I think the RNC's white flag ad is everyday looking more and more appropriate
Posted on 12/20/2005 9:14:22 AM PST by Phantom Lord
On Friday, December 16th, the US House of Representatives voted on HR 612, Expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq
108 democrats and 1 independent (Sanders) voted AGAINST American victory in Iraq.
Here is the roll call of the votes. See how your rep voted.
I know how mine voted without even peeking.....
Can't you just see the RNC ads now. LOL!!
| Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Baca Baldwin Becerra Blumenauer Brady (PA) Brown (OH) Brown, Corrine Capps Capuano Cardin Clay Cleaver Clyburn Conyers Crowley Cummings Davis (IL) DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Dingell Doggett Doyle Evans Farr Fattah Filner Frank (MA) Green, Al Grijalva Gutierrez Hastings (FL) Hinchey Holt |
Honda Inslee Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jones (OH) Kanjorski Kildee Kilpatrick (MI) Kucinich Larson (CT) Lee Levin Lewis (GA) Lynch Markey McCollum (MN) McDermott McGovern McKinney Meehan Meeks (NY) Menendez Millender-McDonald Miller (NC) Miller, George Mollohan Moore (WI) Moran (VA) Murtha Nadler Neal (MA) Oberstar Obey Olver Pallone Pascrell Pastor |
Pelosi Price (NC) Rahall Rangel Rothman Roybal-Allard Rush Ryan (OH) Sabo Sánchez, Linda T. Sanders Schakowsky Schwartz (PA) Scott (VA) Serrano Solis Stark Strickland Stupak Thompson (MS) Tierney Towns Udall (NM) Velázquez Visclosky Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Wexler Woolsey Wu Wynn |
Could you post the text of the bill. I'm sure YOU think they voted for failure in Iraq, I'm sure that's NOT what the resolution said. Spin is good, but you have to let us see what you're spinning for it to make any sense.
All 108 Democrats = Traitors & Guilty of Treason against these United States of America. End of story!!!
Not really - the RNC is afraid of hurting some sensitive Democrat's feelings. They are unable to play hardball. They need leadership with guts, in addition to their high-road principles. Both would work just fine.
Also posted 4 days ago under typically misleading
AP heading of:
House Disavows Calls for Iraq Withdrawal (279-109 vote)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1541944/posts
Here's the link to HR612:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.res.00612:
What the dems will pretend to have objected to is.
"(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;"
It's getting harder for dems to pretend they don't
advocate defeat.
no. and neither will you! RNC is comprised of pussys!
-Democrats vote for surrender
-Democrats block Patriot Act
-Dems don't want terrorists wire tapped.
Yeah, they are compiling an excellent track record that they can be trusted on national security issues.
It's sure working for them as well. The President is at 46% in Rass today seeming to give the WAPO/ABC poll credibility with its 47%. Numbers on economy and Iraq and WOT improving daily. Really, Dems, you have to realize something. The American people never agreed with you, the President just left his side of the podium empty for rebuttal. He's back up at the podium and these numbers should be of no surprise to anyone. The People agree with him, not you, your only edge was the President's silence. That's over. If your were SMART you'd have switched the topic to domestic kitchen table issues.
Not that the economy is a good issue for you, but you have your traditional strongholds like health care...etc that the public tends to grant you more credibility with traditionally.
yet you just couldn't stand the President winning the issue of the WOT and arrogantly assumed you could win. You cannot, because you are wrong. You can be wrong about healthcare and still win but you can not be wrong on the WOT and expect the people to accept the threat increases of more attacks with you in power. They will not tolerate usual partisanship on this issue that risks their security.
The Black/Communist Caucus (Congressional Members of the
Progressive Caucus) were anti US I presume.
the continued presence of United States Armed Forces in Iraq will be required
I think the RNC's white flag ad is everyday looking more and more appropriate
The Progressive Caucus
Rep Earl Hilliard (AL-07)
Rep Eni Faleomavaega (AS-AL)
Rep Ed Pastor (AZ-02)
Rep Lynn C Woolsey (CA-06)
Rep George Miller (CA-07)
Rep Nancy Pelosi (CA-08)
Rep Fortney "Pete" Stark (CA-13)
Rep Henry A. Waxman (CA-29)
Rep Xavier Becerra (CA-30)
Rep Julian C. Dixon (CA-32)
Rep Esteban Edward Torres (CA-34)
Rep Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Rep George E. Brown (CA-42)
Rep Bob Filner (CA-50)
Rep Diane DeGette (CO-01)
Rep Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-AL)
Rep Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Rep Carrie P. Meek (FL-17)
Rep Alcee L. Hastings (FL-23)
Rep Cynthia A. McKinney (GA-04)
Rep John Lewis (GA-05)
Rep Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Rep Patsy Mink (HI-02)
Rep Jesse Jackson (IL-02)
Rep Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Rep Danny Davis (IL-07)
Rep Lane Evans (IL-17)
Rep Julia Carson (IN-10)
Rep John Olver (MA-01)
Rep Jim McGovern (MA-03)
Rep Barney Frank (MA-04)
Rep John Tierney (MA-06)
Rep David Bonior (MI-10)
Rep Lynn N. Rivers (MI-13)
Rep John Conyers (MI-14)
Rep Bennie G. Thompson (MS-02)
Rep Melvin L. Watt (NC-12)
Rep Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Rep Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Rep Major Owens (NY-11)
Rep Nydia M. Velazquez (NY-12)
Rep Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Rep Maurice Hinchey (NY-26)
Rep John LaFalce (NY-29)
Rep Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Rep Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Rep Louis Stokes (OH-11)
Rep Sherrod Brown (OH-13)
Rep Elizabeth Furse (OR-01)
Rep Peter A. DeFazio (OR-04)
Rep Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Rep William Coyne (PA-14)
Rep Carlos A. Romero-Barcelo (PR-AL)
Rep Robert C. Scott (VA-03)
Rep Bernard Sanders (VT-AL)
Rep James A. McDermott (WA-07)
Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information.
THOMAS Home | Contact | Accessibility | Legal |
Expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 15, 2005
Mr. HYDE (for himself and Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
RESOLUTION
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.
Surrendercrats - Traitors and cowards all.
In this case, "Present" is a chickens*** way of voting "Nay". So not only is Van Hollen a treasonous bastard, he's a cowardly one to boot.
This bill is a ambiguous, Political statement that really says nothing.
If you have to win several times a day, then your repeated victories are tactical rather than strategic.
Definition of victory (noun)
a success in a fight or competition
Examples of victory
With the US forces fresh off of their latest victory and in hot pursuit, the battle rages on.
Pyrrhic victory Show phonetics
noun [C usually singular]
a victory which is not worth winning because the winner has lost so much in winning it:
She won the court case, but it was a Pyrrhic victory because she had to pay so much in legal fees.
What price victory when so many people have died in the struggle?
A) you believe the United States House of Representatives has more meaningful things to do besides passing non-binding useless resolutions (like begin cutting government!) and
B) voting yea or nay is nothing more than grandstanding for your constituency. You have taken a stand on a useless resolution. Big whoop. But it plays well for the faithful at home. And if nothing else can be said about politicians, they sure can grandstand. Both sides
Yep.
LOL! If you really believe a hack like Van Hollen is interested in "meaningful things", and especially in cutting government, then you are seriously deluded.
Frankly, we'd probably be better off as a nation if Congress spent more time with non-binding resolutions, and less time screwing around with laws.
No, but Rep Paul is. Too bad the other 400+ grandstanders in the House aren't
I can understand Paul's position -- it's very consistent with his past behavior. Van Hollen, on the other hand, is just a wimp -- his "present" vote was trying to play both sides while committing to neither.
This is Congress, what else do you expect but a "political statement?" But it is not ambiguous in its posture toward supporting a democratic government in Iraq. I'm sure that was clear to the hundred or so einsteins who voted against it nevertheless. Other than continued military support of a fledgling democracy, what is there to object to?
It's not ambiguous. Where on earth do you get that idea from?
First off thanks to you and Haeden for posting this. I was swamped busy today , it really helped.
Secondly, to everyone on the thread. This is 'series' as we say on Free Republic. The fact that over 100 House Memebers could not vote for this is truely pathetic and speaks volumes about the serious problems we have in our country. Who are these idiots? Why are there so many of them? How do we get rid of them? (We probably can't). What are we to do with the (growing) Blue Zones full of terrorist-loving communist-sympathizing eco-fascist zombies?
There is not compromise possible with these people. Look at how they shameless attack Bush for doing his job. I can't agree they are fair-minded, or thoughful, or have the best interests of the USA in their hearts.
I'm at the point where I hate that they are a big part of this country. They are destroying it, and a bunch of them are doing it on purpose.
What now?
Amazing...
first what is victory ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.