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.
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.
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.Read it all here.
and...
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
Thank you John Thune!
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!
How is that for a insult? Geez. Look at the right-wing nutjobs licking Thunes boots.
Go one, everyone, laught at them!
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 -
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!
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 -
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Ask any drill sergeant
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 -