I have never been so ashamed to be a Republican as I am today. They’ve given up being the small government party, they’ve given up on being pro-life, they’ve given up being the cut spending party, they’ve given being the more ethical party. But I would never expect them to give up being the pro-defense party. This is the party of Lincoln were talking about here, people.

The Democratic-controlled House issued a symbolic rejection of President Bush’s decision to deploy more troops to Iraq on Friday, opening an epic confrontation between Congress and commander in chief over an unpopular war that has taken the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.

The vote on the nonbinding measure was 246-182.

“The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, leader of Democrats who gained power last fall in elections framed by public opposition to the war.

“The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home,” Pelosi vowed after leading the House in a moment of silence as a sign of respect for those who are fighting and their families.

Citing recent comments by Democrats, Bush’s Republican allies said repeatedly the measure would lead to attempts to cut off funds for the troops. Outnumbered, they turned to Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas to close their case — and the former Vietnam prisoner of war stepped to the microphone as lawmakers in both parties rose to applaud his heroism.

“Now it’s time to stand up for my friends who did not make it home, and for those who fought and died in Iraq already,” he said. “We must not cut funding for our troops. We must stick by them,” he added, snapping off a salute as he completed his remarks to yet another ovation.

A standing ovation for not cutting the funding? That’s interesting given that Murtha is trying to do just that. As well as “undermine” Bush’s security policy:

Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president’s foreign and national security policy.

And how does the passage of a nonbinding resolution “signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home?” It’s nonbinding, Bush is still sending the troops, so what has been accomplished? Nothing except for 17 Republicans who might be looking at a primary fight. I know that Hugh has already begun the fight against one of them.
Here are the names of the 17. If you live in their district, you might want to email or call them and let them know that you will be doing everything you can to ensure that there is a pro-defense Republican running against them in the primary.
Thank the Lord all of the Republican candidates that have a shot (Sam Brownback doesn’t have prayer) are pro-defense or I would be voting for one of the fringe parties in 2008.
Rudy says it best:

GIULIANI: The nonbinding resolution thing gets me more than are you for it or against it. I have tremendous respect for the people who feel that we either made a mistake going to war, who voted against the war, who now have come to the conclusion, changed their minds, they have every right to that, that it’s wrong, you should, in a dynamic situation, keep questioning. What I don’t like is the idea of a nonbinding resolution.
KING: Because?

GIULIANI: Because there’s no decision.

KING: But it’s a statement.

GIULIANI: Yes, but that’s what you do. That’s what Tim Russert does and that’s what Rush Limbaugh does. That’s what you guys do, you make comments. We pay them to make decisions, not just to make comments. We pay them to decide.