Those Who Voted "No"

[Gawain 0]

With the pre-Memorial day voting in Washington, DC on the 24th, the military received its funding without Congressional interference of operational time-lines in the field.

It was not a universally supporting vote from the Congress. There were some very prominent members who chose not to support the men in the field.

The list from the Congress overall is long, the Senate list is far shorter.

Here is an overview from ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3210851

The Senators that turned their back on the troops are:
Barbara Boxer (D), Hillary Clinton (D), Christopher Dodd (D), Russell Feingold (D), Edward Kennedy (D), John Kerry (D), Patrick Leahy (D), Barack Obama (D), Sheldon Whitehouse (D), Ron Wyden (D), Bernard Sanders (I), Richard Burr (R), Tom Coburn (R), Michael Enzi (R)

The list of Representatives is much, much longer, all but two from the "left" side of the aisle:
Neil Abercrombie, Gary Ackerman, Thomas Allen, Michael Arcuri, Tammy Baldwin, Xavier Becerra, Timothy Bishop, Earl Blumenauer, Robert Brady, Bruce Braley, Corrine Brown, Lois Capps, Michael Capuano, Russ Carnahan, Julia Carson, Kathy Castor, Yvette Clarke, William Clay, Emanuel Cleaver, Steve Cohen, John Conyers, Jerry Costello, Joe Courtney, Joseph Crowley, Elijah Cummings, Artur Davis, Danny Davis, Peter DeFazio, Rosa DeLauro, William Delahunt, Lloyd Doggett, Michael Doyle, Keith Ellison, Anna Eshoo, Sam Farr, Chaka Fattah, Bob Filner, Barney Frank, Al Green, Raúl Grijalva, Luis Gutiérrez, John Hall, Phil Hare, Jane Harman, Alcee Hastings, Brian Higgins, Maurice Hinchey, Mazie Hirono, Paul Hodes, Chris Van Hollen, Rush Holt, Mike Honda, Darlene Hooley, Jay Inslee, Steve Israel, Jesse Jackson, Sheila Jackson-Lee, William Jefferson, Hank Johnson, Eddie Johnson, Marcy Kaptur, Patrick Kennedy, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Ron Klein, Dennis Kucinich, James Langevin, Tom Lantos, John Larson, Barbara Lee, David Loebsack, Zoe Lofgren, Nita Lowey, Stephen Lynch, Carolyn Maloney, Edward Markey, Doris Matsui, Carolyn McCarthy, Betty McCollum, Jim McDermott, James McGovern, Jerry McNerney, Michael McNulty, Martin Meehan, Gregory Meeks, Michael Michaud, Brad Miller, George Miller, Gwen Moore, James Moran, Christopher Murphy, Patrick Murphy, Jerrold Nadler, Grace Napolitano, Richard Neal, David Obey, John Olver, Frank Pallone, Bill Pascrell, Ed Pastor, Donald Payne, Nancy Pelosi, Ed Perlmutter, David Price, Charles Rangel, Steven Rothman, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Bobby Rush, Tim Ryan, Loretta Sanchez, John Sarbanes, Jan Schakowsky, Adam Schiff, Robert Scott, José Serrano, Carol Shea-Porter, Brad Sherman, Albio Sires, Louise Slaughter, Adam Smith, Hilda Solis, Pete Stark, Betty Sutton, Linda Sánchez, Ellen Tauscher, Mike Thompson, John Tierney, Edolphus Towns, Tom Udall, Nydia Velázquez, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson, Melvin Watt, Henry Waxman, Anthony Weiner, Peter Welch, Robert Wexler, Lynn Woolsey, David Wu, Al Wynn, John Yarmuth, John 'Jimmy' Duncan, Ron Paul.

There were a few who chose not to vote at all either, but not knowing the "why" I'll not hold any issue against them right now.

The Washington Post has a pretty good online project set up to see this activity. It can be found here:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/

Specific information I cited is here:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/1/votes/425/
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/1/votes/181/

It is so easy to see the final tally of how these things go. In light of the past three-plus months, it is important to know just how inflated the rhetoric can be.

I'm not advocating anything in particular. You may see your representative listed there and agree. Or, maybe you don't agree...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[mnealtx 0]

Very sad.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,107]

>There were some very prominent members who chose not to support the men in the field.

So vetoing funding is supporting men in the field, but not voting for unlimited funding is NOT supporting men in the field. OK then.

I am glad that there are people in the US government willing to buck the failed policies of our president and try to get our people back from a meat grinder of a civil war. They are the only ones supporting our troops nowadays. Unfortunately, there were more "keep em there until they're dead" types, which is disappointing. The democrats were elected to end the war; I hope they find the stones to do what we elected them to do.

The rhetoric worked for a long time, but I think people are finally realizing that sending a man to his death is not supporting him - bringing him home to his family is.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The rhetoric worked for a long time, but I think people are finally realizing that sending a man to his death is not supporting him - bringing him home to his family is.

Does anyone remember who the last american serviceman was to die in Vietnam??? They were the tools of a failed American policy... a hell of a lot of good men died there.

Do any of the Chickenhawks who supported that war in earnest yet avoided service really care?

I wonder what the name of the last American will be who will die in this war... supporting the failed policies of THIS group of chickenhawls who shirked their duty while he( most likely a he) did his and followed his commanders orders to go to a war that is for all intents and purposes is another failure of American policy.

[IanHarrop 42]

I don't understand how wanting to bring the troops home is not supporting them...

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[azdiver 0]

if bush said tomorrow he was bring all the soldiers home that same entire list above would fight him tooth and nail about doing that, they dont give a damn about the troops or their welfare as long as bush doesnt get any good credit for any of his actions. defeating and hate America is their agenda

light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak

[IanHarrop 42]

Quote

if bush said tomorrow he was bring all the soldiers home that same entire list above would fight him tooth and nail about doing that, they dont give a damn about the troops or their welfare as long as bush doesnt get any good credit for any of his actions. defeating and hate America is their agenda

Sorry I don't accept that. The statements above sound more emotional than factual.

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[billvon 3,107]

> if bush said tomorrow he was bring all the soldiers home that same
>entire list above would fight him tooth and nail . . .

Nonsense. They would have accomplished their goal. They'd no doubt find something else to bitch about though.

>defeating and hate America is their agenda

"Why do you hate america?" is so 2003. And nowadays it applies equally well to both sides, so it's a bit of a danger to use too often.

[n23x 0]

I appreciate your service, but likewise, I cannot fathom how the president can threaten to veto all day long, and he's not the one who's "not supporting our troops".

Please. Elaborate.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[azdiver 0]

because of why he was threatening to veto, all the previous bills had surrender dates that the dems put in

light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak

[billvon 3,107]

> because of why he was threatening to veto

Right. When the president threatens to defund the troops, he's a hero. When congress threatens to do it, they "hate the troops."

That line isn't working any more. No one buys it (other than the Bush dead-enders of course.)

[Guest]

Considering how a lot of liberals seem to simultaneously revile the troops while pitying them, it's unsurprising.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[billvon 3,107]

> Considering how a lot of liberals seem to simultaneously revile the troops
> while pitying them, it's unsurprising.

Again, it's not working any more. No one buys the "why o why do the liberals hate the troops?" line any more - although it did work for quite a while. People are starting to realize that it isn't the liberals who are getting them killed by the thousands.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Right. When the president threatens to defund the troops, he's a hero. When congress threatens to do it, they "hate the troops."

It isn't the President who controls the funds. His previous veto stood because even the Congress didn't have the strength to follow through. Senator Obama said it right in one of the debates they had recently. He was the only honest one about the issue: "Let's defund the troops" is pretty much what he was saying.

Quote

That line isn't working any more. No one buys it (other than the Bush dead-enders of course.)

Um, the line just worked, and a whole lot of Senators saw to it, as evidenced by the bill that just passed through Congress. Speaker Pelosi was the only one in the house majority leadership to oppose the bill. The rest of her crew (whom she has not been able to lead) voted for the measure.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,146]

Nice spin.

The troops would not need this "support" if the President had (a) told the whole truth, (b) been half-way competent as a CinC, and (c) been willing to admit HIS mistakes rather than making our boys pay for them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Nice spin.

The troops would not need this "support" if the President had (a) told the whole truth, (b) been half-way competent as a CinC, and (c) been willing to admit HIS mistakes rather than making our boys pay for them.

There are points in this where you and I agree. However, do not be misled, this is not spin. This is a cold reality. Had one of the previous bills prevailed, and survived a veto, I would have posted the results of that one too (in fact, I might just do that now anyway).

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Here's the vetoed bill from the House:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/1/votes/336/

In this case, it would those who vote "Yes" to either take issue with, etc.

I didn't find the Senate vote, the listing doesn't really say what the hell they're doing...not in plain English anyway...http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/1/votes/

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Nice spin.

The troops would not need this "support" if the President had (a) told the whole truth, (b) been half-way competent as a CinC, and (c) been willing to admit HIS mistakes rather than making our boys pay for them.

There are points in this where you and I agree. However, do not be misled, this is not spin. This is a cold reality. Had one of the previous bills prevailed, and survived a veto, I would have posted the results of that one too (in fact, I might just do that now anyway).

At this point our military occupation is the prime irritant in Iraq. The only military solution is Stalinesqe, and even if we achieve it, it will make us look bad. We NEED to be out of there, for both our own and Iraq's benefit. We stay there just so Bush can save face.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

We stay there just so Bush can save face.

If he were to be running for another term...

Politically at this point, his legacy could rest more on the refreshed "immigration" issue than Iraq.

The irritation in Iraq is in four out of 17 provinces. The US is not the only presence there. The tensions literally draw a line from Syria to Iran, almost horizontally.

Most of the attacks are against Iraqi civilians, despite the military presence.

Quote

The only military solution is Stalinesqe, and even if we achieve it, it will make us look bad

There are some that argue we already look bad, what is there to lose? I'm not in favor of it, but do you understand my meaning?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

...the "left" side of the aisle

Left is right.
Funny how that works.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

The Senators that turned their back on the troops are...

So, when there are thousands more dead, an untold number of legs, arms and faces blown off, a huge number of men and women returning with mental problems and no end in sight in the years to come, who are you going to blame for this huge mess? The senators who wanted to bring them home or the ones who wish to keep them there?
The one who is most to blame is the one who has vetoed all attempts to bring them home. He is the one who has turned his back on the troops and America. He made this country and the world a far more dangerous place. He is the one responsible for thousands of deaths. He is no better than Osama Bin laden and he is far more dangerous terrorist than the one he let get away.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[billvon 3,107]

>His previous veto stood because even the Congress didn't have
>the strength to follow through.

Agreed. He used his veto to deny the troops funding, knowing congress could not override it.

[Royd 0]

His previous veto stood because even the Congress didn't have
>the strength to follow through.

Quote

Agreed. He used his veto to deny the troops funding, knowing congress could not override it.

Wrong! He used the veto to deny a bunch of greedy legislators billions in pork that had absolutely nothing with supporting the troops.
Supplying troops and giving spinach farmers a free ride shouldn't even be on the same piece of paper.

Let's get honest, here!

[billvon 3,107]

>Wrong! He used the veto to deny a bunch of greedy legislators
> billions in pork that had absolutely nothing with supporting the troops.

There is MORE pork in the bill he signed.

> Let's get honest, here!

Indeed.

[Trent 0]

Quote

People are starting to realize that it isn't the liberals who are getting them killed by the thousands.

But I thought they were in control in the house now? So if they didn't vote for the bill? Who did?

Oh, hello again!