Breaking: House voting on Iraq resolution (Update: 256-153)

posted at 11:00 am on June 16, 2006 by Allahpundit

Should have the results in about ten minutes. It’s a foregone conclusion that it’ll pass, the only question is how many Democrats will cross the aisle.

Stand by.

Update: It passed 256-153. 42 Democrats and three Republicans switched sides. I’ll look for the roll.

Update: The AP reports. Quote:

“Stay the course, I don’t think so Mr. President. It’s time to face the facts,” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California answered, as she called for a new direction in the conflict. “The war in Iraq has been a mistake. I say, a grotesque mistake.”

Update: The roll. The three Republicans who crossed were Ron Paul, Jim Leach, and John Duncan.

Update: Here’s how Fox is reporting the news. Har.


Update: The roll by state.

Update: Slublog points to this screed on Ron Paul’s website to explain why he might have voted no. Eight shades of crazy.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


42 Demo crossed the line, almost 30%. Not bad.

easy87us on June 16, 2006 at 11:16 AM

Already heard one Republican voted Nay Haven’t caught his name yet but in an interview on Fox he claimed it was nothing but a political stunt and he was working on getting bandages for the troops and didn’t have time for this siliness.

LakeRuins on June 16, 2006 at 11:23 AM

The 3 Republicans who voted against it – Ron Paul, Jim Leach, and John Duncan

– where do I send my contribution to defeat these Troop Killers?

Richard Davis on June 16, 2006 at 12:01 PM

Ron Paul is wrong on this issue, but he’s on the right side of the illegal immigration amnesty issue and a strong proponent of American sovereignty. He’s a very strong conservative on just about everything, and probably a lot better than the person who would replace him, even another Republican.

Laura on June 16, 2006 at 12:16 PM

Tough, Laura; there are others out there with those qualities AND support our troops. Ron Paul needs a STRONG opponent in the primary next time; we should NOT forget this vote.

Mike O on June 16, 2006 at 12:22 PM

..anyone who voted to pull out is a traitor. Did we not JUST HEAR OUR PRESIDENT, IN IRAQ, say that we are not going to turn our backs on the Iraqi peoples. Congress is full of slime and it needs a good house cleaning….anyone who voted to leave needs to be sent packing back to wherever they came from..we need new blood in Congress…House and Senate. Then, term limits needs to be enacted….these career politicians are the disease that is killing this country. NEW BLOOD I SAY….starting this November!!!!!

Sandys Beach on June 16, 2006 at 12:22 PM

Why would a ‘strong proponent of American sovereignty” vote against a resolution titled “Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary?”

After reading this crap, it becomes more clear. It reads like something from the Daily Kos, only with added crazy.

Slublog on June 16, 2006 at 12:25 PM

Amen to Sandys Beach. Your comments hit the nail on the head.These people are indeed traitors and should be treated as such. Please, don’t anyone give me that old ‘freedom of speech’ crap. These people are deliberately aiding and abetting the enemy during a time of war and that is treason.

OBX Pete on June 16, 2006 at 12:32 PM

Slublog: Ouch! I have to admit, the last time I took a good look at Ron Paul was around the time NAFTA and CAFTA were being voted on. When I referred to sovereignty, I was thinking of his strong opposition to the EU-like construct that Vicente Fox favors for North America. I had no idea about this recent stuff, and after looking at it, I agree that he’s as deranged as any Kos Kid.

Laura on June 16, 2006 at 1:03 PM

I’m glad our Congress is passing resolutions that go AGAINST what the Iraqi Vice President wants for his own country:

“Iraq’s vice president has asked President Bush for a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq, the Iraqi president’s office said.

Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni, made the request during his meeting with Bush on Tuesday, when the U.S. president made a surprise visit to Iraq.”

better off blue on June 16, 2006 at 1:27 PM

So, what in this resolution goes against what the Iraqis want?

Slublog on June 16, 2006 at 1:37 PM

I want someone to make a bumber sticker that says..”We’re in it… SO LET’S WIN IT” red white and blue colors and W’s face in the back round….or the towers being knocked down or even better…the picture of that soldier with the cigarette hanging out of his mouth..cover of TIME, i think…remember that one?

Sandys Beach on June 16, 2006 at 1:39 PM

How could we pull out of Iraq when we haven’t even pulled out of Kosovo or Serbia or Germany?

The Balkan war is a QUAGMIRE and we helped the Islamofascists religiously cleanse the Christians!!! ARRRGGHH.

Thanks Clintoon.

NTWR on June 16, 2006 at 1:39 PM

I can’t understand what kind of rational thinking person would want to cut and run from Iraq now. The geopolitical upside of a decent government in Iraq is phenomenal. The side effects will jump start the whole Middle East into realizing that it is not their destiny to live like dogs in a pen.

To leave now would be an injustice to world history. I guess some people truly can’t understand visionary leadership. All the dems care about is cranking up the welfare state for the flunkies at the expense of the achievers. But of course, they want to control the money so they can continue to expand their underclass vote farming operation and also be the oracle of thought leadership for the confused flunkies. It is criminal.

Shmo on June 16, 2006 at 2:10 PM

I just sent an email to my congressman (Sam Farr-D). I understand that I live in a VERY liberal district (Dennis Kucinich would have won here) but there is no excuse for this vote:

I am very concerned about your “No” vote on the House Resolution regarding Iraq. I would like to know why you voted the way you did. Let’s look at the resolution in detail.

(1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;

Did you not want to honor those who are taking an active part in the war on terror?

(2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;

Did you not want to honor the sacrifices of those who have died?

(3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;

Do you believe that an arbitrary date is in our best interest or in the interest of Iraq? I’d be curious to know if you would set an end to our presence in Korea or Europe. If you believe a date should be set then you should show your convictions by publicly stating what that date should be. I did not see it in your remarks.

(4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;

Did you vote no to a sovreign, free, secure, and united Iraq? Does that mean you support an Iraq that is under the control of Iran? or Syria? Maybe you are in favor of an Iraq under the control of a fascist dictator? There are reasonable arguments for dividing Iraq. If this is your position you should make it clear.

(5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq’s new constitution;

Are you voting against free elections? Are you against constitutions? Maybe you don’t think the people of Iraq showed courage?

(6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and

Are in favor of US unilateralism? Do you think we should have allies? Or maybe you are against promoting peace? You surely don’t desire to see the people of Afghanistan return to the control of the Taliban.

(7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

A no vote for this clause would be the equivalent of treason. I could not live in a district where a copperhead Democrat would vote for the success of terrorists.

I hope you take the time to clarify your position. One of my earliest memories of politics was reading JFK’s Profiles in Courage. The story of Edmund Ross of Kansas who looked into his own grave when he voted against impeachment is inspiring. I cannot see any courage in your vote today.

mkstach on June 16, 2006 at 2:45 PM

It is a disgrace.

The United States Congress should be ashamed of itself.

After more than 200 years, when you thought that America has matured and patriotism has been rooted in her citizens, the politicians of our days are debating and voting on whether America should stand by its Military, fight a war on terrorism or surrender to the Islamo-Nazists.

What a despicable thing!

It is treason, to say the least.

I’m speechless.

CatholicConservative on June 16, 2006 at 3:30 PM

Actually, I see some disunity within the Democrat side. Unity within the Rebublican, except for 3 confused ones.

The bottom line: We stay the course. Now the rest should shut up and let us finish the job.

Kini on June 16, 2006 at 4:23 PM

The Left doesn’t believe this is a war.

Better off blue, they will cut your head off first.

Entelechy on June 16, 2006 at 4:23 PM

Seriously, Entelechy, they will hit the liberals first since we are at war with fascists. The catch 22 is that liberals use fascist tactics to silence their opposition, so they aren’t totally sure if they are against Islomofascism or for it.

It’s strange to me the party of women’s lib would side with the enemy who tattoos verses from the Koran on women’s bodies who disobey their husbands and cut off women’s clitori so they can’t enjoy sex. That would really screw up the whole liberal free love thing, you’d think.

Oh well, kneel and B.O.B. reminds me of a frigid liberal girl I know who is so bitter about Bush that she never gives it up anyway.

NTWR on June 16, 2006 at 6:01 PM

Thanks Shublog: That “conservative” prick Ron Paul said what every anti-Iraq war liberal says every chance they get: “Indeed, no one can be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq.”

Can anyone say “repeatedly violated UN treaties”? What more do those bleeding hearts want?

LeeSmith on June 16, 2006 at 6:48 PM

Ron Paul is a nut in serious need of being replaced.

He may not be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq, but I damn sure am and it wasn’t about oil.

GT on June 16, 2006 at 8:36 PM

I used to support Ron Paul but that was before he became an anti-war Libertarian. I think he like many other libertarians is totally out of touch on the war and the Islamic threat.

docdave on June 19, 2006 at 6:23 PM