House passes bill to begin troop withdrawal in 120 days

[MonkeyFunk]

223 - 201

Just on C-SPAN

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. Wow!

It also means that more than 20% of the House didn't vote (or else they abstained, and you didn't post an abstain count).

Assholes.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. no

there were 8 no votes - 2 dem, 6 repub.

There are 435 house members - the numbers add up to 432

[polichick]

5. Tucker is saying 10 Dems voted with the Reps...

Chickenshits. (Or chickenhawks, as the case may be.)

[MonkeyFunk]

7. yes

and 4 republicans voted Aye.

[polichick]

12. Besides Lieberman...

Which Dems?

[MonkeyFunk]

14. this was the House

Lieberman's in the senate.

But it's nice to see some people never miss a chance to take a shot at Lieberman.

[polichick]

21. LOL

Sorry ~ I'm multi-tasking and wishing I was at the beach. Guess I just automatically think of Joe when it comes to Congressional shits.

[spanone]

52. lieberman is not a democrat

[last_texas_dem]

26. 10 Dems who crossed over

Barrow (GA)
Boren (OK)
Carney (PA)
Ellsworth (IN)
Holden (PA)
Kucinich (OH)
Marshall (GA)
Matheson (UT)
Snyder (AR)
Taylor (MS)

Anyone know why Kucinich crossed over? I'm sure it's something technical about the bill, but this vote still surprised me. The rest of the Dems who crossed over tend to be some of the more conservative members, so I wasn't too surprised, but Kucinich's vote stuck out at me.

FWIW, the Repubs who voted with the Dems are:

Duncan (TN)
Emerson (MO)
Gilchrest (MD)
Jones (NC)

[polichick]

27. Thanks...

Maybe Kucinich doesn't think the pull-out is soon enough.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. Well that would certainly

be a petulant reason to vote against it.

[polichick]

29. Or principled maybe...

Wonder what he's thinking.

[MonkeyFunk]

30. He's thinking

if he can't get exactly what he wants, he'll hold his breath until he turns blue.

It's stupid shit like this that ensures he'll never rise above the position he currently holds.

[polichick]

35. Was there something else included...

...that he might object to? Very strange.

[MonkeyFunk]

41. Here's his statement:

"We’ve lost over 3,600 of our brave service men and women. An estimated one million innocent Iraqis have perished in the war. We’re now telling Iraqis, whose country the U.S. destroyed, whose reconstruction funds the U.S. mishandled, whose social networks have been shredded: Stand on your own feet! We try to steal their oil under the cover of occupation,” Kucinich said in a debate on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives today.

“This bill will not end the war. This bill will not end the occupation. It doesn’t take a vote to end this war. We must inform the Administration that the $97 billion appropriated last month is the end of the financing for the war.

“Use the money that’s in the pipeline through October 1 to bring the troops home. Compel the President to put together an international peacekeeping and security force which would move in as our troops leave.

“We could have our troops home by October 1. The question is whether we are ready to take a stand to do that, or whether we are going to vote on resolutions that give the American people the appearance that we want to end the war, without actually addressing the central issue that will end the war. Stop the funding.”


--------------------------------------

He'll turn down half a loaf of bread if he can't get the whole loaf.

[polichick]

43. Thanks for the info...

Seems Kucinich is being Kucinich.

[Heath Hatcher]

44. Christ allmighty with this guy

This would be a good speech to use when we actually discuss funding this war in September but his actions today disgust me today because Dennis didn't get what he wants. My god Lynn Woolsey one of the biggest critics voted for this bill and I didn't see her complain about the bill.

[Toasterlad]

48. Meh.

I think Dennis knows this bill's going nowhere, and he doesn't want his name on anything less than a total, immediate withdrawal from Iraq. He's running for president with that as a key issue, so I can understand where he's coming from. If I thought the bill would make it through the Senate and then survive a veto, I'd be pissed at him, too. But I don't think it will.

[Heath Hatcher]

49. I see what your getting at

But it would of been nice for him to support his party on this one even if this bill is going nowhere that's all.

[Toasterlad]

51. I Hear You

I love Dennis, and I can rationalize his decision, but I would rather the party come together as a whole and get something DONE. And I'd LIKE to believe that he KNEW that the bill would still pass without him; and that otherwise he'd have voted for it.

[mmonk]

76. Continuing the war isn't half a loaf of bread.

Why keep sending bush money to continue this war? Don't any of you get it?

[Heath Hatcher]

81. Yeah I get it

Then I get the fact that I support a withdrawal that dosen't cut off funding like what a majority of americans do, that the troops get what they need till the pullout is complete, don't you get it?;-) ;-)

[Heath Hatcher]

37. I think he's angry at the leadership on the withdrawal date

In the bill troops would all be gone by april of 08, Dennis thinks they could be gone by October that's what he said in his speech on the floor.

You know what I say, THEY GET OUT be happy with that. The other nine that voted with the GOP were to no surprise of me.

[Laelth]

55. Grrrr ...

My critter, Marshall, stabbed me in the back again. :mad:

-Laelth

[Heath Hatcher]

57. Yeah it sucks dosen't it

But I have some good news for you, you won't have to worry too much about Jim Marshall because he's gone after '08 and I don't mean he'll be replace with a Democrat but I full blown Repuke. Marshall(not to mention fellow Georgia Congressman John Barrow) survived by a mousefart in '06 in a very friendly year for the Democrats, how do you think it will be in '08 when it's a presidental year in a state that have been very unkind to Democrats in recent years?

[Laelth]

59. I hear ya.

I should be thankful, I suppose, that Marshall votes my way 50% of the time. Your standard GA repuke would vote my way about 1% of the time. As for '08, though, I remain optimistic. Georgia's demographics are becoming more blue, not red. But we'll see.

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--added a comma.

[Heath Hatcher]

63. Your right that your standard GA Repuke

Wouldn't vote 1 percent down your way. I've seen the type of Republicans your state elects to Congress, they suck. Phil Gingrey and Tom Price have got to be the biggest jackoffs(pardon your french) in Congress, got to bitch about everything the Democrats do. But i'll cut your state a break since it keeps sending John Lewis to Congress every two years.

Not to be rude or anything but are you sure your right about what your saying that Georgia is turning blue because looking at history it's becoming increaseingly red.

In the past 5 years I've seen Democrats in your state lose both Senate seats, the Governors seat, Lt.Governors seat, various statewide offices and both chambers of the state legislature which because of that caused your district to becoming more Republican(and Barrow's) thanks to mid-year Gerrymandering.

[Laelth]

75. Your point is well taken.

Undoubtedly, the voting trend in GA has been going red since Newt Gingrich became speaker of the US House in 1994. GA went from solid blue to nearly-solid red in a very short time. My point was that the state's demographics have been trending blue. I am optimistic enough to believe that the state can't get much redder because of the relative increase of persons who tend to vote blue. Of course, I could be entirely deluded.

-Laelth

[helderheid]

64. Kucinich said it was time to defund the war altogether. n/t

[Heath Hatcher]

67. Yeah well he can present his case about funding

in SEPTEMBER when we actually debate funding, today we debated withdrawal pure and simple and DK's vote on this really made me lose some respect towards him.

[helderheid]

71. Agreed.

[helderheid]

65. Matheson. Typical. My critter. Wish I could potty train him.

[Heath Hatcher]

68. My heart goes out to you helderheid regarding Matheson

My Critter voted againist this bill of course he's a Repuke so he has a excuse your critter has no excuse for voting down this bill at all, he can't even use the excuse that he has to vote this way cause of the conservative nature of the District because tons of Democrats from conservative Districts voted for it.

Is it just me or does it seem that every time the Democrats come up with a major piece of legislation Matheson is always the first one to bolt the party line?

[helderheid]

70. Not your imagination. In his re-election campagn ads, he boasted about how often he voted WITH *

:banghead:

[Heath Hatcher]

72. Freaking Utah, what ya gonna do?

I guess if you want to live in a dreamworld on how Utah should be politically gotta go to Salt Lake City.

[helderheid]

74. My bad. I'm in the burbs

[ellisonz]

73. 9 too many.

[Heath Hatcher]

80. Dude one Dem crossing over is too many

Were basically in Def con 4 on this war and we need EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT in Congress on board on this NO EXCEPTIONS. This isn't even a district matter anymore for bucking the party on this matter because there were tons on conservative Democrats in unsafe Bush District that weren't hesitant to jump on board and support the party on the Iraq matter, what does that tell you?

[Rabrrrrrr]

34. Whoops! Total brain fart on my end.

I should go a little slower sometimes...

:blush:

Always embarrassing when I make such ludicrous math mistakes as fucking up simple addition.

:grr:

[some guy]

I don't think

11 is 20%+ of 435.

:shrug:

[Heath Hatcher]

45. Here's the math

229 Democrats voted in the bill and 219 voted for it, that equals 95 percent of the party voted for the bill

there are 231 Democrats in the House and 229 voted, that equals to 99 percent

[some guy]

47. LOL

your math is as bad as Rabrrrrrr's.

:rofl:

[Heath Hatcher]

50. Hey A-Hole my math isn't bad at all

I'm right about what I said.

[some guy]

53. sorry

I thought you must have been being sarcastic or something since your reply had abso-FUCKING-lutely NOTHING to do with the post I made, or the post I was responding to when I made it.

[BlooInBloo]

9. Gotta love the American educational system.

[LSparkle]

2. A good sign ... even if it doesn't go beyond the House

We are at least taking a stand.

[ixion]

4. woohoo!!

nice to see them making an effort. :applause:

[rodeodance]

6. Senate has similar bill April 30 date

[SoonerPride]

Yea!

Good move

[wtmusic]

8. Looks like W's going to have to pick up a gun

and go and fight his war himself.

[april]

16. I wish he would put it where the lies come from...

[uppityperson]

10. I hated to click to see the "just joking" message, thanks for posting this.

I'm glad it isn't a joke.

[terrya]

11. Thanks for posting this.

Great news!

[Skink]

13. Lots of Senate seats up for grabs this time around.

Do what Moore is saying vote em out, even if they are Dems, if they don't take a stand.

[Heath Hatcher]

46. I don't see that as a problem

The Democrats in the Senate seem pretty unified for a withdrawal with the exception of Liberman but he dosen't count since he's not offically a Democrat anymore and he's not up for re-election for another five years.

[Skink]

61. It is a PROBLEM OOO

tILL NOW.


Fuckin smiles. Fuck in yeah..... and yeaheahhhh...

[babylonsister]

15. Now the Senate has to vote on it, I think; might not be so lucky there. nt

[Telly Savalas]

69. They may not have the votes to invoke cloture on this bill

but the Senate War Monger Caucus doesn't have the votes to invoke cloture on anything either. So it's simply a matter of shutting down the Senate altogether until the pro-war Senators remember that this is a democracy and that they get their six figure salaries for representing the people who, according to all polls, think the war should end.

[spanone]

17. next to the senate, then juniors trashcan.

Way to go Nancy, good work! I hope junior has to veto it. That means it got thru the senate.

[walldude]

18. Another bill that will go nowhere or get vetoed

While I'm glad they managed to pass this you don't really think this will do anything do you? Bush has stated his case, he is the "decider" and he will decide when and if the troops will come home. Times up, he needs to be removed from office.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. No

I don't think it will pass.

But if it gets vetoed, it just gives Bush more ownership of this war over the objection of Democrats.

[Solly Mack]

31. K/R

[Heath Hatcher]

42. you don't really think this will do anything do you?

It means something to me, Congress got off there ass and tried to end this war that means something to me pass or fail. They could of waited till September but they chose not to. Unfortuently this dosen't do us any favors with the GOP by not waiting till September.

[knowledgeispwr]

19. Great news! Let's see what happens in the Senate. n\t

[robinlynne]

20. well that is something.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

22. You're kidding! THAT IS GREAT!!! Well, at least,...it's a beginning.

The full withdrawal could take, uh,...forty years.

[Heath Hatcher]

33. Here's the list of ten Chickenshits (I mean Democrats) that voted againist this bill

-John Barrow, Georgia
-Dan Boren, Oklahoma
-Jim Marshall, Georgia
-Gene Taylor, Mississippi
-Chris Carney, Pennsylvania
-Tim Holden, Pennsylvania
-Vic Snyder, Arkansas
-Brad Ellsworth, Indiana
-Jim Matheson, Utah
-The Great and Noble One of DU Dennis Kucinich, Ohio

Kudos to the leadership for putting together this bill and for most of the Democrats for hanging tough and supporting it. But what I saw in the House today was a total disgrace today. The war has no hope in sight, Iraq failed to meet 10 benchmarks and here we are presenting this bill to withdrawal our troops and only FOUR FUCKING REPUBLICANS in the House jumped ship and three were the same that voted with us on the last withdraw bill. Thats a disgrace, we've seen boatloads of Republican jumpship in the Senate demanding for a policy but in the House the GOP want to remain in the status quo.

Shame on you GOP you fucking facsists and shame on you Dennis Kucinich.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

54. Wwweeelll, there is NO shame to Kucinich's vote since,...

,...he stands firm on immediate troop withdrawal.

Not sure wtf you are coming from,...but, IMO, attacking the Honorable Kucinich is either out of ignorance, hidden agenda, or just plain nonsense.

[Heath Hatcher]

58. The attack was out of anger, not ignorance

Because he voted down the troop withdrawal that's all besides that I think he's a decent Congressman.

[Nimrod2005]

23. PRAISE JESUS!!! (I think....) I am loving it!!! Well done Dems!

[Q3JR4]

25. Cool.

Bring a version of the bill up in the senate and dare the repubs. to vote against it. Even if it passes, let the pResident veto the legislation. More nails in the coffin of what they've laughingly called the "permanent" repub. majority.

[MonkeyFunk]

32. Senate Republicans

have already said they'll block it.

[Disturbed]

40. None of the Rethugs that have spoken out against Busholini's

Iraq Occupation will vote yes on this Bill. They merely wanted to voice their pandering to the American Public that wants this US Occupation to end. They will never vote against the ending of the US Occupation of Iraq!

[mzmolly]

36. THIS is what I'm talkin about!!!!

YEAH! :toast:

[Cameron27]

38. Fantastic! K&R

[Usrename]

39. Bravo!

Excellent work!

[kineneb]

56. A spine, a spine. Eureka, they have found a spine!

Music cue: Hallelujah Chorus from Handel's Messiah!

[shanti]

60. kucinich???

WHY????? :shrug:

[LittleClarkie]

62. Because it's not RIGHT NOW

Apparently.

[Heath Hatcher]

66. No no your right

It's all about the date. The bill date is set for April, DK thinks they can all be gone by October.

[Raskolnik]

77. Because the perfect should always be the enemy of the good.

And the best way to get things done is to fight against those working towards the same ultimate goal.

[Freddie Stubbs]

78. He would prefer not withdrawing over withdraw in 120 days

[Heath Hatcher]

79. Sometimes you have to comprimise

You know you can't always get what you want, sometimes you got to suck it up and work together on this espically since him and the leadership have one thing in common: getting out.

[SergeyDovlatov]

82. I am not that excited. That bill is not what we think it is

http://antiwar.com/paul/

I rise in opposition to HR 2956 which, while a well-intended attempt to reduce our nation's seemingly unlimited military commitment in Iraq, is in so many respects deeply flawed. ...

To those who believe this act would some how end the war, I simply point to the title for Section 3 of the bill, which states, "REQUIREMENT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ AND TRANSITION TO A LIMITED PRESENCE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ." However the number of troops are limited, this legislation nevertheless will permit an ongoing American military presence in Iraq with our soldiers continuing to be engaged in hostilities.

I also wish to draw attention to Section 4(b)(1), which mandates the president to submit a "Strategy for Iraq" by the beginning of next year. This "strategy" is to include:

"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."

In other words, far from extricating ourselves from the debacle in Iraq, this bill would set in motion a policy that could lead to a wider regional commitment, both financially and militarily. Such a policy would be disastrous for both our overextended national security forces and beleaguered taxpayers. This could, in fact, amount to an authorization for a region-wide "surge."

Congress' job is to change the policy on Iraq, not to tell the military leaders how many troops they should have. I have attempted to do this with HR 2605, a bill to sunset after a six month period the authorization for military activity in Iraq. During this period a new plan for Iraq could be discussed and agreed. Plan first, authorization next, execution afterward. That is what we should be doing in Iraq.

In summary, this legislation brings us no closer to ending the war in Iraq. It brings us no closer to bringing our troops home. It says nothing about withdrawal, only about redeployment. It says nothing about reducing US presence in the Middle East, and may actually lead to an expanded US presence in the region. We have no guarantee the new strategy demanded by this legislation would not actually expand our military activities to Iran and Syria and beyond. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and put forth an effective strategy to end the war in Iraq and to bring our troops home.

[Heath Hatcher]

83. Yeah but it atleasts get us out of Iraq

It's something new, beyond the "stay the course" strategy. Oh well it dosen't matter really because the bill will never see the light of day, it passed the House only to eventually die in the Senate. Personally I think the Democrats knew this and only brought this bill up as a test to see how many GOPers in the House delected. I think come September when the full report on Iraq is brought to Congress and everyone now knows what they expected about the war(that it's a civil war and far from winneable) well see more GOP members come forward asking for a withdrawal from Iraq and the Democratic Congress will then come up with a comprehensive withdrawal from Iraq because this bill was only a test to see how much has changed in two months.

Why do I think like this? because i'm optimistic and confident, because unlike alot of people here at DU I have been ready to give up on the Democrats when they need us now.