Did Your Senator Vote for the Iraq War Supplement? 54-45 it Passed

[chlamor]

25 Dems voted for this "supplement". Count 'em-25! This is an outrage. Where is the backbone.



Amendment Number:
S.Amdt. 471 to to H.R. 1268 (Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 )

Statement of Purpose:
To reduce appropriations for the Iraqi embassy to reduce outlays expected to occur in fiscal year 2007 or later.

Vote Counts:
YEAs
54

NAYs
45

Not Voting
1

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---54

Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Burns (R-MT)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)

Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Talent (R-MO)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)


NAYs ---45

Bayh (D-IN)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kennedy (D-MA)

Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wyden (D-OR)


Not Voting - 1

Jeffords (I-VT)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00104

[FreedomAngel82]

1. Time to put some pressure on

Do you think it'd work?

[chlamor]

5. Pressure on

Who? No it ain't gonna f...ing work! I'm so pissed off but not surprised. Imperialism in khakis-imperialism in cowboy boots. What's the diff? This criminal bill could have easily been defeated. They are all complicit in war crimes. get 'em out. Call all the 25 and express your outrage. Be angry. No school-no health care- no social services just war and military pollution.

[Tinoire]

2. You need to put the word Rat-Pope or Nazi in your subject

otherwise I'm afraid it will go totally unnoticed in these infested waters.

It passed. It's an outrage. BUT it's the will of the American people due to our complicit silence and hypocritical outrage that a German boy was part of the compulsory Hitler Youth at the age of 14.

Mote. Beam. Speck. All that kind of stuff.

They voted for this? I'm pissed once again but not surprised.

[2Design]

3. kerry voted for it

[Zynx]

4. I'm interested as to why the votes broke down the way they did.

[DireStrike]

6. It says its to reduce appropriations...

Does that mean they're spending less money? Or has my reading comprehension gone down(damn hobby paint)?

[chlamor]

11. So

what the hell is this bill all about exactly. Is there an explanation out there?. For one if this isn't the actual "War Bill' what is it? When the grand appropriations bill comes up it will pass with a much greater percentage.

[lonestarnot]

7. Puke McCain is big on those blank checks! Kyle on the other hand

surprised me.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

8. Feinstein Y. Boxer N

[dweller]

9. what a mishmash

dems and pugs voting both for and against.

amazed at both the dems for,and repugs against.

:shrug:


dp

[Telly Savalas]

10. Someone correct me if I'm wrong...

but isn't this roll call vote for an amendment to the supplement and not the supplement itself? And wouldn't this explain the wide deviation from party lines, especially among the typically disciplined GOP?

[dweller]

12. you may be right

S.Amdt. 471 to to H.R. 1268
"To reduce appropriations for the Iraqi embassy to reduce outlays expected to occur in fiscal year 2007 or later."

i skimmed right over it.

dp

[chlamor]

13. You are right

and what exactly are in the details of the bill? I want to know.

[Todd B]

14. Hmm.

Hm, I can't make out what this bill is for.

This is the text of the original bill. Is this supplemental actually reducing the amount allocated to certain things? It looks like they cut back the funding to certain areas?

It's not up on the Senate website yet, though, so I can't be sure.

[chlamor]

15. This is off the news wire

but I am still baffled by what this actually means. though I suspect it means more cash to the war criminals and many in both parties going along. I'm disgusted. sounds like the whole deal will go down tomorrow.



The U.S. Senate agreed on Wednesday to spend $592 million on a huge new embassy Baghdad, setting up a showdown with the House of Representatives, which rejected funding for the project because of the high cost.


Senators approved the embassy funding 54-45 as part of an $81 billion emergency spending bill to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and help fund tsunami relief.

The House of Representatives removed the money for the Baghdad compound, which would be the largest U.S. embassy in the world, when it passed its version of the bill last month.

Nevertheless, supporters of the emergency spending bill said they expected the Senate to pass the measure on Thursday.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050420/pl_nm/iraq_congress_funding_dc_2

[Telly Savalas]

16. $592 million for an embassy?

What? Are they gonna have giant plasma screen TV's with playstations in every room? A little Biodome on the roof? A bowling alley in the basement? Talk about drunken sailors in whorehouse. Sheesh.