House Democrats Vote For Defeat

• March 24, 2007

A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress’ boldest challenge yet to the administration’s policy.
Ignoring a White House veto threat, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a binding war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.
With Democrats holding 233 seats and Republicans with 201, Democrats were able to afford only 15 “no” votes. Accordingly, Pelosi, and her leadership team spent days trying to convince members that the bill was Congress’ best chance of forcing Bush to change course—an argument that was aided when they added more than $20 billion in domestic spending in an effort to lure votes.

I find it absolutely disgusting that the Democrats added Twenty Billions of Dollars of pork to lure votes. The global war on terror is the crucial issue of our time and you have Nancy-Pants buying off Democrats in order to get their vote. Treason? You decide.
The American people do not want defeat in Iraq or in the larger war on terror. I predict that this was is going to define the Democrats as the anti-American party that they’ve become. That is if the Republicans continue to stand against them.
Right now the enemy is very near it’s end. The surge is working. The only way Al Qaeda can win is if the Democrats hand them victory.

Tags: War On Terror

http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

It takes a special kind of coward to vote to ensure the defeat of our troops in what is really a world wide struggle. The people who support this have clearly demonstrated they are not able to think like a rational adult, much less act beyond the end of the nose of the anti-American special interest groups like Code Pink.

That’s the heart of the Democrat party.
carrick

Is this the best nancy-pants can do?

Give her time. Royally f**king things up takes time.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Give her time. Royally f**king things up takes time.

I think she’s going to have a very tough time accomplishing anything. Gridlock is good.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

I’m willing to bet that most of them voted for this bill because they know that it’s not going to happen

Certainly there’s some of that, but I wouldn’t say it was more than half.
carrick

That’s pretty interesting TW, especially considering that the yearly “pork barrel” spending has been around $20 billion/year total under Republican congresses. So what we have hear is a gigantic bribe to purchase enough votes to get a legislation that has little hope of surviving past the house-senate conference, and no hope of surviving a presidential veto.

I’ve argued in the past that plus-ups do serve a useful role in distributing the decision making. I still believe that (thinking that anytime you centralize decision making, it’s going to get worse). But this gigantic payoff is a perfect example of why reforms in the process are absolutely necessary (something I’ve agreed to in the past as well).
http://www.tifosi1f1.blogspot.com/ Chris Brownell

So one can conclude a few things from this vote’s result:

A) Michael Savage is correct in stating that “Liberalism is a mental disorder!”

B) There are 218 anti-military retards now serving in the House of Representatives.

C) Liberals in the House of Representatives are clearly not interested in seeing that the Commander In Chief has made a thus far very successful change in direction, which has lead to a disintegration of the Mahadi militia, decrease in casualties of our troops due to the IED attacks, and the reduction of violence overall in Iraq. A surge in troops has been a change of course, and it has supported the mission, our national interests, and the troops specifically. Liberals are unwilling to see the reality of the situation.

C) Most Americans are able to understand that our securing peace, setting up a FRIENDLY democracy elected by the people of Iraq, is in our national interest, and will benefit Iraq, Israel and the United States.

D) It takes a special kind of coward to vote to ensure the defeat of our troops in what is really a world wide struggle. The people who support this have clearly demonstrated they are not able to think like a rational adult, much less act beyond the end of the nose of the anti-American special interest groups like Code Pink.

C.
kbiel

B) There are 218 anti-military retards now serving in the House of Representatives.

I’m not sure that they are primarily anti-military. I’m willing to bet that most of them voted for this bill because they know that it’s not going to happen and they think it will help them with the liberal retards in their districts. I personally think (and hope for the sake of our country) that they are wrong and that this hurts their campaigns in ’08.

So to recap, not necessarily anti-military, just opportunist pigs hoping to bribe the mental midgets of their constituencies.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

But this gigantic payoff is a perfect example of why reforms in the process are absolutely necessary (something I’ve agreed to in the past as well).

Right, pork does not belong mixed up with national security.

And I agree that I think there is a place for the congressional delegations to have a say with exactly how money is spent rather than unelected bureaucrats. It’s what they spend the money on that bothers me.

Is this the best nancy-pants can do?
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Bin Laden said that the US pullout in Somalia encouraged him to attack the US. Why don’t the Demoncrats realize that this would be a thousand times more encouraging to the islamofascists?
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

$74 million for peanut storage, but not one cent for tribute!
http://www.tifosi1f1.blogspot.com/ Chris Brownell

Kbiel said “I’m not sure that they are primarily anti-military.” I am not sure I am inclined to completly disagree with you, however we have to judge these pandering idiots for what they do, or more specifically how they vote.

They, all 218 of them, voted for defeat of our military, and its strategy. This is an example of mentally defective liberal thinking.

C.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Good points BB. If the President gets combative I think this issue will turn to him, strongly. By and large I think the US people do not want us to leave in defeat.

The administration should be fighting for our troops as hard as the troops are fighting for us.
bambam

Isn’t this how the Dems are going to de-fund the Iraq war and subsequently blame it on Bush?

Bush has already said he’ll veto the bill, if it gets through the Senate.
Then, it goes back to the House and stalls. Then, maybe something new comes out that’s still not acceptable to the POTUS. So it’s Veto #2 or Senate problems again.
Isn’t this the definition of “SLOW BLEED”?
Sooner or later the funding will run out. Bush will whine about the Dems and the Dems with help from the MSM will blame Bush and make it stick that he vetoed the funding of our troops.
Murtha’s plan will have run its course and we will have over a hundred thousand troops in Iraq without the money to see the “surge” through to victory.

Isn’t it ironic that Dems voted to retreat from Iraq the same day Iran captured British military personnel.

SayAnythingBlog.com

House Democrats Vote For Defeat

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments