House Passes Timelines for Withdrawal

It was a squeaker, but the House Democrats managed to get timelines included in the $124 billion Iraq spending bill:

The House of Representatives today passed a $124 billion emergency spending bill that sets binding benchmarks for progress in Iraq, establishes tough readiness standards for deploying U.S. troops abroad and requires the withdrawal of American combat forces from Iraq by the end of August 2008.

The vote was 218 to 212, mostly along party lines; two Republicans voted with the Democrats, and 14 Dems voted against the bill.  Among the Democrats opposing the legislation were some who felt it did not go far enough:

Congresswoman Barbara Lee said "I have struggled with this decision, but I finally decided that, while I cannot betray my conscience, I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war."

Others opposing it for being too timid included Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, Diane Watson, and Dennis Kucinich.

The vote follows committee passage in the Senate of a bill that would bring the troops home within a year.   President Bush called the House vote  "an act of political theater" and promised to veto the bill if it made it to his desk.

Discuss.

  • spicey (unverified)
    (Show?)

    let's get this party started! Go Dems, bring the troops home NOW!

    PS - from everywhere, yep, everywhere.

  • Heals (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is the risk we run; the vote was important and significant because it told the president that we're not giving him a blank check or a greenlight to proceed with this ill-managed and mis-begotten war in Iraq. He got the blankcheck/rubber-stamp from the previous Congress and it got us to this point; but bring the troops home from everywhere? Even from Iraq? In a perfect world, I agree with your sentiment; but we Democrats can't be reactionary; we must be leaders, we must have a plan, we must be visionary. There's a point where being irresponsible will inevitably leads us to the Minority status once again. We have to be SMART and take necessary steps for withdrawal from Iraq (only Iraq) but in conjunction with a proper plan. We have to lead from the middle so we get a majority behind us that will STICK with us. If the fringe leads, or the ultra-Liberal wing dictates direction then we will be saying goodbye to our status as the majority. I'm in agreement with you but we can't move to quickly and we must LEAD smartly...we can't do it because it's popular. The mandate Democrats got in November wasn't an immediate for an immediate pullout but a demand for a change of leadership to GUIDE us with VISION for a better world and a better change.

  • leadingfromthemiddle (unverified)
    (Show?)

    “Cowardice asks the question, ”Is it safe? Expediency asks the question, “Is it politic?” Vanity asks the question, “Is it popular?” But, conscience asks the question, “Is it right?’ And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because one’s conscience tells one that it is right.”

    Martin Luther King Jr. (On the wall at KPFK-Los Angeles)

  • MCT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Politically this bill is a Mexican stand-off between Congress and the administration. We all know Bush has no compunction about putting our troops at risk in a dangerous an unwin-able millitary action, that has no real plan of action. He won't mind vetoing this bill, cutting funds for the troops and then saying it's the fault of Congress when the chaos deepens and American deaths and maimings escalate. That's his M.O.....always somebody else's fault. Never his mistake.

    If all of those in DC who are participating in the slow grinding wheels of change spent one 24 hour period in the shoes of one American soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan.... (and where is the verbiage re getting our servicemen home from Afghanistan? It really IS the forgotten war.).... THEN we'd see some progress. Turbo charged.

  • (Show?)

    While I applaud Pelosi for being able to round up the Dogies to get this thing passed, discussion about actual troop funding being at risk is ludicrous.

    There are multi-billion slush funds and borrowing mechanisms scattered throughout the "discretionary" and "black" portions of the annual US budget. The troops will never be at any greater risk than the risk they currently face which is brought on by the combination of arrogance and ignorance exhibited boneheaded NeoCons and Republican political hacks who serve as administration officials.

    I think that this is one of the main reasons she was able to get it done.

  • Garrett (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kudos to Pelosi to get the Blue Dogs in on this one. The thing that really irked me was the Dems that voted against the measure because it didn't bring the troops home immediately. It sort of reminded me of a little kid throwing a fit because they didn't get their way. I still don't think there is any way that this timeline actually has a chance of happening. Perhaps it will be some sort of a wake up call with the administration but I also have plenty of doubts about that too. It was nice to see Hagel talking about impeachment if the President didn't start to "get it".

  • zach h (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Among the Democrats opposing the legislation were some who felt it did not go far enough:

    Congresswoman Barbara Lee said "I have struggled with this decision, but I finally decided that, while I cannot betray my conscience, I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war."
    
    <h2>- I think she's saying that she had to betray her conscience by voting for this bill, but she's also saying she dosen't really have a say, just sort of following what the majority wants. Way to go free thinkers!</h2>
in the news 2007

connect with blueoregon