Breaking: House Opposes Bush's war escalation

By a vote of 246-182 the Democratic-controlled congress voted to oppose Bush's escalation and to support the troops. Here's the resolution:

Concurrent Resolution on the President's Escalation Plan:

This week the House of Representatives will be considering the following Concurrent Resolution.

Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That --

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq."

On Opposing the President's Iraq Escalation Policy and Using the Power of the Purse to End Our Military Involvement in Iraq

Mr. FEINGOLD: Mr. President, we are approaching the four-year anniversary of one of the greatest foreign policy mistakes in our country's history. In March 2003, with the prior authorization of Congress, the President took this country to war in Iraq. Almost four years later, virtually every objective observer - and, more importantly, the American people as a whole - agree that the President's policy has failed.

Now even the President acknowledges...his plan hasn't worked, though his solution is not a new plan but a troop escalation. Of course, sending more troops to implement what is essentially the same flawed strategy makes no sense. And the American people agree that it makes no sense. And most of my colleagues agree that it makes no sense.

So the question becomes, with a President unable or unwilling to fix a flawed policy that is jeopardizing our national security and military readiness, what should we in Congress do about our country's involvement in this disastrous war? Do we do nothing, and hope that the President will put things right, when he has shown time and time again that he is incapable of doing so? Do we simply tell the President that we aren't happy with the way the war is going and that we hope he will change course? Or Mr. President do we take strong, decisive action to fix the President's mistaken, self-defeating policies?

It's pretty clear which course of action I support. I think it's the course of action that the American people called for in the November elections. It's the course of action that our national security needs, so we don't continue to neglect global threats and challenges while we focus so much of our resources and our efforts on Iraq. It's the course of action that will support, that will actually support, our brave troops and their families.

Mr. President, We must end our involvement in this tragic and misguided war. The President will not do so. Therefore, Congress must act.

So far, Congress has not lived up to that responsibility. Instead of taking strong action in the Senate, instead of considering binding legislation that fixes the President's flawed Iraq strategy, we tied ourselves into knots last week in a convoluted and misguided effort to achieve a consensus that would have essentially reaffirmed congressional authorization for continuing our military involvement in Iraq. Of course here I am referring to the resolution proposed by the senior Senator from Virginia.

This resolution was portrayed, at least at first, by members of both parties as an important, symbolic rebuke of the president's Iraq policy. In fact, it was not a rebuke at all. In parts, it read like a reauthorization of the war, rejecting troop redeployment and specifically authorizing "vigorous operations" in a critical region in Iraq.