Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Scorecard: The Iraq Debate So Far

****Thursday's House Action****

Roll Call 624, Responsible Redeployment From Iraq Act (Passed):

With a 223-201 vote, the House 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.

A look at the 'No" Voters | Full Voting List


****Wednesday's Senate Action****

Roll Call 241, Webb Amendment, Cloture Vote (Rejected):

The Webb amendment would have required that active-duty troops spend as much time at home on domestic soil as they do on the battlefields of Iraq, an attempt to relieve stress of soldiers and the long time they've spent deployed in Iraq. If an Army soldier spent one year in Iraq, he or she could not be redeployed back to Iraq unless he or she had spent one year state-side. Reservists who were called up to spend time in Iraq would then get three times as much state-side time before they could be re-deployed back to Iraq.

How They Voted

Roll Call 242, Lieberman (Agreed to):

The Lieberman amendment, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, denounced Iran's alleged role in tacitly supporting attacks on U.S. soldiers by Shiite militias. It also stated that the murder of U.S. service members by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable and unacceptable act against the United States by that government, and establishes a regular report to Congress on Iran's anti-coalition attacks in Iraq.

How They Voted

Roll Call 243, Hagel (Rejected):

Differing from the Webb amendment's effort at creating more time on domestic soil, the Hagel amendment tried to limit the overall amount of time troops could spend in Iraq. A member of the Army could not be deployed for more than twelve consecutive months. A Marine could not be deployed for more than seven consecutive months.

How They Voted

Roll Call 244, Graham (Rejected):

Also dealing with length of time between deployments, Graham's sense-of-the-Senate resolution would have mandated active-duty soldiers get 1 year between their deployments to Iraq and 5 years between deployments to Iraq for reservists called up for battle. For example, if an active-duty soldier spend 18 months in Baghdad, he or she could not return to Iraq for one year.

How They Voted

By washingtonpost.com Editors  |  July 13, 2007; 9:25 AM ET
Categories:  Iraq  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The House's Iraq Vote: A Look at the 'Defectors'
Next: House Members Shell Out $1 Million in Legal Bills

Comments

Great summary of the week. I hope you do this more often.

Posted by: Stephen | July 13, 2007 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps WaPo needs to send a reporter over to the Senate. Reid just announced that he's going to force the GOP to filibuster the Levin amendment the old-fashioned way on Tuesday.

Posted by: ? | July 16, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

I support the political leaders who recognize the everyday needs of the American people. People of this country wants to see immediate action of withdrawing troops from Iraq as well as ending this enormous mistake President Bush got us into. On the other hand, this administration needs to recognize the war in Iraq is a complete failure and mistake. 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 16, 2007 10:48 PM | Report abuse

The circus is back,Al Qaeda is at 2001 stength levels and the best the ringmaster can muster is, (if we hadn't invaded Iraq and taken the battle to them they'd be here now). We are in greater danger due to the miguided and irresponsible foreign policy followed by President G.W Bush and V.P. Dick Cheney. The inability of even conservitive Republicans to allow the worst foriegn policy mistake in the history of the United States of America to continue by sticking to party lines is a gross injustice of what our founding fathers envisioned. its time to corral this cowboy,hogtie him and letroast over the coals of history.
tom mcmahon
tommic856

Posted by: tom mcmahon | July 17, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

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 17, 2007 8:01 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company