House Passes Responsible Redeployment From Iraq Act

by Todd Beeton, Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:21:41 PM EDT

This evening The House passed the Responsible Redeployment From Iraq Act by 223-201 (roll call is HERE.) This is a remarkable improvement over the McGovern amendment, which only had 171 votes for withdrawal in May, and even represents an improvement over the more moderate Iraq Accountability Act, which passed the House with 218 Yeas. While we're making some progress convincing more members to support withdrawal, we're still well short of the point at which Mr. 26%'s veto pen will cease to be a factor.

Republicans voting Yea:

Reps. Duncan, Emerson, Gilchrest, Jones (N.C.)

Democrats voting Nay:

Reps. Barrow, Boren, Carney, Ellsworth, Holden, Kucinich, Marshall, Matheson, Snyder, Taylor

Representatives not voting:

Berkley, Conyers, Cubin, Davis, Jo Ann, Jindal, Paul, Tancredo, Young (AK)

Tags: Iraq, Responsible Redeployment From Iraq Act, withdrawal (all tags)

  • 21 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

21 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Kucinich votes No?

That makes him totally irrelevant in my opinion.

by DoIT 2007-07-12 03:43PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Kucinich votes No?

I bet he'd vote yes on a veto override. He's just doing what he does.

by LandStander 2007-07-12 03:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Kucinich votes No?

Is he going Lieberman on us?

by Jim Treglio 2007-07-12 04:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Kucinich votes No?

No he is voting no because he doesn't think it goes far enough, this is what he does with everyone of the Iraq votes.

He'll vote yes on a veto override but he isn't going to vote on a bill that he thinks does less than it should.

by JDF 2007-07-12 05:00PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Kucinich votes No?

http://armedservices.house.gov/hearing_i nformation.shtml
http://www.texasforclark.com/WPvideo/has c2.mp3

http://hascaudio.house.gov/OI071207.wma
http://news.webshots.com/album/559859785 IVTJHB

On Thursday, July 12, 2007 General Clark testfied before the House Armed Services' Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on "A Third Way: Alternatives for Iraq's Future", 2212 Rayburn. Witnesses - * General Wesley K. Clark (USA, ret.) - Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. * Max Boot, Senior Fellow, National Security Studies Council on Foreign Relations. *Dr. Muqtedar Khan -Assistant Professor, Political Science and International Relations, University of Delaware, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution

by dearreader 2007-07-13 05:45AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Are you kidding?

This is the guy trying to impeach bush and cheney.  He obviously voted no for some peace reason.  He probably would have voted for it if the vote was close.

by delmoi 2007-07-12 05:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Kucinich? No?

I wasn't aware that there were two Kucinich's in the House of Representatives.

That has to be a typo right? Seriously, there's got to be a logical explanation. Something isn't jiving.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-12 05:34PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Kucinich? No?
per JDF above -
>>>No he is voting no because he doesn't think it goes far enough, this is what he does with everyone of the Iraq votes.
by annefrank 2007-07-12 05:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Kucinich? No?

I knew something was up. So, he wants them on the first flight out tomorrow?

;p

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-12 06:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Why so long.

Tonight would even be better.

by littafi 2007-07-12 08:20PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Kucinich? No?

   I'm a little surprised that there were no other members on the progressive side who voted against it. The other time there were some others like Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters who voted no because they didn't want any more funding for the war. This time the Kooch is out on the limb by himself...

by Zack from the SFV 2007-07-12 09:15PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: House Passes Responsible Redeployment From Ira

If I were in Dennis' place I would probably have voted yes. That said, this bill has loopholes big enough to drive an armoured division through. A partial draw down leaving an indeterminate number of troops behind for 'training' and 'fighting Al Qaeda' is massively problematic. Still, you have to start somewhere.

by John Seal 2007-07-12 07:21PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: House Passes Responsible Redeployment From Ira

Hm... So assuming that we pick up, say, 2 of the Dems on a veto override, plus the 2 not voting Dems... that leaves us with 223 yea votes, and we need... 290.

So we need 67 Republicans?  Crap.

by themann1086 2007-07-12 07:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: House Passes Responsible Redeployment From Ira

The only way we're going to end the war before 2009 is if Democrats stop funding it.  Bush can't veto not-funding a war, and we only need 50% to do this.

by Go Vegetarian 2007-07-12 07:37PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: House Passes Responsible Redeployment From Ira

Completely agreed. If they wanted to be pricks about it, they could even establish how many troops each level of funding could support -- so that way the White House will know exactly how many troops to pull, and from where.

But of course, this will come off as not supporting the troops.
I guess there are worse things, but the Democrats probably shouldn't get too crazy if they want to keep their new majority.

by Brad ODonnell 2007-07-12 07:43PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
That is John Edwards'

position.  Use the power of the purse.

by littafi 2007-07-12 08:21PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: That is John Edwards'

I think the problem is that the Republicans need only "50 percent plus one" to get a bill passed, and if we shut down a supplemental, then the administration will make it part of the regular defense appropriation, which will make it more difficult to shoot down(so to speak).  I don't think appropriations bills can be filibustered, otherwise we could tie things up for quite a while.  

by megaplayboy 2007-07-13 05:27AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Gilchrest - some local Maryland dope

While Gilchrest's district on the Maryland Eastern Shore is very red, it has a small exclave on the more moderate Western Shore.  Frank Kratovil Jr., is the son of a Prince George's County judge and is a prosecutor on the Shore, well-liked moderate Democrat, and will win the Dem nomination to try to take Gilchrest's lunch.  Plus half of the lawyers in PG County will give him money out of gratitude that his personality is different from his father's....

Gilchrest is being "primaried" by a hard-right activist State Senator Andrew Harris.  It's interesting that Gilchrest probably concluded that Kratovil was the bigger threat than Senator Harris given former Governor Bob Ehrlich is breaking protocol and backing the challenger Dr. Harris pretty strongly.  Peculiar.

by Bruce Godfrey 2007-07-12 09:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Gilchrest - some local Maryland dope

I don't think Gilchrest is at all vulnerable. he's spent a lot of time cultivating his nice guy image, and he actually does have some moderate credentials, unlike most "moderate" Republicans.

and I highly doubt Eastern Shore voters, Democrat or Republican, would be enthused with voting for someone who lives on the Western Shore.

by johnny longtorso 2007-07-13 04:31AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Gilchrest - some local Maryland dope

My fear is that Harris will pick off Gilchrest in the primary and then breeze through the general.  

MD will then have bookend neanderthals in the the first and sixth districts.

by howie14 2007-07-13 09:12AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Gilchrest - some local Maryland dope

As a reelected Queen Anne's County prosecutor, Kratovil could overcome part of the "other side" problem but not all of it; he did not grow up on the Shore.  Harris would encounter that problem, but would appeal better to the base.  I don't know....

by Bruce Godfrey 2007-07-13 08:40PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------