Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The House's Iraq Vote: A Look at the 'Defectors'

With a 223-201 vote, the House has once again voted to set a deadline for ending major military actions in Iraq, a move that came despite a highly unified Republican opposition to any timeline for withdrawal.

The final tally was similar to previous votes that included strong withdrawal language. This time around House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) kept her left flank firmly in check, as all but one member of the Out of Iraq Caucus -- Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) -- supported the bill, which would call for almost all troops off the Iraqi battlefields by April 1, 2008. Kucinich believes the bill did not go far enough to end the war immediately.

The remaining 9 'nay' votes among Democrats all came from lawmakers who represent mostly rural, moderate-to-conservative districts. Of the 42 freshmen elected in 2006, only two -- Reps. Christopher Carney (D-Pa.) and Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) -- voted against the resolution.

Four of the Democratic 'nays' came from lawmakers who had previously supported timelines for withdrawal: Reps. Carney, Ellsworth, Tim Holden (Pa.) and Vic Snyder (Ark.). One Democrat who had previously been opposed to withdrawal legislation switched his vote in favor of pulling troops out by next spring -- Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.).

On the GOP side of the aisle, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) continues to maintain incredible solidarity, despite a war that is opposed by 65 percent to 70 percent of the nation, depending on which public opinion poll you're reviewing. Just four Republicans voted with Pelosi, up from two earlier this spring. The new GOP votes for withdrawal were Reps. Jo Ann Emerson (Mo.) and John "Jimmy" Duncan (Tenn.).

Here's a full breakdown of the members who "defected" on today's Iraq vote:

DEMOCRATIC "NOs"

* John Barrow (Ga.)
* Dan Boren (Okla.)
* Christopher Carney (Pa.)
* Brad Ellsworth (Ind.)
* Tim Holden (Pa.)
* Dennis Kucinich (Ohio)
* Jim Marshall (Ga.)
* Jim Matheson (Utah)
* Vic Snyder (Ark.)
* Gene Taylor (Miss.)

GOP "YEAs"

* John 'Jimmy' Duncan (Tenn.)
* Jo Ann Emerson (Mo.)
* Wayne Gilchrest (Md.)
* Walter Jones (N.C.)

By Paul Kane  |  July 12, 2007; 7:23 PM ET
Categories:  House , Iraq  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Dems Hint at Constitutional Showdown Over Miers' No-Show
Next: Scorecard: The Iraq Debate So Far

Comments

I'm happy to see that the congress is taking action towards getting our troops home. However, it is sad to see that the majority of the Republican Party still believes in this failed war. This administration needs to recognize the war in Iraq is a complete mistake and becoming a disaster. There are more critical issues that affecting the lives of millions of americans and people world wide that our president is not taking actions against. Now the war has proven to be a failure and is causing more violence, terror and poverty in this world. According to the Borgen Project, it only takes $19 billion dollars annually to eradicate world hunger and poverty. However, our government has already spent more than $450 billion dollars over this fruitless war in Iraq. It is time for the Bush Administration to take a real interest in the lives of the American people as well as people who are in desperate needs around the world. Stop the lies and stop poverty now. Put away the arrogance and put the needs of the people before political gains.

Posted by: mstessyrue | July 12, 2007 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Yes, the Republican Party strangely refuses to break with the Administration on this one. No matter what we do at this point, the Al Qaeda propagandists will claim victory. W has already handed that victory to them. I would like to see the next Administration transform our efforts to a worldwide hunt for Al Qaeda as wanted criminals, rather than a military adventure against an insurgency in Iraq. We would make a lot more headway against terrorism, at a far lesser cost. Steven Chapman made this case today in a Chicago Tribune op-ed piece that ought to be a roadmap for the next Administration's anti-terror strategy. We are much better off treating Al Qaeda as we treat international fugitives, pedophiles, and organized criminals, rather than enemy combatants in a global war that much of the world doesn't even support.

We gave them a big leg up when we started doing that. And that is why a troop pullout is a step forward, no matter what Al Qaeda will say about it. We ought not to care what Al Qaeda says about it. We ought to care whether we are preventing terrorism and prosecuting terrorists in the most effective way.

Posted by: Harry Bosch | July 12, 2007 10:10 PM | Report abuse

"We are much better off treating Al Qaeda as we treat international fugitives, pedophiles, and organized criminals, rather than enemy combatants in a global war that much of the world doesn't even support."

I agree. Not only have we wasted valuable time (and priceless American lives) but we have absolutely squandered the post-911 outrush of international sympathy and support. Instead of using that to cultivate a truly international effort against the tactic of terror, we have isolated ourselves by pursuing a war on terror.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 12, 2007 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Representative Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) voted with the Democrats tonight on the Iraq War bill. She usually falls in line with the Administration but if the Democrats got her vote, then I expect to see many more Republican defections in September.

Posted by: afam212 | July 12, 2007 10:57 PM | Report abuse

The end is near for this illegal and immoral war. What was a trickle, is now a stream, and will become a flood. Pray it comes soon.

Posted by: Jay | July 13, 2007 12:13 AM | Report abuse

Rejoice in that congress failed and all attempts of ending this war come short of a veto overide.
Support our troops means fighting and continuing the war to eliminate terrorists.
It's good President Bush, and Republicans stay strong to protect americans.
Shame on everyone that wants us to leave- giving the enemy an invitation to attack us agian. Democrats are so far gone that they no longer are in touch with reality or what's good for them. Pres. Bush can and will fight this war until he is done and can 'stick it' to all of the do nothing congress. I commend all 10 democrats that weren't seduced by Stalinist Nancy Pelosi and to continue the war. This pelosi controlled house who has done nothing since being elected except try to challenge executive authority is worthless. Congress's approval rating is the worst ever, lower then the president's.
Jesus will only protect us for so long. We should be thankful for people like John Boehner, Mike Pence, and Pres. Bush who no matter if no body likes them, continue to do the right thing.
Let the liberals that have their heads in the clouds do their own thing and see the consequences of their actions.
The people that stay strong on the war and immigration are going to be the ones that take the white house in 2008.

Posted by: Robert Loewen, MN | July 13, 2007 12:35 AM | Report abuse

Congratulations to Congressmen Ron Paul (R-TX) and Dennis Kucinich (OH-10) who voted AGAINST this timetable bill because both of these presidential candidates believe the war should end immediately and should never have been started. These two are among the handful who voted against the Iraq war in 2002 and both lead the charge to end the war without delay. They are the only consistent Presidential candidates on the war from beginning to end, and should be commended for having the highest principles in this matter.

Posted by: Marc Scott Emery | July 13, 2007 2:44 AM | Report abuse

Well, you see this is the kind of crappy journalism we get from even the "best" media in the land. Dennis Kucinich did NOT vote No. Contrary to Mr. Kane's listing above, Kucinich did not vote at all.

Posted by: Gregory Stricherz | July 13, 2007 9:15 AM | Report abuse

I'd MUCH rather see a listing of the GOP'ers who voted 'no' who are up for re-election in 2008. That would be a lot more interesting. But this isn't The Fix, I guess.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 13, 2007 9:42 AM | Report abuse

The recent failed "surge" in Iraq combined with the inability to find a political solution to the sectarian violence and civil unrest in Iraq has left U.S. without a viable strategy to move forward. Here are the options:
1. troop withdrawal: this would inevitably lead to civil war and a massive refugee crisis which as recent history illustrates almost always results in genocide; Al Qaeda would continue to grow stronger in Iraq and w/out the presence of U.S. forces could resume its global terrorist efforts; Spill over: region wide destabilization -central players being Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Israel
2. further escalation: more civilian casualties; further alienation of the West in the region; thus, broadening the appeal of fundamental ideologies; As a result creating a long term self sustainable insurgency - i.e. Israel\Palestinian crisis (Al Qaeda would become and Iraqi equivalent to Hamas)
Also consider:
Low popular support for the war is the government's best defense against Al Qaeda attacks on U.S. soil; as long as the people want the troops to come home and the government continues its policies, Al Qaeda is too smart to do anything that would rally support for the war.
The only proven effective weapon against an insurgency (real or perceived) is genocide -just ask Pol Pott, Hitler, Stalin, the Timorese, the people of Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo + Chechnya or any Native American.
The Bush doctrine has left a political paradox -both options are correct and both options will result in catastrophic failure. Now decide for yourself!

Posted by: Rich | July 13, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

The recent failed "surge" in Iraq combined with the inability to find a political solution to the sectarian violence and civil unrest in Iraq has left U.S. without a viable strategy to move forward. Here are the options:
1. troop withdrawal: this would inevitably lead to civil war and a massive refugee crisis which as recent history illustrates almost always results in genocide; Al Qaeda would continue to grow stronger in Iraq and w/out the presence of U.S. forces could resume its global terrorist efforts; Spill over: region wide destabilization -central players being Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Israel
2. further escalation: more civilian casualties; further alienation of the West in the region; thus, broadening the appeal of fundamental ideologies; As a result creating a long term self sustainable insurgency - i.e. Israel\Palestinian crisis (Al Qaeda would become and Iraqi equivalent to Hamas)
Also consider:
Low popular support for the war is the government's best defense against Al Qaeda attacks on U.S. soil; as long as the people want the troops to come home and the government continues its policies, Al Qaeda is too smart to do anything that would rally support for the war.
The only proven effective weapon against an insurgency (real or perceived) is genocide -just ask Pol Pott, Hitler, Stalin, the Timorese, the people of Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo + Chechnya or any Native American.
The Bush doctrine has left a political paradox -both options are correct and both options will result in catastrophic failure. Now decide for yourself!

Posted by: Rich | July 13, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

The recent failed "surge" in Iraq combined with the inability to find a political solution to the sectarian violence and civil unrest in Iraq has left U.S. without a viable strategy to move forward. Here are the options:
1. troop withdrawal: this would inevitably lead to civil war and a massive refugee crisis which as recent history illustrates almost always results in genocide; Al Qaeda would continue to grow stronger in Iraq and w/out the presence of U.S. forces could resume its global terrorist efforts; Spill over: region wide destabilization -central players being Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Israel
2. further escalation: more civilian casualties; further alienation of the West in the region; thus, broadening the appeal of fundamental ideologies; As a result creating a long term self sustainable insurgency - i.e. Israel\Palestinian crisis (Al Qaeda would become and Iraqi equivalent to Hamas)
Also consider:
Low popular support for the war is the government's best defense against Al Qaeda attacks on U.S. soil; as long as the people want the troops to come home and the government continues its policies, Al Qaeda is too smart to do anything that would rally support for the war.
The only proven effective weapon against an insurgency (real or perceived) is genocide -just ask Pol Pott, Hitler, Stalin, the Timorese, the people of Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo + Chechnya or any Native American.
The Bush doctrine has left a political paradox -both options are correct and both options will result in catastrophic failure. Now decide for yourself!

Posted by: Rich | July 13, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

If option 1 is full troop withdraw which historically lead to genocide, chances ar egood that the US would be back to continue to fight the war. It does appear that the US-military is effective at destroying genocidal regimes, but is currently demonstrating that it lacks the ability to prevent it by use of military force. It probably is difficult to measure how many genocidal regimes have been prevented from the use of non-military force. But when genocide starts happening, most americans typically rally together and somehow becomes proud of shock-n-aw military action. But until then, we are stuck with knowing there is a mess in Iraq.

If we go with option 2 to stay the course and 'broadening the appeal of fundamental ideologies', well at some point, we [US] get to perform the genocide ourselves if we are not doing that already.

So I think most people would agree with is that we are 'stuck'. It is debatable to say we are 'winning' or 'loosing'. Typically, when you are stuck, one usually gets help from others to help them get unstuck. So with either direction of option 1 or 2 we need other nations to help us get unstuck. Since most world leaders are not big Bush fans, our country will most likely have to wait until 2009 for our new leader to get out and ask for help but that is only if they are competent enough to ask for it.

Posted by: Drew | July 13, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

We will see genocide in Iraq regardless of when we leave. How many more of our brave soldiers need to be killed or maimed in the meantime? We cannot help the casualties up to this point...and yes, they will have been in vain. Like the 50,000 dead in Viet Nam.
We must recognize the Congress was misled, and Chaney/Rummy, and their lapdog, W, have made some horrific mistakes and misjudgements. They will continue to spin, but the end result is obvious.

Posted by: Jay | July 13, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Hey, lets get our facts strait commenters.

Kucinich voted no (as reported).

Paul did not vote.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll624.xml

THis was a BS bill designed to give the Dems cover with their very angry constituents, and continue to paint the Republicans as war supporters.

The Dems had their chance when the supplemental appropriation was up for a vote. Even Bush could do nothing if money was not appropriated. Pelosi made it clear this money would pass, as she has made it clear there will be no impeachment.

I don't know what relief you seek. I only know neither party intends to give you any. But appearance is free.

Posted by: Fascist Nation | July 13, 2007 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Judge C. Crater:
"I'd MUCH rather see a listing of the GOP'ers who voted 'no' who are up for re-election in 2008. That would be a lot more interesting. But this isn't The Fix, I guess."

Since this was a House vote, every member is up for re-election in 2008. All 435 seats in the House are up for re-election.

Every member who voted "yes" is up for re-election. Every member who voted "no" is up for re-election. Every member who didn't vote is up for re-election. The only reason they wouldn't be up for re-election is if they don't run for re-election in 2008.

Also, unless and until they are defeated or resign, every House member will be up for re-election in 2010, 2012, 2014, etc., etc.

Posted by: Critter | July 13, 2007 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Well surprise, surprise, SURPRISE!

Lloyd Dogmeat-Socialist, TX., agreed to play with Ninny Peloser, and pretend to be the Exectutives! They wish! Bet their next impersonation will involve trying to appoint some Libbie Judges! Maybe, fly to Russia, China or possibly Cuba or Venezuela, to discuss the newest Dim Foriegn Policy(We capitulate, what do you want?!).

God only knows why the Dims in the House are not fighting the Agg. Amnesty initiative that is trying to be slipped into appropriations bills(Thought WE made it DAMN clear that was a NO NO!).

Or possibly passing John Carter's(From the American section of Central Texas) Co-Sponsored HR:1940, Birthright Citizenship Act, so we can remove the huge burden being dumped on us by illegal invaders having illegal Anchor Babies!

Or, just anything! What was the Count?-a piddly 6 Bills?

Congressional Approval would be well above 14%, if the Dim's would deliver more than 0%!

I must be a true fortune teller-Because the future of this waste of time, and royal distraction/Partisan ploy, is plainly obvious!

And it is NOT going to be W thanking Peloser and Dogmeat for their noble and devine efforts while ratifying the thing!

Ninny, I hope you printed it on Soft, Absorbant, Two-Ply Paper!

Posted by: RAT-The | July 14, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Chris Carney remains a tremendous disappointment to his 2006 supporters, whom he told he'd vote for the Hate Crimes Bill. You can be sure that Carney will lack the netroots support that provided him with the financial margin to win last time.

Good luck, Congressman Carney -- you'll need it.

Posted by: TeddySanFran | July 15, 2007 4:13 AM | Report abuse

All the talk and like or dislike for Bush will not bring back the wasted lives of Americans. You just dont get it your vote doesnt count and your thought fall only on each other. This government is for covering up the stinch of death with, how much money each person expects to generate for their selves. May the richest person get the White House next. Do you really think a life that gets in the way of a vote to win an election is of any cause to these selfish politians. They would make anyone of us disapear just to get into office and make that money for their friends. There are 26+ other parties try looking for some new solution to an old problem. Otherwise, this is just the second half of the same game,over and over.

Posted by: Leeandrew | July 15, 2007 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Why isn't the MSM here reporting this:
Every Iraqi knows the so-called "hydrocarbon law" - why not be honest and call it the "oil giveaway, or theft, law" - will never pass their Parliament because everyone there knows that Big Oil wants Iraq's sweet light crude for next to nothing. Such a generous offer! A 30-year PSA, 75-80% to international oil, the remainder to be "split equitably among the factions." Highway robbery in the truest sense. No wonder they're pissed and violent.
Thanks, Cheney and gang (literally.) Impeach the lot! Before the neocon-AIPAC, Israeli-supported Iran "incursion."

Posted by: Bill O'Neil | July 16, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

A vote to end the war is Societal suicide. This is a war of Civilizations that has been ebbing and surging since before the Crusades. The stated objective of Islam is the eradication or subjugation of all non-Muslims. They do not want to compromise. They do not want to coexist. They will not go away. We can fight them now or fight them later. We will have to fight. Let's do it now while we have the superior technology. Nobody wants war, but if it's us or them that has to die, I say let's give it our all and prevail while we can.

Posted by: David Horning | July 16, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

While the U.S. government and media keep focusing on defense policies, campaign advertisement and the war in Iraq, 1.2 billion people in the world continue surviving on less than $1 dollar a day. I would like to see all presidential candidates regardless of their political affiliations, support more international problems that affect our place in this world, such as global poverty. We should not forget the commitment made towards the U.N. Millennium Goals (a pact of ending extreme world hunger by the year 2025) in 2000. While the U.S. government and media keep focusing on defense policies and the war in Iraq, 1.2 billion people in the world continue surviving on less than $1 dollar a day. According to The Borgen Project, an annual $19 billion dollars is needed to eliminate half of the extreme poverty affecting the world by the year 2015. To my sense, it is almost unacceptable to have spent so far more than $340 billion in Iraq only, when we have more than war immunities to change the world and eliminate poverty.

Posted by: aileench | July 16, 2007 10:50 PM | Report abuse

jftvaqndm vmxkr xpcntu trbsnofic wgiurhqs ljed isqohrnl

Posted by: vfqouzpk ujivlh | August 30, 2007 8:45 PM | Report abuse

pmhc rksb oxyr ajtn nkzaw ysbmpa xoyenblrm http://www.woqbelr.cjumqpf.com

Posted by: iscq vdezfinm | August 30, 2007 8:46 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company