Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

House vote on WITHDRAWING troops FAILS 300 to 128, 5 non-votes

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 12:56 PM
Original message
House vote on WITHDRAWING troops FAILS 300 to 128, 5 non-votes
May 27, 2005—On the evening of May 25, the U.S. House of Representatives considered an amendment offered by Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) calling for an exit strategy from Iraq. Amendment No. 26 simply stated:

"It is the sense of Congress that the president should—
(1) develop a plan as soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act to provide for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq; and
(2) transmit to the congressional defense committees a report that contains the plan described in paragraph (1)."


The simple resolution was a moderate one. It set no specific timetable for withdrawal—in an effort to make it easy for members of Congress to agree. After all, we always claim we intend to leave Iraq. This amendment was an opportunity to make leaving Iraq the policy of the United States. The amendment, part of the debate on the authorization for the Department of Defense was allotted 30 minutes on the floor of the House of Representatives—15 minutes for each side.

In the end the amendment failed—by a vote of 300 to 128 with 5 not voting. Because Rep. Woolsey insisted on a roll call vote we now know who needs to be convinced. There were some disappointing votes including the Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, as well as members generally seen as liberals, including Rep. Cardin (D-MD), Rep. Stenny Hoyer (D-MD), Rep. Sanchez (D-CA) and Rep. Udall (D-CO). Five Republicans voted for the amendment, most notably Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) who is well known for insisting that the french fries sold in the Capitol be re-named "Freedom Fries."

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/052705Zeese/052705zeese.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. That's Amazing--and Disgusting
They wouldn't vote for "cover your ass" window dressing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. So, we need about 100 more. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicaholic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. Incompetance...sheer unadultrated idiocy...
It is SOOOOO fucking simple! Iraq isn't going to become the 51st state!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demnan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. It would be interesting if they actually passed it
Do you think that if the Congress passed a bill such as this they could force the Executive branch of the government to withdraw troops from Iraq?

Forget the fillibuster, now that would be a power struggle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
5. I'm surprised it got 128 votes.
Good for that decent-sized minority. Calm voices in a hurricane of hot air.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
6. the Democrats are missing a HUGE opportunity here . . .
Democrats voted to give Bush authority to go to war against Iraq based on his assurances that there was incontovertible evidence that Saddam had WMDs . . . and that he intended to use them . . .

there is now incontrovertible evidence that these assurances were all lies, and that the Dems were duped into supporting Bush's thoroughly illegal war . . .

what they SHOULD be doing is lambasting the Bush administration for their lies, demanding a thorough investigation, and pledging to no longer support an illegal war based entirely on fabricated evidence . . .

what they SHOULD do is become the anti-war party, and tap into the growing anti-war sentiment among the American public . . .

what they should also do is thoroughly question the "evidence" currently being propogated to justify an impending and equally illegal war against Iran . . .

the Democrats have a great opportunity to distinguish themselves from the warmongers currently in power . . . yet instead they continue to enable the criminal Bush administration at every opportunity . . .

I, for one, just don't understand their thinking (or lack thereof) . . .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
7. Maybe those fourteen permanent military bases are to be cost-effective?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teryang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-05 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
8. Congress is so far removed from reality
...they don't even realize that a considerable percentage of republican citizens are against the war. I haven't spoken to anyone who supports the war lately regardless of party affiliation.

I don't even raise the subject with anyone anymore, as I work for a Republican elected official and often interact with other republican officials. In contrast to recent history, people are raising the subject with me when they don't even know my views.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 06:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC