I heart Rep. Patrick Murphy
By Thoreau
Yesterday, on the floor of the House, one of the few (the only? not sure) Iraq veterans in the House said:
“How many more suicide bombs must kill American soldiers before this president offers a timeline for our troops to come home?” asked Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D-Pa.), a freshman Iraq war veteran who lost nine fellow paratroopers this week in one of the deadliest attacks of the war. “How many more military leaders must declare the war will not be won militarily before this president demands that the Iraqis stand up and fight for their country? How many more terrorists will President Bush’s foreign policy breed before he focuses a new strategy, a real strategy? This bill says enough is enough.”
Amen.
(I note that Rep. Ron Paul did not vote for the Iraq war funding bill. Now, I know that Paul always has perfectly good and principled reasons to vote against things, especially spending bills, but this funding bill contains timetables for withdrawal. To let the perfect be the enemy of the good weakens the hand of the people who have a real chance at ending our involvement in the Iraqi Civil War. If he were to vote with them, and perhaps provide cover for a few other Republican mavericks to join him, it would strengthen the hand of the Congressional leaders working to end this insanity. I have to say that I’m disappointed in him.)
Comment by steveintheknow —
April 26, 2007 @ 8:12 am
I support Ron Paul and I understand his principals on spending, but sometimes you have to take the packaged deal.
Even if the “emergency supplemental” is outrageous, more indefinite war is also expensive, probably even more so.
In addition it is going to get vetoes anyhoo, so why not vote for this one, and against the next outrageous “emergency supplemental”.
Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator —
April 26, 2007 @ 9:18 am
Bush, Cheney attack Dems’ motives on Iraq / Vice president lashes out at Senate leader’s ‘defeatism’…
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney aggressively challenged the motives of congressional D…
Comment by ajay —
April 26, 2007 @ 10:32 am
I note that Rep. Ron Paul did not vote for the Iraq war funding bill.
OMG! Libertarian supports Republican Party shock! Hands up who else never expected that!
Comment by Eric the .5b —
April 26, 2007 @ 11:20 am
Considering he hasn’t actually ever voted to approve or support any operations in Iraq, it is actually a bit surprising, ajay.
Comment by Dave W. —
April 26, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Maybe Paul wants to play ball with the Democratic Congress, and they haven’t ponied up anything he wants yet.
I seem to recall that he had some pretty policy objectives on that Bill Maher show video clip. Could be time for head Democrat to feed d00d a carrot or three if they really need his vote. OTOH, if they don’t really need his vote, then I like the way Paul is working on the symbolic plane here. Sometimes that is as good as it gets.
Comment by Nell —
April 26, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
I’ll defend Rep. Paul.
Woolsey, Waters, and some other stalwarts of the Out of Iraq caucus didn’t vote for the bill, either, and for the same reasons. They weren’t needed (only 215 votes were, given the members in attendance), and they want to maintain a principled/rigid (take your pick) stand against funding an occupation that should have ended years ago.
Thoreau, and others: I don’t believe any other “maverick” Republicans are going to join Jones and Gilchrest until there’s much more pressure from the grassroots, the escalation is even more clearly failing, and we’re a little closer to election season. There just aren’t that many of them, certainly not enough to make the bill “veto-proof”. So there’s no reason for Paul of all people to vote yes on this weak tea bill.
As a Democrat, I’m reasonably happy at how the politics are working out for the party on this, but that’s no kind of argument Paul needs to respect. As someone who wants to see U.S. troops out completely with no U.S. bases and only a small embassy, I don’t believe this bill is going to get us there. It’s just going to move the ball forward by making clear it’s Bush’s petulance keeping the occupation going.
Comment by Bill Woolsey —
April 26, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Paul voted against funding the war.
While I think it would have been smart politics to vote for this bill, perhaps highlighting his opposition to the administration, Paul isn’t inclined to play politics.
Does anyone expect him to vote for a funding bill that is unrestricted as the President demands?
Or some sort of compromise with somewhat looser restrictions?
The Democratic majority is too timid on this issue now.
Comment by Barry —
April 27, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
Comment by Bill Woolsey —
April 26, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
“Paul voted against funding the war. ”
Far as I’m concerned, that’s a good credential.
Comment by Gary Farber —
April 27, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
If Ron Paul didn’t always make the perfect (in his view) be the enemy of the good, he wouldn’t be Ron Paul, and would vanish into non-existence.
Comment by Thoreau —
April 27, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
Can Ron Paul draft a bill so good that even He can vote for it?