Yesterday, Grand Rapids area representative Vern Ehlers voted against the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act. The measure summarized as one that will "require the Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of the number of United States Armed Forces in Iraq to a limited presence by April 1, 2008, and for other purposes." It was passed by a vote of 223 to 201, with all but four Republicans voting against the measure. West Michigan Representative Pete Hoekstra also voted against it.

In the corporate media and even among the more "liberal" sections of the antiwar movement closely aligned with the Democratic Party, the bill has been hailed as a vote to "bring home troops in '08" and end the war. However, the actual text of the act is quite clear in stating that the United States will keep a military presence in Iraq to "maintain and advance" US interests in Iraq and "the broader middle east region." While calling for the Secretary of Defense to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 120 days of enactment and calling for a "reduction and transition" to a "limited presence" by April 1, 2008, the bill will maintain an undefined number of soldiers in Iraq. The bill has a provision allowing US soldiers to stay in Iraq to protect "national security interests" requiring only that "the President" justify why it is necessary to maintain forces in Iraq. Moreover, the bill seems to assume that troops will be in Iraq until July 1, 2008, as it requires the President to submit an update on the strategy of the United States in Iraq and an explanation of how troops are being used in Iraq. An updated version of the report will be required every ninety days for as long as US soldiers remain in Iraq.

A similar timetable was vetoed by President Bush earlier this year. Bush has also promised to veto this legislation and will likely have the votes to block an attempt to override the veto.