voted in favor.
Eight months after she voted to support President Bush’s policies on Iraq, Rep. Stephanie Herseth expects to cast a symbolic vote this week denouncing the president’s decision to send in 21,500 more troops.


Instead, she said, the president should embrace the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which include negotiating with Iraq’s neighbors to bring peace and stability to the area.

The House Democratic leaders plan to put it to a vote late Thursday or Friday. They have said they will give all 435 members five minutes to speak to the issue on the House floor.

South Dakota Republican Sen. John Thune, meanwhile, supports the troop surge into Iraq. Last week he joined nearly all the Republicans in blocking a Senate nonbinding resolution opposing the troop increase. Seven of those Republicans, including Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who co-authored the resolution, subsequently signaled their intent to break ranks and seek a vote on the measure after all.
Read it all here.

Anyone reading out there who has actually been over in Iraq who might give us a firsthand opinion?

It's my thinking that it's better to have a strong show of force to get the job done. It's certainly sounds more palatable than negotiating with Syria and Iran. You know, the Iran who has been supplying the insurgents to destabilize Iraq. And trying to build nuclear weapons. To use.

On a more humorous note on the Iraq Study Group (which she's voting to support), if you haven't seen the Zucker Iraq piece, here it is.


Anonymous said…
Atta girl steph! Now we just need to get everyone over there back home. Leave that mess up to the Iraqis. Baby steps.
GI said…

Just a few months ago she voted to support the troops.

Now when they need reinforcements, she stabs them in the back. The troops will remember this.
Anonymous said…
Stephanie has now officially become a surrender monkey. Everyone knew she never supported the war, but she pretended otherwise to get votes. Now that the opinion polls have changed, she wants to oppose the war. Typical political Stephie, always worried about nothing but her career.
Steven said…
This is just as despicable and craven as Herseth's vote to place a ban on gay marriage in the Constitution. I didn't support the war, but we're there now, helping a freely-elected government try to overcome decades of misrule. If we leave, chaos breaks out in the Middle East. Our brave soldiers on the front lines need reinforcements for their mission, so what do craven and disgusting politicians like Herseth do at this time of crisis? They vote to rob the troops of what they need to win. Stephanie Herseth is a craven, cowardly, political animal. She betrayed progressives when she voted to make gay marriages illegal and now she's betraying every American who cares about doing what's right in Iraq (yes, people can be pro-gay and pro-war, no matter what the nitwits on the tv shows say). It's sad that this twisted and ambitious little girl with the new rich lobbyist husband will soon be a Senator since Tim, bless his heart and the brave front put up by his family, won't be able to run again.
Captain Obvious said…
The story tonight in Iraq is not the arrival of more U.S. troops, but the departure of one of the country's most powerful men, Moqtada al Sadr and members of his army. He fled to Tehran.

Al Sadr commands the Mahdi Army, one of the most formidable insurgent militias in Iraq, and his move coincides with the announced U.S. troop surge in Baghdad.

Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News' Martha Raddatz, "He is scared he will get a JDAM [bomb] dropped on his house."

Sources say some of the Mahdi army leadership went with al Sadr.

This couldn't have come at a better time. Congress has tied itself in knots trying to opine on what a disaster the surge will be, and before they can vote on a resolution scolding George Bush for wasting resources, he's already chased one of the worst actors out of Baghdad. Nancy Pelosi will be holding a debate to disapprove of a strategy that has already demonstrated success.

This demonstrates that the US forces have seized the initiative in Baghdad, and that the Maliki government has apparently completely abandoned Sadr. It's a tremendous victory in the preliminary stages, and it sets the table for an end to the hottest part of the insurgencies in the Iraqi capital.
Anonymous said…
Herseth kisses the ring of Momma Pelosi. Embraces the loony left. Gutless. Does she stand for anything?

Thank you John Thune!
Anonymous said…
this was emailed around to our unit and now Herseth's name is mudd. nobody will take her "i support the troops" BS seriously again...
I've been there said…
Supporting the troops means giving them what they need to get the job done!

That means when our troops call for reinforcements, we better damn well send them.

Stephi is a surrender monkey who has been stradling the fence on this one forever. Now that the polls are down she stands up. Where's the courage?

It is clear that Stephanie Herseth is more concerned about political security than national security!
Anonymous said…
Thune is a Bush butt kisser *** sucker.

How is that for a insult? Geez. Look at the right-wing nutjobs licking Thunes boots.

Go one, everyone, laught at them!
Anonymous said…
Don't sound so innocent. You knew Herseth was a political snake in the grass when you picked her up.

This vote isn't going to be the only problem you'll have with her. Though it just might be the second bloodiest, behind her support for abortion.

Bruce -
Anonymous said…
The Bush administration has no credibility left when it comes to Iraq. If he wanted a surge he should have done it before the last election. Instead he played politics and told us the key to victory was to stay the course. He was wrong then and he's wrong now.

I trust the ideas of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group much more then I trust the current administration, and I think we should follow their suggestions. It was made up of 6 republicans and 4 democrats, although 2 republicans did drop out before the report was finished.

Thank you for supporting the troops Stephanie Herseth!
Anonymous said…
Ms. Herseth needs crossover votes to win her elections. Gasp, I voted for her last year because I felt Mr. Whalen was not a particularly good candidate and because she had voted correctly, in my view, on Iraq and a few other things. But I guess pressure from the Dems has finally taken hold, which I can understand. So she has lost this Republican's vote next time around, no matter who her GOP opponent is.
Anonymous said…
2:45 am - Gee that sounds like it was written by Herseth herself.

Herseth is finished in congress after this term. She won't survive the Democrat Party’s strategy to politicize this war (or domestic policies). South Dakota voters won't accept Herseth's explaination after putting troops and winning the war at risk. We will have two more years of her votes to analyze, which predictably will align with Pelosi.

She will prove to be “independent” from South Dakota.

Ms Rice recently provided congress with comprehensive testimony about President Bush’s strategy in Iraq, on Cable TV of all places. Political assassins made it very clear they have no intent on winning the war if it meant taking the cross-hairs of President Bush.

It is difficult for troops in the field to face an enemy while politicians struggle over turf back home.

Bruce -
Anonymous said…
Herseth is a liberal, has always been a Liberal. She had to pretend to be conservative or she wouldn't have been elected. When are the ignorant going to wake up, "It is not different this time."

She will be in lock step with her buddy Nancy. There is nothing wrong with that. It will give SD power, to get rid of our guns, let minors be taken across State lines to have an abortion, not allowed to shoot praire dogs, hug trees. You all know what liberals want.
Anonymous said…
South Dakota won't have to put up with her bad votes in Congress if the people would *gasp* NOT VOTE for her. She may be cute, but she doesn't represent South Daktoa
Anonymous said…
Herseth has and always will have my vote. Bush is the problem. More troops are not the solution. The Bush administration made this war, lied about this war, 65% of Americans do not want more troops in this war, and it will bankrupt this country. Keep listening to your drug addict Rush and drinking the cool-aid, because you obviously can’t see the writing on the wall. Iraq, Iran, blue, red or purple is not the problem. Radical Islam is the problem. Before you decide this war is win-able ask yourself this….If another country…say China invaded your county and said you need to believe this form of the Catholic faith or Lutheran faith or whatever would you listen? Or would you fight with your neighbor till your death. I would choose the latter, and that’s why we will never stabilize the Middle East nor will we win the war.
Anonymous said…
11:32 am - Your comments are repeated nightly in the mainstream media. Polls are taken only to move them, it seems people want to hear and believe that cut and running is a viable strategy.

It wasn't President Bush and it certainly wasn't Secretary Powell's UN testimony that pushed me toward continuing war with Iraq. Back in 1998 Daschle was pushing for war and in between time little evidence was brought forth to the contrary. If Bush is wrong about war with Iraq after he took office in 2002 then Daschle was wrong first as he pushed Democrat’s and the nation toward war six years earlier.

Making a scapegoat out of a Republican President won't change help. Politically assassinating a Commander In Chief during wartime will damage this county. Terrorist know this and they are actively pushing our polls.
GOP Come Home said…
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Bill Clinton and his bit*@ wife, Hillary all wanted to go after Sadaam.

It's only after the going gets tough that they want to cut and run.

Now, Stephi is caught up in it. She's the same Stephi Herseth who had Jack Murtha hold a quiet fundraiser for her on Capitol Hill last year right?

Stephi is more worried about political security than national security!

The troops who I've talked to in Baghdad want more troops to help them get the job done, their chain of command wants more troops, and so does the Commanding General, Patraeaus.

Yet, Stephi, with her superior command of military strategy, has decided that our troops don't need reinforcements.

Didn't we learn from Vietnam that politicians shouldn't start trying to run the war? That lesson has been lost on our former, uh, current Congresswoman.
Anonymous said…
11:32---Our goal in Iraq is NOT to change their religious beliefs as you insinuate in your post, it is to stop terrorism where much of it originates from, among other things. You see, we here in America are different from Muslims in that we are tolerant of other religions, enabling anyone to believe in anything they want when it comes to religion. The Muslim belief is just the opposite---Muhammad initially used "the tongue" to convert people to Islam, then when that didn't work he began using "the sword". And that's the point, they can't stand us because we don't believe in Muhammad and don't practice religion according the Muslim way. They believe that all non-Muslims should be dead. If you want to learn about their ways, read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) by Robert Spencer. As a typical Liberal, I know you won't EDUCATE yourself, that's too difficult. As for Stephanie, still can't believe that she was voted in to Congress. She apparently has many folks buffaloed, but then we had good ol' Tommy D representing us for a long period as well. What are Stephanie's qualifications, by the way? As for this non-binding resolution, when is someone going to stand up to the Dems and state in so many words that "if you are so opposed to this war, why don't you cut off the funding for it... do something that is binding instead of this political posturing" that does absolutely nothing.
Anonymous said…

Oh yes. The troops overseas get SO demoralized when people have debate over the Iraq war. Tsk Tsk.

If soldiers can take bullets over Bagdad, they should be able to handle a potshots by politicians.

Avoiding debate does ZIP to support troops. Muzzling dissent is not a cure for the situation. Telling people to sit down and shut up because you will 'demoralize the troop' is anti-American.

Everyone supports the soldiers across all party lines and across the political spectrum. But why must debate over the war itself be censored? Why does freedom of speech be silenced? Since when does voicing objections equal to being a traitor and killing troops?

Silence equals death. And the more silence Republicans demand on Iraq leads to more death in Iraq.

What are you Republicans afraid of? That you will be forced to admit that things aren't going so well? That more troops are not the magic wand that will make things all better?
Anonymous said…
How do you tell a soldier that is about to the first man going into a building full of terrorists that you support him but not what he is doing?

Theoretically you can support the troops but not their mission, but we simpletons who have served don't make that distinction.

You either support what a soldier is doing or you don't. This is not a union management dispute...a soldier's sole purpose is to achieve the mission that's been assigned to him.
Anonymous said…
"How do you tell a soldier that is about to the first man going into a building full of terrorists that you support him but not what he is doing?"

Ask any drill sergeant
Anonymous said…
11:24 -

The difference is our troops are reasonably sure who the enemy is over in Iraq. Congress might not shoot lead but they shoot policy.

Listen to your idiotic statement, "If soldiers can take bullets over Bagdad, they should be able to handle a potshots by politicians."

Let's empower our troops to return "potshots" at certain members of Congress and then listen to what you have to say!

You are absolutely correct! Certain members of Congress including Herseth are pot-shooting at our troops in Iraq with their brand of policy making. It isn't honest policy making because it is NON-BINDING!

It is astounding that you support certain members of Congress as they use our troops as a shooting gallery. Simply put you are a traitor to our troops and our democracy.

Bruce -

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long