House Iraq Funding Bill Requiring 2008 Pullout Passes


murtha pelosi.jpg
It was heavy-lifting all the way, but the House funding bill that funds America’s operations in Iraq but requires withdrawal in 2008, passed today in a 218-212 vote.
I haven’t seen the floor statement yet, but Representative John Murtha was apparently quite emotional — on the verge of tears — speaking about the successful passage just after the vote.
I think that the Senate will be an insurmountable challenge to this legislation as Dems will not be able to muster enough votes to move legislation forward that requires a date-specific withdrawal. But this does further fix blame for the Iraq War on the White House.
There were 15 Dems who opposed the funding bill — some like Kucinich because he sees the appropriations bill as keeping the war going and others because they opposed any hand-tying of the military in Iraq.
The 15 included Represenatatives Barrow, Boren, Lincoln Davis, Kucinich, Lee, Lewis (GA), Marshall, Matheson, McNulty, Michaud, Taylor, Waters, Watson and Woolsey.
— Steve Clemons


6 comments on “House Iraq Funding Bill Requiring 2008 Pullout Passes

  1. Karen Wade says:

    After 5 years of death in Iraq we are finally dying here in America. The American genocide is in full force. Congress doesn’t have any idea how much suffering is taking place in our country culminating in death or disease. Our Corporate/Government does not need us …..they have cheap slave labor….and have taken the rest of our economy overseas. The congressional abusers won’t help us…. they won’t even vote for an unemployment extension THAT COSTS NOTHING. How HATEFUL can you be????


  2. PoliticalCritic says:

    Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like this will pass in the Senate.


  3. Eric says:

    My recollection is a little fuzzy, but I recall the Bush Administration saying just a few weeks ago that the Congress can’t stop the “surge” because the money for that was already in the Pentagon’s hands. How could it be that with the troop escalation only partially finished, the troops now would have inadequate funding to conduct operations if Congress sticks to the House’s withdrawl date and Bush exercises his second (?) veto?


  4. bob h says:

    Future legislation should address the treatment of Iraqi refugees (described in George Packer’s new New Yorker article “Betrayed”) who fear to stay in the new Iraq. They must be treated at least as generously as the Vietnamese were.


  5. Alex says:

    I would like to see McConnell use his tactics to delay the vote on this bill in the Senate and then I would like a nice, long drawn out conference debate. After that, I pray for a presidential veto.
    By then, it will be crystal clear that it’s the republicans who obstructed the funding for the “troops”, with the side benefit of reducing funding for the WAR in Iraq by virtue of the delay.


  6. daCascadian says:

    A huge Semper Fidelis to Mr. Murtha. One of the few inside the Beltway that has a clue.
    “The future will be a struggle between huge competing systems of psychopathology.” – J. G. Ballard


Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *