What war?

So I'm reading the news today and I run across this line that just seems wrong. It just can't be true. I'm thinking that I'm having comprehension problems or this sentence is poorly edited.. Here it is:
"The House of Representatives capped its first formal debate about the war in Iraq today by voting 256 to 153 to declare its support for the war and America's determination to prevail."

The part I'm struggling with is that the House just had it's FIRST FORMAL DEBATE on the war in Iraq. Dawg, I've been debating that shit with friends and family for years. What the hell have our elected officials been discussing? Why did the U.S. troop death toll have to reach 2,500 for everyone to find time to discuss? And 2,500 doesn't include civilians, Iraqi and other foreign troops. Not that I wasn't disappointed in this branch of our government before, but come on. In what other industry or field can you wait until 2,500 employees die BEFORE the decision makers sit down and discuss what's really going on? Hmm.. wait I'm thinking. I can't think of any. From what I've read, the last formal debate about military force in Iraq was in October of 2002. So you vote to send troops into Iraq and don't discuss it again for 4 years? What part of the game is that?!

So today's discussion was about withdrawing troops from Iraq. There was a vote on this in 2005, where only 3 people thought withdrawal was a good idea, so I guess there was little discussion. The timing is actually perfect if you ask me, because a reporter from the L.A. Times pointed out that some democrat officials, who would normally vote to withdraw the troops from Iraq, were too afraid of being labeled non-supporters when elections roll around this November. Great! In fact, it sounds like this entire discussion is being used as an opportunity to make Democrats look weak and unresolved while Republicans support the troops and their mysterious mission to the death. Most Democrats (149) did vote against the resolution, but as we all know that shit doesn't matter because they're the minority anyway.

The Republicans developed this resolution that included the Iraq war with the "War on Terrorism" even though everyone and their mama knows that the Iraq war has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. The resolution also rejects the idea of setting a time table for the withdrawal of troops. I nearly shed a tear for the pussy[willow] Democrats that could do nothing about this wack resolution but whine. House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi from San Francisco, had this to say: "It's really unfortunate, as the president contends that we are fighting for democracy in Iraq, that we can't have democracy on the House floor." Word? Unfortunate, huh? Those are strong words, missy. You kiss your mother with that mouth?

When will the U.S. take politics and war more seriously? Never? Did anyone catch videos of those cats from Chezch or India throwing blows in the parliament? I mean, I'm not saying that we should fist fight, but I need more than sounds bites like, "this is unfortunate." The news reporters should be like, "Folks at home, you may want to ask your children to leave the room before we play the remarks from the House minority leader..." And I need people not to trip when a politician shows passion like Ray Nagan or Howard Dean. It may not be polite, but at least you SEE these fist-throwing democracies doing something other than fundraising. They're at least excited about the issues..

So anyway, the point is that we will continue to spend $9 billion a month on Iraq, even though our elected officials can't agree on what we're fighting for. I hear we loose a battalion a month between deaths and injuries. But that's not a big deal. There's still no exit plan and if you think they're should be then you're not American enough. Only because I need my passport to travel, I will put it out there: MBT supports the troops! Where'd I put my fucking flag?