So Can We Call Democrats Defeatists Now? They Voted Against Victory You Know

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
Wow, hard to believe this vote didn't make the MSM**SARCASM**.

In a vote not reported by any major media outlet Roll Call Vote 648 "Expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq." 109 members of the HoR, 108 Democrats and 1 Independent (Bernie Sanders), voted not to achieve victory in Iraq.

There are currently 205 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This translates to 53% of Democrats, a clear majority of Democrats, in the House of Representatives expressly against achieving any kind of measurable victory in Iraq.

Just for fun I'll post all of their names.

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
Link

There, now, go ahead.... tell us how Democrats don't have a vested interest in seeing failure in Iraq and wishing for the defeat of American initiatives in that country.
 
This is the full language of the measure voted on.

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.

Spin your way out of this one.
 
It's a pretty bad post when I had to independently look up the info to even know what you're talking about.

In a 279-109 vote, the GOP-controlled House approved a resolution saying the chamber is committed "to achieving victory in Iraq" and that setting an "artificial timetable" would be "fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory." ....

The minority party also complained that Republicans were intentionally limiting debate on Iraq by scheduling a vote as lawmakers are under pressure to finish their work so they can adjourn for the year. Several dozen Democrats -- some wearing "Debate Iraq" buttons -- filed to the floor to "request an open debate" on the war.....

"What is victory? Nobody has defined what victory is," Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., objected....

By putting the resolution to a vote, Republican leaders forced Democrats to make a choice: either break ranks with their party and support the GOP resolution, or oppose it and open themselves to criticism, ahead of a congressional election year in which Iraq will be a focus, that they had rejected the notion of victory in Iraq.
Click to expand...

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/12/17/news/politics/14_21_5912_16_05.txt

Way to distort the facts.

It was a purely political vote to make democrats look bad. It has no practical purpose and was worded in a way to make it easy to attack anyone who opposed the resolution.

edit: I see you added a real article.
 
Oh, so 53% of Democrats votes were taken fully out of context and they're fully commited to supporting national interests in Iraq but the bill was poorly worded?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Oh, so 53% of Democrats votes were taken fully out of context and they're fully commited to supporting national interests in Iraq but the bill was poorly worded?[/QUOTE]

There is much more to that resolution than simply wanting to win in Iraq, and that's plain to anyone who reads it.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']There is much more to that resolution than simply wanting to win in Iraq, and that's plain to anyone who reads it.[/QUOTE]

(1) the House of Representatives is committed to achieving victory in Iraq;

Please..... do go on.
 
Who's playing "partisan politics" with the war now? What the bill proposes is as empty as passing a bill in recognition of good citizenship, or some other bullshit movement.

So, PAD, in your attempt to spin this bill into something meaningful (and not the Republican party playing political games like they did with the bill seeking immediate withdrawal several weeks back), why don't you tell *us* what would change in this world now that this bill has passed?
 
lol, PAD's just trying to get stir up controversy. Even he knows this bill didn't really mean anything, other than to attempt to deflect attention away from the republican scandals.
 
*sigh* now you're just being obtuse. Look, you aren't that stupid, but if you want to pretend to be so that you may remain consistent in your zealous political ideology, that's fine with me.

But don't try to bullshit me like a toddler would. It offends me and it is beneath you.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'](1) the House of Representatives is committed to achieving victory in Iraq;

Please..... do go on.[/QUOTE]

You listed 8 sections of the resolution, yet you act like you can't read beyond the first one. Predictable.
 
What's to deflect?

It's there in black in white for history to see registered with the House clerk.

So E-Z-B you're telling us that House votes mean absolutely nothing. Good to know.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']You listed 8 sections of the resolution, yet you act like you can't read beyond the first one. Predictable.[/QUOTE]

(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;

Democrats don't wish to defeat terrorists who seek to destroy a fledgling 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;

Democrats don't wish to stand with the people of Iraq and their goal of a free, open and democratic society.

VIVA SADDAM!

(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;

Democrats: We didn't need to be there!

(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;

Democrats: GET OUT NOW!

(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;

Democrats: GET OUT NOW!

(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

Democrats: fuck those that died. fuck those dead Americans. fuck those Iraqi militia and policemen and recruits murdered. Just fuck them.

(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.

Democrats: We're afraid! OMG there are terrorists there armed with car bombs! RUN EVERYONE RUN! We can't stand up to such an advanced military force.

You're right..... I should have tackled the other 7.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You're right..... I should have tackled the other 7.[/QUOTE]

We're still waiting for you to tackle it. All you did was type the same sentence over and over. Way to drill into your daily talking points. I can't wait to hear what Rush has on tap for you tomorrow.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Please tell me why Democrats don't wish to achieve victory.[/QUOTE]

Way to answer a question with a question. We're still waiting for the definition of victory. And since you dodged it once, I'll tack on a bonus question. How does that definition relate to and yet differ from "Mission Accomplished?"
 
We have yet to hear from one staunch Democratic supporter how this is really a pro-American vote.

I'll leave for a while and come back tonight.

I'm sure the replies will be deep, insightful and worthy of publicizing as framework for these 108 members running for re-election in 2006.
 
This is sort of like voting on a bill that merely says "cut taxes". Cut which taxes? When? By how much? Merely saying that they wish to achieve "victory" is far too broad to mean anything substantive. Especially bad is that without an actual definition or guidlines, people may assume that the ends justify the means.

Of coures, with PAD, the ends always justify the means.

Democratic Senators most likely voted against this in protest. Protest != (DNE) Anti-americanism. Much like flag burning in protest to government actions is not anti-americanism. Of course, I'm sure PAD feels that any form of protest is anti-Americanism, unless it's protest against Democrats.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']We have yet to hear from one staunch Democratic supporter how this is really a pro-American vote.

I'll leave for a while and come back tonight.

I'm sure the replies will be deep, insightful and worthy of publicizing as framework for these 108 members running for re-election in 2006.[/QUOTE]

Ahh, the often discussed but rarely seen, trifecta dodge.
 
How does a 3rd party achieve victory in a civil war?

It an amazing admission that your party relies on the guiliblity of some people (present company included) to get elected. Are you so void of ideas you have to rely on trick votes to hold over congressmen's heads? How idiotic. I am proud my congresswomen didn't play this game and voted no. This wasn't a vote for "victory", it changes nothing except gives PAD wack-off material for a week. Bumper Sticker Patriotism.

FYI- MSM rarely reports on significant votes let alone purely political bullcrap votes like this.
 
I say we get the Democrats in the House to sponsor a bill that requires Republicans to stop beating their wives.

How would you suggest the GOP vote on that measure?
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I say we get the Democrats in the House to sponsor a bill that requires Republicans to stop beating their wives.

How would you suggest the GOP vote on that measure?[/QUOTE]

:rofl:
 
I'm still interested in hearing PAD's definition of victory in Iraq.

After all, without a definition of victory, the resolution he's talking about really doesn't mean anything.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']I'm still interested in hearing PAD's definition of victory in Iraq.

After all, without a definition of victory, the resolution he's talking about really doesn't mean anything.[/QUOTE]

Due to illness, the role of PittsburghAfterDark will be played by....me.

"To give you an answer, why do you hate America?"
 
Since PAD is on my ignore list, I'm just gonna start crapping on all his threads, preferably with funny pictures. Here's one now:

Pg30PrintChildpointing.jpg
 
You really have to love people that are so against opposing viewpoints that they brag about effectively sticking their fingers in their ears and cry "NYAH NYAH NYAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU! NYAH NYAH NYAH YOU DON'T EXIST! NYAH NYAH NYAH!".
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You really have to love people that are so against opposing viewpoints that they brag about effectively sticking their fingers in their ears and cry "NYAH NYAH NYAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU! NYAH NYAH NYAH YOU DON'T EXIST! NYAH NYAH NYAH!".[/QUOTE]
You have to love people who would rather insult and berate rather than engage in civilized discussion.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You listed 8 sections of the resolution, yet you act like you can't read beyond the first one.[/QUOTE]

Gotta agree on that. Trying to spin this as only a vote on 1/8 of the actual resolution isn't going to work with a literate audience. Not that we don't know how you feel about this one PAD, but it's plainly obvious that there is much more (7/8 of it, in fact) to this resolution than just wanting victory.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You really have to love people that are so against opposing viewpoints that they brag about effectively sticking their fingers in their ears and cry "NYAH NYAH NYAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU! NYAH NYAH NYAH YOU DON'T EXIST! NYAH NYAH NYAH!".[/QUOTE]

Isn't that what you do? 20 posts later and we are still waiting for that definition of "victory." But you keep ignoring it, dodging it, and pointing fingers. Keep up the good work, W is proud that you hold the party line. Albeit, blindly...
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You really have to love people that are so against opposing viewpoints that they brag about effectively sticking their fingers in their ears and cry "NYAH NYAH NYAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU! NYAH NYAH NYAH YOU DON'T EXIST! NYAH NYAH NYAH!".[/QUOTE]

Uh, PAD. I myself did no such thing. I asked you a simple question -- how would you define "victory" in Iraq.

I'm still waiting for an answer. Without a definition, all your talk of victory is meaningless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top