Under The Radar: Three Republicans Vote Against the Iraq Resolution

We will spend some time over the next week or so lamenting the weak 42 Democrats who voted with the Republicans yesterday on H. RES. 861, a House resolution that ruled out setting a timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq and made a strong statement that, according to the House of Representatives, "…the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq."

What I find even more amazing than a bunch of Red State Democrats unwilling to vote their conscience and explain it to their constituents -- and how it truly supports the troops -- is that three Republicans went against Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Dick Cheney and George Bush and voted with the Democratic side of the aisle.

John Duncan of Tennessee, Iowa's Jim Leach and Ron Paul of Texas all defied their party and voted against the stay-the-course resolution -- which means these three men showed more courage than all of their 432 colleagues in the House yesterday.

But this should not have come as a surprise from any of these guys, who have been vocal in their opposition to Bush on the direction of the Iraq war.

"It is sometimes harder to end than start a war," said Leach, speaking at Indian Hills Community College in Ottumwa, Iowa last month. "Whether Iraq was a good or bad judgment call, it is clear we are fast approaching the point where our presence has become more disruptive than stabilizing in world politics."

"Democracy implies consent of the governed and when a large percentage of the Iraqi people want us to leave, as opinion polls indicate is the case today, the U.S. should be hard-pressed to follow the original neo-con strategy of establishing and maintaining a semi-permanent military base in the country," said Leach in an April 2006 House speech . "It is true that precipitous withdrawal might be counterproductive and that precise timetables have disadvantages. But it is difficult for me to believe anything other than the declaration of a credible plan and reasons for disengagement, coupled with a steady drawdown policy, is the wisest course of action today."

Speaking on the House floor in March 2006, John Duncan said simply that his opposition to the current course in Iraq stems not so much from agreement with Democrats but more with the neoconservative movement representing a debasement of traditional conservative values.

"Many conservatives said before this war started that it would mean massive foreign aid, huge deficit spending, and would place almost the entire burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on our taxpayers and our military, when traditionally conservatives have been the biggest critics of the U.N.," said Duncan. "The so-called neo-con architects of this unnecessary war have led people down a primrose path in the opposite direction of and very much against every traditional conservative position."

Duncan had especially strong words during Thursday's debate, saying that, in addition to being against everything true conservatives believe from a fiscal point of view, the war was entirely unnecessary.

"Millions of conservatives across this Nation believe that this war was unconstitutional, unaffordable, and, worst of all, unnecessary," said Duncan. "It was waged against an evil man, but one who had a total military budget only two-tenths of one percent of ours. We need to start putting our own people first once again and bring our troops home, the sooner the better."

Ron Paul of Texas who is actually a Libertarian registered as a Republican, agreed with House Democrats in calling the resolution and the accompanying debate a sham and a political stunt to support Bush's ill-advised policy.

"This really isn't a debate. This is just sort of a political event, and it's very deceptive," Paul said. "It's something like what we've done numerous times, but only it's going to take longer. We've had resolutions like this before designed for political purposes."

According to Paul, the American people "will see through it as a resolution with no substance. It's pretty clear that the country is much more in my camp now. They are not happy with Iraq."

Paul also joined Democrats in complaining bitterly about the GOP majority keeping real debate from happening by not allowing any amendments to H. RES. 861.

"It's to me rather ironic that at this very moment we have Americans dying to promote democracy, at the very same time we believe we are being shortchanged on democracy in that we're not permitted to offer any amendments," said Paul, who voted against the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

While I'm not inclined to give Republicans credit for much of anything these days -- and I have philosophical differences with standard conservatism, much less neo-con ideology -- it's hard not to acknowledge the political courage shown my these Congressmen. It’s a patently gutless move for Democrats in Republican-leaning states to vote for such a measure, but GOP Representatives going against their leadership and defying the White House, puts them at huge risk with their political base.

One has to wonder if their stances would have set them up for the same swift-boating treatment received by Jack Murtha (due to his opposition to Bush's Iraq policy), had any of them been strongly challenged for the Republican nomination in their districts this year.

But, for the moment, let's give credit where it's due and take small comfort in the fact that the votes made by these guys shows that House Republicans are far from a united team on this resolution.

According to Paul the resolution promotes "endless war and endless occupation" and was designed "to trick as many people as possible into supporting the president's policy. If you voted against it, your opponents can say you've voted against the troops and for terrorism."

You can reach Bob Geiger at geiger.bob@gmail.com and read more from him at Democrats.com.

he's one of most pure Libertarians that I've ever seen

for the meaningless piece of shit.

The whole thing was designed for the Rethugs to point to candidates during the election and say "See, they love the terrorists!"

Those Dems who voted for the hideous thing might have just made an end-run around one of Bush/Rove's fascist tricks.