House Pass Iraq Funding And Withdrawal Bill
The Democrats managed to get four Republicans to change their minds and vote for the bill and then we have fifteen democrats voting against it. How can the House Democrats every expect more Republicans voting for a withdrawal when there are always some Democrats that can not get with the game?
I am pleased that Lloyd Doggett, my representative, voted for the bill and has consistently voted to end the war.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVo9D2up6uY]
Staring down the threat of a White House veto and some internal opposition, House Democrats Wednesday night passed legislation linking $50 billion in funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a withdrawal date.
The spending bill, which requires Bush to begin bringing troops home from Iraq within 30 days and to complete that withdrawal by Dec. 15, 2008, passed 218-203. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who had said he was undecided earlier in the day, voted present.
Republican Reps. Phil English (Pa.), Walter Jones (N.C.), Christopher Shays (Conn.) and James Walsh (N.Y.) supported the bill. English and Walsh had never sided with Democrats on war-related funding measures.
Fifteen Democrats voted against the bill, including conservative Democratic Reps. John Tanner (Tenn.), Brian Baird (Wash.), Dan Boren (Okla.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Gene Taylor (Miss.), John Barrow (Ga.), Jim Marshall (Ga.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Nick Lampson (Texas) and Vic Snyder (Ark.) voted against the bill.
Liberal Reps. Tom Allen (Maine), Michael Michaud (Maine), Mike McNulty (N.Y.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), and Fortney “Pete” Stark (Calif.) opposed the measure as well.
The $50 billion spending bill is the Democrats’ first attempt since General David Petreaus’s congressional testimony in early September – and the most aggressive since last spring – to restrict money to pay for the war.
- While the bill does not preclude Bush from using the $50 billion to continue the war, Congress wants the money to be used to redeploy soldiers from Iraq. Troops can remain in the country after Dec. 15, 2008, to protect the U.S. embassy, bases and catch terrorists.
- Bush also must certify within 15 days in advance of a military unit’s deployment that the unit is fully capable of performing its assigned mission.
- The bill also prohibits the U.S. government from subjecting people in its custody to torture or treatment not authorized by the U.S. Army Field Manual.
Fearing that liberal lawmakers would once again make it difficult to pass legislation that did not completely cut off funding, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) met with 10 liberals last Thursday night for 90 minutes. She incorporated some of their ideas into the legislation.
Pelosi met with nearly a dozen liberal lawmakers Wednesday afternoon to enlist their help in getting more liberals to support the bill. Many remained frustrated that Democratic leaders did not vote on a measure to completely cut funding.
The whips pressed Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), who said he was frustrated because it was unlikely Republicans would vote for the bill and he wanted Democratic leaders to pass a bill that simply cut funding for the war.
Perhaps by catering to members of the Out of Iraq Caucus, Pelosi ran the risk of alienating Blue Dog Democrats. Some of them wanted to attach the money to a bill sponsored by Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) and John Tanner (D-Tenn.).
Their bill, which passed 377 to 46 (30 Democrats and 16 Republicans voted against the bill), would have required the Bush administration to develop a troop withdrawal plan.
Sphere: Related Content
November 15th, 2007 at 10:41 am
[...] BlueBloggin created an interesting post today on House Pass Iraq Funding And Withdrawal BillHere’s a short outline [...]
November 15th, 2007 at 10:41 am
[...] post by nytexan This was written by . Posted on Thursday, November 15, 2007, at 9:02 am. Filed under [...]
November 15th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
It appears that there were fifteen democrats including Pete Stark of all people, who voted against the bill. What the heck is up with that?
Stark had his balls handed to him by Speaker Botox.
December 2008 is too long to wait to withdraw the troops. Stark opposed the bill as a show of displeasure at the wimpy Dems in the House who passed this bill knowing it would die in the Senate.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Ok maybe i am missing something here, but GD IT – this seems like a pretty good compromise bill , for where things are at. Of course we wanted this war over , a month after “mission accomplished” the longer we stay the worse things get for all concerned, and more extremists become more angry etc. More refugees are created..its an impossible situation. So they pass a bill last week with all the HUMAN SERVICES funding in it – bush the lesser veteod it , thus sending a clear message that HE and the Neos care nothing for the quality ,health and welfare of the american citizens…..only thing he cares about is the WAR – this has torn our country apart. This has made the lives of average americans so much harder, as prices go up, and the services WE pay taxes for are chopped to smithereens – I just wish , we could make some progress. Yes a yr seems too long…shoot a week is too long…BUT look at the realities of this mess. Hopefully we will get our social fabric back together and be able to see a light at the end of this tunnel .
What i really cringe at , is the thought of this rancor, continuing for four more yrs.. Its time to stop, and focus on taking care of America, restoring our “land of the Brave ” notion. Its so rediculous to have the republicans campaigning on fear…i mean that is hardly a platform !
so yes , a week is too long, a month, a yr..to end this illegal occupation ..BUT for godness sake we have to start withdrawing troops , a new president and perhaps it could go faster. Our Military is being so badly abused. And from what i read…this bill with its torture part in it – is pretty damn good. .. considering how far from the polar oppostites in congress we have come.
oh well – the poor military , the poor american people – Worst. President. Ever. and a too timid congress. The bill may have some flaws , but geeze. Its appears a good start especially if the HHS funding can go through..Imagine that dictator -starving the american people of their tax paid services , so he can have a tantrum….compassionate conservatives my arse !
November 15th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Christopher:
Pelosi’s constant failure to get all democrats on board makes it so difficult to get republicans on board. She is soooo not cut out to be the speaker.
While I agree that Stark got his ass handed to him, I would have expected that Stark would have been willing to compromise a little to get some forward movement on getting the troops home. December 2008 is too far off but it was something that could have had a veto proof bill.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
ProudP:
It’s unfortunate but true that between Bush and the republican BS in Congress the troops are stuck until the next president takes office.
It is a disgrace that this Congress can not get the freaking job done. A job that 75% of the country wants. But no we have republican ass kissers in Congress going along with a moron in the White House. So the troops continue to suffer with long tours of duty for an illegal war, so Congress can achieve their personal agenda.
Message to Congress: YOU SUCK!!!!
November 15th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Speaker Botox is viewed by fellow House Dems as remote, weak and ineffective. Worse still, they are suspicious of her honey-chil’ relationship with the Motherfucker from Midland.
Pelosi is a complete and thorough disaster.
November 15th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Christopher:
In the next session can the House have her removed and vote in a new speaker?
I think House members should be suspicious of her. Pelosi is to close to Bush, it has to be all about money promises and kickbacks.
November 15th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Please excuse this OT:
Tonight, right after the debate, I’ll have a new post/thread up to discuss what happened. I hope you and any of your readers will join us.
November 15th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Mith:
Will do.