Reply
Tue 20 Dec, 2005 08:53 am
In a vote held on 16 Dec,2005,143 Democrats voted against victory in Iraq.
To be honest and fair,108 actually voted against victory,and 35 either voted present or posted a no vote.
Along with those dems,10 repubs also voted against victory,as did the one independent.
The vote was House resolution 612.
Now we know exactly who opposes victory in Iraq.
So now we know that it's possible to legislate victory in Iraq. How simple is that?
blueveinedthrobber wrote:bullshit.... as usual
Wanna bet???
Here is the link to the clerk of the house.They are the ones that record and certify ALL votes in the House.
Here is their actual certified vote count,along with how each member voted...
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll648.xml
Read it and then tell me I'm wrong.
Who knew that MM could count past 21?
MM, how about a link to the text of the bill that legislates victory in Iraq? Otherwise I have to agree that it's bullshit.
The text of the bill states:
expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq.
Whereas the Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, the first to take place under the newly ratified Iraqi Constitution, represented a crucial success in the establishment of a democratic, constitutional order in Iraq; and
Whereas Iraqis, who by the millions defied terrorist threats to vote, were protected by Iraqi security forces with the help of United States and Coalition forces: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That--
(1) the House of Representatives is committed to achieving victory in Iraq;
(2) the Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, was a crucial victory for the Iraqi people and Iraq's new democracy, and a defeat for the terrorists who seek to destroy that democracy;
(3) the House of Representatives encourages all Americans to express solidarity with the Iraqi people as they take another step toward their goal of a free, open, and democratic society;
(4) the successful Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, required the presence of United States Armed Forces, United States-trained Iraqi forces, and Coalition forces;
(5) the continued presence of United States Armed Forces in Iraq will be required only until Iraqi forces can stand up so our forces can stand down, and no longer than is required for that purpose;
(6) setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, or immediately terminating their deployment in Iraq and redeploying them elsewhere in the region, is fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq;
(7) the House of Representatives recognizes and honors the tremendous sacrifices made by the members of the United States Armed Forces and their families, along with the members of Iraqi and Coalition forces; and
(8) the House of Representatives has unshakable confidence that, with the support of the American people and the Congress, United States Armed Forces, along with Iraqi and Coalition forces, shall achieve victory in Iraq.
Maybe it is because in the bill it discussed timetables and democrats are for timetables (some) and in this bill, it said a timetable would be inconsistent with victory in Iraq.
I had to do a lot of searching to get the text of bill and apparently it is connected to HR612.
Quote:(6) setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, or immediately terminating their deployment in Iraq and redeploying them elsewhere in the region, is fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq;
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109HOua8B::
Quote:FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 648
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll648.xml
FreeDuck wrote:MM, how about a link to the text of the bill that legislates victory in Iraq? Otherwise I have to agree that it's bullshit.
Did you read the title of the Bill??
If you didnt,here it is...
Expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq
Or,are you saying that the house shouldnt be committed to achieving victory in Iraq?
Mission Accomplished!
What idiots voted against this? Number eight, alone, gives an out.
mysteryman wrote:FreeDuck wrote:MM, how about a link to the text of the bill that legislates victory in Iraq? Otherwise I have to agree that it's bullshit.
Did you read the title of the Bill??
If you didnt,here it is...
Expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq
Or,are you saying that the house shouldnt be committed to achieving victory in Iraq?
Well, I'd certainly say that.
I'm saying that titles of bills, especially these days, have very little to do with what is actually contained in the bill.
You are playing a very dangerous word game.
So Joe,you think we should lose?
Not really the question, the question is, since we have lost the conquest, what do we do now?
mysteryman wrote:So Joe,you think we should lose?
I think if you're trying to play this game, then you've
already lost.
I doubt there many soldiers in Iraq with pictures of Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, or Nancy Pelosi posted in their quarters. Except maybe for a few real sickos.
mysteryman wrote:So Joe,you think we should lose?
Yes, I do. I made my position perfectly clear in
this thread.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace