Michelle Malkin » White Flag Dems pass Iraq withdrawal bill

White Flag Dems pass Iraq withdrawal bill

By Michelle Malkin • November 14, 2007 11:05 PM

Time to bring it out again…

Just about an hour ago, the Dems passed their Iraq withdrawal bill, tying $50 billion in war funding to a demand that President Bush start bringing troops home in coming weeks (never mind that it’s already starting) with a mandated timetable of ending combat by December 2008:

House Democrats pushed through a $50 billion bill for the Iraq war Wednesday night that would require President Bush to start bringing troops home in coming weeks with a goal of ending combat by December 2008.

The legislation, passed 218-203, was largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who already has begun reducing force levels but opposes a congressionally mandated timetable on the war. And while the measure was unlikely to pass in the Senate — let alone overcome a presidential veto — Democrats said they wanted voters to know they weren’t giving up.

“The fact is, we can no longer sustain the military deployment in Iraq,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “Staying there in the manner that we are there is no longer an option.”

Translation of Pelosi’s remarks: “Stop pestering me, Code Pink! I beg you to stop!”

The White House says it will veto the bill; the GOP reportedly will back the president. Nancy was sweating it for a bit this evening:

The bill represents about a quarter of the $196 billion Bush requested for combat operations in the 2008 budget year, which began Oct 1.

It would compel an unspecified number of troops to leave Iraq within 30 days, a requirement Bush is already on track to meet as he begins in coming weeks to reverse the 30,000 troop buildup he ordered earlier this year. It also sets a goal of ending combat by Dec. 15, 2008, and states that money included in the bill should be used to redeploy troops and “not to extend or prolong the war.”

The measure also would set government-wide standards on interrogation, effectively barring the CIA from using such harsh techniques as waterboarding, which simulates drowning.

The bill was on shaky ground this week, after some liberal Democrats said they were concerned it was too soft and would not force Bush to end the war. Conservative Democrats said they thought it went too far and would tie the hands of military commanders.

The bill’s prospects brightened somewhat after three leading anti-war Democrats announced they would support it. California Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters said they had agreed to swing behind it because the bill explicitly states the money should be used to bring troops home.

But still uncertain the bill would pass, Pelosi on Wednesday delayed a vote by several hours while she met with supporters and asked them to help her round up votes.

Fifteen Democrats broke ranks and joined 188 Republicans in opposing the measure. Four Republicans joined 214 Democrats in supporting it.

Roll call vote coming up…

Here it is.

The 15 Dems who opposed the withdrawal bill:

Allen
Baird
Barrow
Boren
Cooper
Kucinich (because he didn’t think it went far enough)
Lampson
Marshall
Matheson
McNulty
Michaud
Snyder
Stark (because he didn’t think it went far enough)
Tanner
Taylor

The 4 Republicans who supported the withdrawal bill:

English (PA)
Jones (NC)
Shays
Walsh (NY)

One voted “present:”

Lewis (GA)

And 11 didn’t vote:

Bono
Carson
Cubin
Doyle
Hastert
Jindal
Mack
Oberstar
Pearce
Sessions
Weller

***

John Boehner’s office e-mailed the following statement following the vote:

“By Christmas, some 3,000 American troops will return home from Iraq after achieving remarkable success in our fight against al Qaeda. And how is Congress welcoming them back? By passing yet another politically-motivated measure that cuts off funding for those continuing to serve our nation in Iraq and hamstrings the commanders who are leading them to victory. This measure will never be signed into law, and it represents yet another failure for Democratic leaders intent on putting politics before accomplishment.

“Congress would be better served by sending the President the long-overdue veterans and troops funding bill, which enjoys broad, bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. But the Majority leadership has played politics with this critical legislation, stalling its completion to take up today’s cynical proposal to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. Consequently, returning troops and their families will face more hurdles and take more time to get the housing and health care benefits they deserve – all thanks to Congress.

“Under General Petraeus’ strategy, our troops are routing al Qaeda in Iraq, improving security for the Iraqi people, and laying the foundation for critical political reconciliation in that country. Congress should not undermine this success and risk having al Qaeda stand back up. Instead, Members of both parties should recognize that the Petraeus plan is working, continue to solidify our troops’ gains, and work to bring them home after victory, not defeat.”

Meanwhile, over in Iraq…

More from the front on the Dawn Patrol at Mudville Gazette. And Herschel Smith at Captain’s Journal.

***

The NYT covers tonight’s “rancorous debate” on the House floor:

In two hours of rancorous debate on the House floor, Republicans stressed the recent progress in Iraq while Democrats said that the political situation remained bleak and that it was time to pull out American troops.

“The sacrifice of our troops was simply not met by the actions of the Iraqi government,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. “This legislation today offers something fundamentally different than what President Bush is proposing, a 10-year war, a war without end costing trillions of dollars. It provides the tools to our troops so they can get the job done. It also presents a strategy that will bring them home, responsibly, honorably, safely and soon.”

…For Republicans, the debate provided another chance to accuse the Democrats of wasting time. “Today, if my calculations are right, we will have our 58th vote on trying to restrain the commanders in the field in Iraq,” said Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the Republican whip. “The Democrats appear to never get tired of foregone conclusions, to never get tired of doing the same thing over and over again with the same result — the ultimate Groundhog Day of legislation that doesn’t get us anywhere.”

The White House also hammered the Democrats in Congress. Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, promised a veto and accused the Democrats of ignoring gains in Iraq.

You’ll love this bit of editorializing in the last paragraph of the NYT piece:

The debate over war financing also provided a forum for Republicans to praise recent developments in Iraq, including what they called a decline in violence.

“…what they called a decline in violence.”

“They” are not the only ones calling it that.

Related: A Pat Dollard reader has an interesting exchange with a WaPo reporter about the MSM coverage of Iraq. Read it.

Related: Make The Long War Journal part of your daily diet.

Posted in: White Flag Democrats

Printer Friendly

comments (96)

trackbacks (19)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#172617

On November 15th, 2007 at 12:42 pm, mileslibertatis said:

We will win unless the Congress decides to lose this war for America.

We should adapt a surge cycle. I am most likely destined for Iraq (I’m a Quartermaster), and frankly I would very much rather go during a surge than after the drawdown.
#172632

On November 15th, 2007 at 1:04 pm, John Ansell said:

Incumbents need not apply!!!
#172637

On November 15th, 2007 at 1:09 pm, DavidHughes said:

Since they aren’t doing much in Congress anyway, why don’t they all take a vacation together in the Middle East? I wouldn’t complain about them using taxpayer money to get the biggest, fanciest AirBus they could get to fly over and tour Baghdad in person. I guess that would be a little too tempting for an attack on that plane, seeing as how all of our elected officials would be on it (not by any Islamic extremist, mind you, but by someone in that 89% of Americans who are fed up with these idiots).

P.S. I’m not one who condones violent behavior, but I can think of a few Congressmen and women who would be much safer walking down any street in the Anbar province unescorted than in some communities here at the moment. When are these folks going to start representing the majority of their constituents rather the vocal minority or special interest groups?
#172648

On November 15th, 2007 at 1:25 pm, ArmywifeArmymom said:

Wonder how the families of men and or women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan feel about the democrats playing politics with their lives.

It gets really old. As if having the weight of the free world on their shoulders is not enough, our soldiers also get to carry the weight of a non-supportive and openly hostile Congress.

Yeah, but they support the troops (and call them killers, uneducated, play with their funding, etc.)

With that kind of support and a Congress like this, who needs enemies?
#172675

On November 15th, 2007 at 1:50 pm, Kevin from Ohio in Virginia said:

I would only support a withdrawal bill as it relates to Democratic fathers.
#172747

On November 15th, 2007 at 2:58 pm, UnclaimedMoney said:

On November 15th, 2007 at 9:53 am, Bonsai Billy said:

Until you so-called patriots are willing to propose/enact a gas/oil tax, you are funding the enemy and that makes all your “white flag” complaints offensively trivial in comparison.

Someone tell the troll that roughly 50 cents (it varies state to state) of every gallon of gas goes to TAXES ALREADY! While only 9 cents goes to oil company profits. So we don’t need to “propose/enact a gas/oil tax” genius, we’ve got plenty of them already. I know, despite being wrong time and time again, you liberalism requires that you submit tax hikes as a solution for anything and everything. I’ve got a better idea – how about you just don’t comment unless you know what you’re talking about.
#172804

On November 15th, 2007 at 4:04 pm, Archon said:

Mileslibertatis,

Keep your head down over there, bro. You’d be surprised how many Combat Support and Combat Service Support guys are finding out why their branch has the word “combat” in it. Keep up the good fight, and most importantly, Emrace the Hate.

Fornicate quicemque es non nostrum
#173362

On November 15th, 2007 at 11:23 pm, RetFireman said:

Do these Libs honestly believe that we are not focusing efforts using SPecForce and such? I hear this all the time. We need to get the troops out and use covert ops and such. We should never have pulled the troops out of Afghanistan and stopped the search of UBL and his cohorts.

These statements just go to show how ignorant and uninformed they are concerning military activities and just exactly what is happening in this war.

SpecForces was in Afghanistan IMMEDIATELY following the 9-11 attacks, well before the first bombs fell. They were there setting up agreements with warlords, mapping out areas, setting up targets etc. They have remained in country ever since. There is a large contingent of Coalition troops still in Afghanistan, raiding outposts and hideouts and actively fighting Taliban and Al Qaeda remnants as well as staying hot on UBL’s butt to where they cannot ever get comfortabkle and re-establish a base there. They are killing the enemy every stinking day.

As for Iraq, the same is going on there. There are SpecForces all over the country, rooting out the enemy, their leaders, caches of arms and weapons etc.

It is actually an incredible insult to each and every member of the military to claim that they aren’t there. It blatantly ignores their service, not to mention their accomplishments.

However, more to the point, it shows how stupid they are. Special Forces alone CANNOT solve this situation or fight a war on their own. They are specialized troops with certain functions. The regular guys have their purpose as well. They are in both countries doing a bang up job of helping the people and killing the enemy, sending them to the moon god holding what parts of them they could find.

I realize that their stupidity and ignorance knows no bounds, but it really has to stop. If you don’t know what you are talking about to a 100% knowledge base, just shut up. All you do is prove to everyone who does know what an absolute moron you are. You do not appear “patriotic” by attempting to look like ou know anything. If anything, you are only showing that much more your non-understanding of what is really going on and what is at stake.

You do not “redeploy” or drop troop levels in the face of victory. All that accomplishes is give the enemy hope and momentum to re-establish control and holds in places where previously they had been routed.