Congress Vote On Iraq Withdrawl: Why Can't Nancy Pelosi See The Light?

[Itsthetruth]

CounterPunch
May 27, 2005

If Walter "Freedom Fries" Jones Can See the Light, Why Can't Nancy Pelosi?
House Votes on Iraq Withdrawal Amendent: 300 for War; 128 for Getting Out "Soon"
By KEVIN ZEESE

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. The simple resolution was a moderate one. It set no specific time table 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.

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 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."

Perhaps the most important speech in favor of an exit strategy came from Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC). His district in North Carolina is one that is very supportive of the military. His opposition to the continuation of the war is of interest because he had been a supporter of the war, a point he highlighted in his opening: "This is about a policy, that I believed when I voted 2 years ago to commit the troops that I was making my decision on facts. Since that time I have been very disappointed in what I have learned about the justification for going into Iraq."

A majority in Congress requires 218 votes. From this vote, it is evident that those advocating an end to the war, a view that now represents the majority of the people of the United States, ­are 90 votes away from success in the House of Representatives. With an election year coming in 2006, support for the war diminishing, the cost in human lives and the U.S. treasury escalating, a concerted effort by the anti-war movement to convince members of Congress should be the focus. Success is achievable.


Kevin Zeese is Director of Democracy Rising. You can comment on this column by visiting his blogspot on DemocracyRising.US.

http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese05272005.html

[TomInTib]

1. Can you say "base closings"?

This threat to close all these bases (during "war time", no less) will have a chilling effect on any vote along these lines.
With a roll call vote the White House can snipe at individual reps and make sure these amendments get no traction.
I believe one could look at the votes and the list of threatened bases and come up with some pretty interesting conclusions.
Then again, I may be wrong.

[Itsthetruth]

2. Base Closings Insignificant Compared To Jobs Lost Via Outsourcing

The number of jobs being "lost" from base closings amounts to a piss in the ocean compared to the millions of jobs that are being destroyed from downsizing, outsourcing and speed-up so I don't think that's a legitimate reason for voting against the amendment.

If they are so concerned about job losses let them propose legislation prohibiting outsourcing and making it more difficult to downsize. Has such a anti-outsourcing bill been introduced in the House or Senate. I'm mean a bill that actually places server restrictions on oursourcing, not a bill that simply ends tax incentives for outsourcing. Corporations would still outsource millions of jobs even with the abolition of tax incentives.

[libodem]

3. WHAT?

Is she nutz? do you know how much effort it take to even get things up for a vote? What an ass. Where is her conviction?