The House of Representatives passed their non-binding resolution opposing president Bush's troop buildup in Iraq, 246-182. The roll call vote can be found here. As expected, in went down mostly along party lines, with 17 Republicans voting in favor and two Democrats voting against.
This, of course, is only the beginning. Our old friend Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa) is rewriting President Bush's spending request to limit Bush's options in funding and prosecuting the war, and Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-De), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, is working on actually repealing the 2002 congressional authorization for Bush to go to war in Iraq.
The eventual goal is to directly challenge and limit (if not end) Bush's warmaking powers. And that will almost certainly spark a legal or constitutional confrontation....just what we need during wartime.
That, of course, is my main objection to this nonsense. As disdainful as I am over the way the Bush Administration has handled a brilliant military victory handed to them on a silver platter in Iraq, I also know that it is exactly the wrong message we should be sending to our enemies...and our troops in the field, in spite of the insipid `we support the troops' language incorporated in the bill.
Aside from that, it is gutless, and attempt to curry political favor with no political cost. If the House is really that determined to bring American troops home in defeat, they should vote to cut the pursestrings and do so..and take the ensuing political fall out. They also should not have voted to confirm General David Petraeus as the new general in Iraq..since the `surge' strategy is largely his idea.
Ultimately, of course, I don't think it matters. The Bush Administration, in my opinion, has already cut a deal with Maliki and al Sadr to keep things quiet for awhile so that we can leave gracefully.