PDA

View Full Version : House votes to restrict Iraq war funding in the future based on a drawdown.


Logical
07-13-2007, 03:33 PM
Voted 223 to 201.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0713/iraq.html[QUOTE]...


Push for withdrawal
The US House of Representatives has voted in favour of bringing troops home from Iraq by April of next year.
The vote was 223 to 201, with only four Republicans voting against the White House, while ten conservative Democrats voted against the motion.
It was a largely symbolic gesture but could indicate how next week's vote in the Senate on a similar measure will fare.

Mr. Laz
07-13-2007, 03:36 PM
"only four Republicans voting against the White House, while ten conservative Democrats voted against the motion."


the only true americans left in washington D.C.

Logical
07-13-2007, 03:40 PM
Here is a more detailed story.

The House's Iraq Vote: A Look at the 'Defectors'

With a 223-201 vote (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/1/votes/624/), the House has once again voted to set a deadline for ending major military actions in Iraq, a move that came despite a highly unified Republican opposition to any timeline for withdrawal.
The final tally was similar to previous votes (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/03/the_iraq_supplemental_vote_bre.html) that included strong withdrawal language. This time around House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) kept her left flank firmly in check, as all but one member of the Out of Iraq Caucus -- Rep. Dennis Kucinich (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/dennis-kucinich/) (D-Ohio) -- supported the bill, which would call for almost all troops off the Iraqi battlefields by April 1, 2008. Kucinich believes the bill did not go far enough (http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=69245) to end the war immediately.

The remaining 9 'nay' votes among Democrats all came from lawmakers who represent mostly rural, moderate-to-conservative districts. Of the 42 freshmen elected in 2006, only two -- Reps. Christopher Carney (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c001065/) (D-Pa.) and Brad Ellsworth (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/e000289/) (D-Ind.) -- voted against the resolution.

Four of the Democratic 'nays' came from lawmakers who had previously supported timelines for withdrawal: Reps. Carney, Ellsworth, Tim Holden (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/h000712/) (Pa.) and Vic Snyder (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/s000672/) (Ark.). One Democrat who had previously been opposed to withdrawal legislation switched his vote in favor of pulling troops out by next spring -- Rep. Lincoln Davis (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/d000599/) (D-Tenn.).

On the GOP side of the aisle, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) continues to maintain incredible solidarity, despite a war that is opposed by 65 percent to 70 percent of the nation, depending on which public opinion poll you're reviewing. Just four Republicans voted with Pelosi, up from two earlier this spring. The new GOP votes for withdrawal were Reps. Jo Ann Emerson (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/e000172/) (Mo.) and John "Jimmy" Duncan (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/d000533/) (Tenn.).
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/07/pelosi_loses_10_democratic_vot.html

Cochise
07-13-2007, 03:47 PM
Isn't the whole foreign policy thing about our national security? How does retreat make us safer?

How does the chaos and mass killing that will ensue as soon as we leave lay on anyone's conscience? Well, no one cares about that. Are we supposed to just ignore all reports from that region in the coming years knowing that all of it started when we decided we were bored with this effort and it wasn't easy enough so we gave up?

Of course we are going to ignore that. The Democrats will say "It's Bush's fault for taking us there in the first place.". The Republicans will say "It's the Democrats' fault for working tirelessly for defeat".

Meanwhile, no one will see this issue for what it is, that it's not a republican or democratic problem but an American problem. That for the Shia family who will be executed by the Taliban-like regime that will come into place at the behest of Al Queda as soon as we're gone, a family who has never heard the words democrat or republican, it doesn't matter whose fault it was.

America made a mess and it's our responsibility to clean it up. But it seems certain that our complicit politicians will stand in front of the burning house arguing over who dropped the match until it's burned to the ground, instead of going to the well together with buckets.

I'm glad I don't belong to a civilian family in Iraq, because they are the ones walking the plank here.

SBK
07-13-2007, 03:49 PM
Isn't the whole foreign policy thing about our national security? How does retreat make us safer?

How does the chaos and mass killing that will ensue as soon as we leave lay on anyone's conscience? Well, no one cares about that. Are we supposed to just ignore all reports from that region in the coming years knowing that all of it started when we decided we were bored with this effort and it wasn't easy enough so we gave up?

Of course we are going to ignore that. The Democrats will say "It's Bush's fault for taking us there in the first place.". The Republicans will say "It's the Democrats' fault for working tirelessly for defeat".

Meanwhile, no one will see this issue for what it is, that it's not a republican or democratic problem but an American problem. That for the Shia family who will be executed by the Taliban-like regime that will come into place at the behest of Al Queda as soon as we're gone, a family who has never heard the words democrat or republican, it doesn't matter whose fault it was.

America made a mess and it's our responsibility to clean it up. But it seems certain that our complicit politicians will stand in front of the burning house arguing over who dropped the match until it's burned to the ground, instead of going to the well together with buckets.

I'm glad I don't belong to a civilian family in Iraq, because they are the ones walking the plank here.

This type of reasoning is dead in America today. Nobody cares, it's all about power.

SBK
07-13-2007, 03:50 PM
the only true americans left in washington D.C.

:)

So sad isn't it?

Logical
07-13-2007, 04:02 PM
Isn't the whole foreign policy thing about our national security? How does retreat make us safer?

How does the chaos and mass killing that will ensue as soon as we leave lay on anyone's conscience? Well, no one cares about that. Are we supposed to just ignore all reports from that region in the coming years knowing that all of it started when we decided we were bored with this effort and it wasn't easy enough so we gave up?

Of course we are going to ignore that. The Democrats will say "It's Bush's fault for taking us there in the first place.". The Republicans will say "It's the Democrats' fault for working tirelessly for defeat".

Meanwhile, no one will see this issue for what it is, that it's not a republican or democratic problem but an American problem. That for the Shia family who will be executed by the Taliban-like regime that will come into place at the behest of Al Queda as soon as we're gone, a family who has never heard the words democrat or republican, it doesn't matter whose fault it was.

America made a mess and it's our responsibility to clean it up. But it seems certain that our complicit politicians will stand in front of the burning house arguing over who dropped the match until it's burned to the ground, instead of going to the well together with buckets.

I'm glad I don't belong to a civilian family in Iraq, because they are the ones walking the plank here.Did you write this, I have been reading your posts for years and I don't ever remember you writing a post this long this grammatically correct? If not what is the source?

ChiefaRoo
07-13-2007, 04:19 PM
This vote is symbolic in nature only and stands no change of becoming law. This is just part of the Dems plans to continue to attack Bush and the Republicans so they can win the White House. Meanwhile they will accomplish nothing else.

Logical
07-13-2007, 06:07 PM
This vote is symbolic in nature only and stands no change of becoming law. This is just part of the Dems plans to continue to attack Bush and the Republicans so they can win the White House. Meanwhile they will accomplish nothing else.

Seems like section 1-3 is completely within the powers of Congress to address funding of war efforts.

(1) A discussion of United States national security interests in Iraq and the broader Middle East region and the diplomatic, political, economic, and military components of a comprehensive strategy to maintain and advance such interests as the Armed Forces are redeployed from Iraq pursuant to section 3 of this Act.(2) A justification of the minimum force levels required to protect United States national security interests in Iraq after April 1, 2008, including a description of the specific missions of the Armed Forces to be undertaken. The justification shall include--(A) the projected number of Armed Forces necessary to carry out the missions;(B) the projected annual cost of the missions; and(C) the expected duration of the missions.(3) As part of the justification required by paragraph (2), the President shall, at a minimum, address whether it is necessary for the Armed Forces to carry out the following missions:(A) Protecting United States diplomatic facilities and United States citizens, including members of the Armed Forces who are engaged in carrying out other missions.(B) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions.(C) Engaging in actions to disrupt and eliminate al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations in Iraq.(D) Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

Logical
07-13-2007, 07:29 PM
I apologize for all the deleted posts evidently I was having a problem with communication with the database.

ChiefaRoo
07-13-2007, 08:16 PM
I apologize for all the deleted posts evidently I was having a problem with communication with the database.

I thought your cheese had finally slid off your cracker. I mean it's only a matter of time.

ChiefaRoo
07-13-2007, 08:17 PM
Seems like section 1-3 is completely within the powers of Congress to address funding of war efforts.

(1) A discussion of United States national security interests in Iraq and the broader Middle East region and the diplomatic, political, economic, and military components of a comprehensive strategy to maintain and advance such interests as the Armed Forces are redeployed from Iraq pursuant to section 3 of this Act.(2) A justification of the minimum force levels required to protect United States national security interests in Iraq after April 1, 2008, including a description of the specific missions of the Armed Forces to be undertaken. The justification shall include--(A) the projected number of Armed Forces necessary to carry out the missions;(B) the projected annual cost of the missions; and(C) the expected duration of the missions.(3) As part of the justification required by paragraph (2), the President shall, at a minimum, address whether it is necessary for the Armed Forces to carry out the following missions:(A) Protecting United States diplomatic facilities and United States citizens, including members of the Armed Forces who are engaged in carrying out other missions.(B) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions.(C) Engaging in actions to disrupt and eliminate al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations in Iraq.(D) Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

I'm not arguing that. In fact, I hope the Dem. controlled congress tries to defund the troops. It would be political suicide.

PunkinDrublic
07-13-2007, 08:19 PM
Isn't the whole foreign policy thing about our national security? How does retreat make us safer?

How does the chaos and mass killing that will ensue as soon as we leave lay on anyone's conscience? Well, no one cares about that. Are we supposed to just ignore all reports from that region in the coming years knowing that all of it started when we decided we were bored with this effort and it wasn't easy enough so we gave up?

Of course we are going to ignore that. The Democrats will say "It's Bush's fault for taking us there in the first place.". The Republicans will say "It's the Democrats' fault for working tirelessly for defeat".

Meanwhile, no one will see this issue for what it is, that it's not a republican or democratic problem but an American problem. That for the Shia family who will be executed by the Taliban-like regime that will come into place at the behest of Al Queda as soon as we're gone, a family who has never heard the words democrat or republican, it doesn't matter whose fault it was.

America made a mess and it's our responsibility to clean it up. But it seems certain that our complicit politicians will stand in front of the burning house arguing over who dropped the match until it's burned to the ground, instead of going to the well together with buckets.

I'm glad I don't belong to a civilian family in Iraq, because they are the ones walking the plank here.

ROFL Since when did neocons give a shit about Iraqis?

Mr. Laz
07-13-2007, 08:42 PM
ROFL Since when did neocons give a shit about Iraqis?
they don't ..... it was just the only excuse for Iraq that they can come up with that can't be proven to be total horse shit.


it took them about 5 tries ..... but they finally found something

RedDread
07-13-2007, 09:25 PM
I thought your cheese had finally slid off your cracker. I mean it's only a matter of time.

speaking of crackers, did you know only 1 of the 10 republican candidates showed up at the NAACP debate?


http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/07/tancredo-gets-s.html

http://info.detnews.com/pix/news/2007/12072007_prescandidates/12.jpg

BucEyedPea
07-13-2007, 09:45 PM
Isn't the whole foreign policy thing about our national security?
Nope! It's about controlling the world by seeking monsters to destroy!

Logical
07-13-2007, 09:49 PM
Nope! It's about controlling the world by seeking monsters to destroy!I think that is a little harsh.

BucEyedPea
07-13-2007, 09:58 PM
I think that is a little harsh.
The seeking monsters to destroy or controlling the world?

The first part is from one of our Founders who warned not so do so.
Anyhow, that's my opinion.

Logical
07-13-2007, 10:01 PM
The seeking monsters to destroy or controlling the world?

The first part is from one of our Founders who warned not so do so.
Anyhow, that's my opinion.Well my response is also only my opinion.:p

As to which, both but especially the controlling the world.

BucEyedPea
07-13-2007, 10:05 PM
Isn't that what hegemony is?
Isn't that what AEI/PNAC guys want per their writings?
Yup! I think so. And building an embassy the size of the Vatican speaks volumes.

Adept Havelock
07-13-2007, 10:11 PM
And building an embassy the size of the Vatican speaks volumes.

Will the ambassador get to wear a cool hat? I could see him in an episcopal mitre.

Logical
07-13-2007, 11:18 PM
Isn't that what hegemony is?
Isn't that what AEI/PNAC guys want per their writings?
Yup! I think so. And building an embassy the size of the Vatican speaks volumes.
Not really, hegemony is:

1 : preponderant influence or authority over others

OK I will admit it is close. Do you have a link to say that is their goal.

patteeu
07-14-2007, 10:23 AM
ROFL Since when did neocons give a shit about Iraqis?

There are actually some bleeding heart neocons out there. I'm not one of them, but Paul Wolfowitz, for example, is. Not only was freeing the Iraqi people one of the reasons for Wolfowitz's support of invading Iraq, but he also supported most of Clinton's interventions on humanitarian grounds. Not all of the so-called neocons are as willing to expand the notion of US interests that far though. In fact, I'd say that most are not. However, even among the latter group, many would say that we've gone this far in Iraq and it would (a) be immoral to leave the friendly Iraqis to a slaughter at this point, and (b) be against our interests to prove to everyone that we are an unreliable ally.