H03076
Headlines : IraqHouse Kills First Vote on Iraq Withdrawal
Late this afternoon, I placed a last minute call to my congresswoman to vote for the amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill proposed by representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). The amendment called upon President Bush to offer a concrete plan for the withdrawal of US Military Forces from Iraq. Predictably, the amendment was defeated by a large margin, but approximately two thirds of the Democratic representatives did manage to find the courage to vote for it.
[Posted By Gregoire]Republished from Antiwar.com
The House of Representatives voted down a measure, by a 128 to 300 vote, that called on President Bush to devise a plan for a withdrawal from Iraq. It came in the form of an amendment to the $491 billion budget for the Pentagon that was passed on Wednesday night.
But the withdrawal amendment marks the first time that Congress has officially voted and debated legislation that deals with a withdrawal.
“No, it won’t pass today, but it will give us a chance to talk about it,” said Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), the sponsor of the amendment. “It’s an opportunity for members of Congress who are frustrated that our troops are being killed for a war that wasn’t necessary in the first place and that there is no plan in sight to bring them home.”
Despite the overwhelming defeat, about two-thirds of Democrats voted for it and so did five Republicans – a dramatic shift from just a few months ago, when talk of a potential withdrawal was taboo for even the most progressive lawmakers.
Of the five Republicans to vote for Woolsey’s amendment, only one, Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina, spoke in favor of it on the House floor. Jones, one of…
Posted by Gregoire
I was born in NYC, raised in Palo Alto CA, attended university at UC Santa Cruz. I spent the better part of a decade traveling in Asia and working in restaurants before entering graduate school in Tibetan and Buddhist Studies at UVA in Charlottesville VA,...
What a bunch of assholes. The reason given for the defeat of this bill is absurd and undoubtedly ostensible. If a concrete timetable were provided for withdrawing from Iraq, and if as much focus and dedication were given to this objective as was given to holding elections, not only would withdrawal occur, but I think with the ability to see the light at the end of the tunnel, Iraq might not turn out so bad after all. The good insurgents – fighting because loved ones have been killed, livelihoods destroyed – would be separated from the bad insurgents, who, like many of the congressmen who undoubtedly voted this bill down, fight for religion more than anything else.
The timetable wouldn’t have to be arbitrary and untenable, either – proper time ought to be given for reconstruction of Iraqi infrastructure, etc., as opposed to permanent military bases. And if we were to undertake a total withdrawal, the Iraqis who are recruiting kids off the street to fight would have one less bad thing to say about America – they wouldn’t be able to say that we’re planning on staying there forever.
It’s true that the bad guys would know the time of our departure, but if they believed this time were set in stone, would they keep detonating car bombs? They want us to leave, that’s their goal. They’ve achieved their goal. What’s the point of killing more Iraqis? I suppose not all of the car bombs would stop, that’s about as unrealistic as rose petals in the streets, but I think the violence would decrease.
The Administration should devise a plan to wind down the conflict and get the Iraqis more involved in their own defense. The problem is that it must not be binding, since it is hard to know when they will be ready. We will not be able to know in advance when Iraq will be ready to cope with the terror gangs on their own.
I think that the US should play the role of providing the air power, bombing the terror gangs from the air, while having Iraqis get the terror gangs from the ground.