Will voters punish Republican members of Congress who refused today to help override Bush 2's veto?

Question

With this attitude, will the Republican Party become as extinct as dinosaurs?

With our country so divided, how can we ever come together again?

Answer 1

As usual the supporters of the Republican party have selective memory.
The majority of this nation want our troops home and the Democrats attempted to get that done. Those who did not support this decision should be made to join the umemployment line next year.
As a reminder to the Republican apologists out there.
Somalia
An amendment offered by Sen. John McCain on Oct. 15, 1993, would have eliminated funding for operations in Somalia immediately, except for funds for withdrawing troops or for continuing operations if any American POWs/MIAs were not accounted for. The mostly Republican senators who supported the McCain amendment were not disregarding the safety of our troops, or being indifferent to their need for guns, ammunition, food and clothing. They were supporting an appropriate, safe, responsible proposal to use Congress' power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops.

Back in 1999, after then-President Bill Clinton had ordered U.S. forces to begin a massive bombing campaign and missile strikes against Yugoslavia, the House of Representatives considered a resolution supporting the mission. The leading opponent of the resolution was Tom DeLay (R-Tx), who dismissed the notion that opposing the war was in any way an affront to the troops.
In a visceral floor statement delivered in March of that year, DeLay declared, "Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world.( isn't that ironic)
As the war progressed, DeLay condemned "(President Clinton's) war," and grumbled in April, 1999, that, "There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today." ( sounds familiar doesn't it)

Texas Governor George W. Bush told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on June 5, 1999: "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long (U.S. troops) will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."

Bring on the selective amnesia.
I guess time lines only apply to US troop deployments done by Democrats.

Answer 2

No definitely not, a lot of people feel that time tables are a bad idea and that the Commander in Chief should be running the war and not Congress.. I think, conversely, that Democrats need to be careful not to take a Vietnam-type position and thereby alienate themselves.

Answer 3

NO...I 'd rather be a member of an extinct party than turn my back on the members of our military and cut their funding in the middle of a war.

Timelines for withdraw is nothing more than demoncratic spin for surrender!

Answer 4

Actually, the decision to oppose the Democrat's plan to surrendor to terrorists will probably go over well with the Republican voting base.

Answer 5

The people are clearly against the war. Let's hope they remember.

Answer 6

No! They should be rewarded for standing their ground and not bending to the popularity polls.

Answer 7

No we sent them up to DC to fight for our troops and our freedoms. Not to put a knife in the back of the troops. So they did some thing right this time.

Answer 8

I won't; I'll reward them. I'll punish the Democrats next time they're up, though.

Answer 9

I think the opposite will happen.

Answer 10

I hope so