http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/washington/15cong.html
WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 — Now that President Bush and Gen. David H. Petraeus have charted their course for the Iraq war, Democrats in the Senate say one of their proposals aimed at shifting the president’s strategy is finally close to winning enough Republican support for a real chance at being approved. It would require that troops spend as much time at home as on their most recent tours overseas before being redeployed.
The proposal, by Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, has strong support from top Democrats, who say that the practical effect would be to add time between deployments and force General Petraeus to withdraw troops on a substantially swifter timeline than the one he laid out before Congress this week, and that it would protect troops from serving protracted and debilitating deployments.
-----------------------
How can anyone who cares for the troops not support an equal time home as in-country? They aren't even saying troops should only serve one tour, only that they should have equal time home.
I don't see this as a Democrat strategy on the war, I see it as
normal human decency to the men and women who serve us.
Full Version: Sen. Jim Webb reignites his equal time home bill
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > U.S. Military Issues > Active Military Issues
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Sep 15 2007, 02:12 PM) 
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/washington/15cong.html
WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 — Now that President Bush and Gen. David H. Petraeus have charted their course for the Iraq war, Democrats in the Senate say one of their proposals aimed at shifting the president’s strategy is finally close to winning enough Republican support for a real chance at being approved. It would require that troops spend as much time at home as on their most recent tours overseas before being redeployed.
The proposal, by Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, has strong support from top Democrats, who say that the practical effect would be to add time between deployments and force General Petraeus to withdraw troops on a substantially swifter timeline than the one he laid out before Congress this week, and that it would protect troops from serving protracted and debilitating deployments.
-----------------------
How can anyone who cares for the troops not support an equal time home as in-country? They aren't even saying troops should only serve one tour, only that they should have equal time home.
I don't see this as a Democrat strategy on the war, I see it as
normal human decency to the men and women who serve us.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 — Now that President Bush and Gen. David H. Petraeus have charted their course for the Iraq war, Democrats in the Senate say one of their proposals aimed at shifting the president’s strategy is finally close to winning enough Republican support for a real chance at being approved. It would require that troops spend as much time at home as on their most recent tours overseas before being redeployed.
The proposal, by Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, has strong support from top Democrats, who say that the practical effect would be to add time between deployments and force General Petraeus to withdraw troops on a substantially swifter timeline than the one he laid out before Congress this week, and that it would protect troops from serving protracted and debilitating deployments.
-----------------------
How can anyone who cares for the troops not support an equal time home as in-country? They aren't even saying troops should only serve one tour, only that they should have equal time home.
I don't see this as a Democrat strategy on the war, I see it as
normal human decency to the men and women who serve us.
I see it as more look busy game playing on the part of democrats in congress. we've spent years now
on Congressional Debates about how to fight a war we shouldn't be fighting at all. People keep on dying on both sides and we keep on running our great, great grandchildren into debt, for what?
Bush can not get an appropriation bill through Congress to continue the war without the democrat's votes, so the democrats are
lying when they say they don't have the votes to stop the war.
QUOTE(rla @ Sep 15 2007, 01:24 PM)
I see it as more look busy game playing on the part of democrats in congress. we've spent years now
on Congressional Debates about how to fight a war we shouldn't be fighting at all. People keep on dying on both sides and we keep on running our great, great grandchildren into debt, for what?
Bush can not get an appropriation bill through Congress to continue the war without the democrat's votes, so the democrats are
lying when they say they don't have the votes to stop the war.
on Congressional Debates about how to fight a war we shouldn't be fighting at all. People keep on dying on both sides and we keep on running our great, great grandchildren into debt, for what?
Bush can not get an appropriation bill through Congress to continue the war without the democrat's votes, so the democrats are
lying when they say they don't have the votes to stop the war.
What you keep missing rla is that Bush's War has the Dems between Iraq and a hard place. The Dems do not doubt that were they to cut off the funding for the Iraq War, Bush would keep them there anyway, and short them on needed equipment upgrades like the specially armored vehicles that are now saving lives. What I think you don't get is that Bush don't care about the troops at all, and is perfectly willing to put them at risk and cynically blame the Dems for every death from the day funds were cut off!
Yes it is that bad, and the Dems are not willing to win a battle with Bush paid for with our troops lives.
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Sep 15 2007, 07:08 PM)
What you keep missing rla is that Bush's War has the Dems between Iraq and a hard place. The Dems do not doubt that were they to cut off the funding for the Iraq War, Bush would keep them there anyway, and short them on needed equipment upgrades like the specially armored vehicles that are now saving lives. What I think you don't get is that Bush don't care about the troops at all, and is perfectly willing to put them at risk and cynically blame the Dems for every death from the day funds were cut off!
Yes it is that bad, and the Dems are not willing to win a battle with Bush paid for with our troops lives.
Yes it is that bad, and the Dems are not willing to win a battle with Bush paid for with our troops lives.
I also believe this to be true. Our soldiers will pay the price and a majority of Americans will believe the Republican spin.
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Sep 15 2007, 05:08 PM)
What you keep missing rla is that Bush's War has the Dems between Iraq and a hard place. The Dems do not doubt that were they to cut off the funding for the Iraq War, Bush would keep them there anyway, and short them on needed equipment upgrades like the specially armored vehicles that are now saving lives. What I think you don't get is that Bush don't care about the troops at all, and is perfectly willing to put them at risk and cynically blame the Dems for every death from the day funds were cut off!
Yes it is that bad, and the Dems are not willing to win a battle with Bush paid for with our troops lives.
Yes it is that bad, and the Dems are not willing to win a battle with Bush paid for with our troops lives.
Anything Bush tried to do along this line would be further grounds for impeachment. Handling things your way will end up getting a lot more people dead than the few extra people Bush might be able to get dead by throwing monkey wrenches into the war machine during a six to twelve months
transition. The real problem is that there are still too many democrats that are still willing to sell out to the military-industrial-financial complex that is really calling the shots and the dem. leadership in Congress (and possibly Dean also) are complicit.
Light a candle or curse the darkness... 
I spoke against the Iraq Invasion, when the drum roll began,
I want our troops out of the civil war...and I'll support
some relief for the guys who saddle-up everyday on orders
from the United States of America.
I spoke against the Iraq Invasion, when the drum roll began,
I want our troops out of the civil war...and I'll support
some relief for the guys who saddle-up everyday on orders
from the United States of America.
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Sep 16 2007, 06:48 AM)
Light a candle or curse the darkness...
I spoke against the Iraq Invasion, when the drum roll began,
I want our troops out of the civil war...and I'll support
some relief for the guys who saddle-up everyday on orders
from the United States of America.
I spoke against the Iraq Invasion, when the drum roll began,
I want our troops out of the civil war...and I'll support
some relief for the guys who saddle-up everyday on orders
from the United States of America.
I understand the feelings that support this position. My reason for opposing it is that it delays
the process of the US Citizens discovering who and where the enemy is, and thus prevents
our soldiers from carrying out their oath to defend the Constitution and thus waists their
blood and our money.
QUOTE(rla @ Sep 16 2007, 06:02 AM)
I understand the feelings that support this position. My reason for opposing it is that it delays
the process of the US Citizens discovering who and where the enemy is, and thus prevents
our soldiers from carrying out their oath to defend the Constitution and thus waists their
blood and our money.
the process of the US Citizens discovering who and where the enemy is, and thus prevents
our soldiers from carrying out their oath to defend the Constitution and thus waists their
blood and our money.
Bush is so reckless and uncaring that he would literally hold the troops hostage to win a political battle. The Dems do not have the votes to change course to save troops lives. They cannot get the 60 votes now required by the Republicans eternal fillibustring to even get a change in policy to the floor much less override a veto. It should be noted that there are not enough Republicans with integrity in the Senate to change course at this time. If change is going to come before the elections people will have to put pressure on the Senate Republicans and the "Blue Dogs" in the House. Railing against the Dems who are doing all they can short of endangering the troops is pointless and counter-productive.
This morning Senator Webb was featured on Newsmakers on the C-span channel. He was very straight and clear about what a pickle the Congress is in, particularly the Democrats.
Frankly I get quite weary of members here bashing the senators and representatives. Congress is a legislative body, it is controlled by the rules of each bicameral division. Their tools are limited, as emphasized by Senator Webb . They are working diligently behind the scenes to find the 60 vote support required to get his legislation passed.
However on another program - the opposition was outlining exactly how they are going to destroy this proposed legislation. So we do not have in actuality an effective majority. This can only be altered if enough of those republican congressional seats involved in the upcoming elections are replaced by independents or democrats, at least up the the magical sixty number, better yet up to 67 - only then can the will of the people become possible through legislation and/or impeachment(s).
lenal
P.S. In many areas C-Span does a re-air of Newsmakers at 6 pm ET
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews
One of their best opportunities to change policy, according to party strategists and White House aides, could be an amendment drafted by Sen. James Webb (D-Va.), a former Marine, to mandate that home leaves for troops last as long as their deployments.
The Pentagon now may keep units in Iraq as long as 15 months and send them back after 12 months of rest. Webb's measure could force the Bush administration to trim troop levels to comply with its requirements, and the White House opposes it. But it appears to be gaining momentum in the Senate, where it received 56 votes in July, just four shy of the 60 needed to break a filibuster.
Webb may have 60 this time with the return of Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) and some Republican converts. Brian C. Nick, chief of staff to Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), said she is looking at the proposal "very carefully" and has been influenced by a Marine helicopter pilot who told Bush that short stateside breaks are limiting training and wearing down families. "Nobody's in the same place they were a few years ago," Nick said.
If Webb's measure passes, it will be the first Iraq policy bill opposed by the White House to reach Bush's desk over a Republican filibuster. Still, it will not stop the war. In the end, analysts said, that will be up to Bush or his successor.
"It's very difficult to force a president, once you've given him power to go to war, to get him to change," said Lawrence Korb, a former Reagan Defense Department official now at the liberal Center for American Progress. "It's almost impossible for Congress to do that."
--------------
I will support other efforts for force reduction, Iraqi training and support, redeployment and border security - the redeployment down to 60,000 I have mentioned for more than a year. But, Jim Webb has all my backing - he earned it, his son is earning it.
(Thanks for the heads-up lenal - I'll watch.
)
One of their best opportunities to change policy, according to party strategists and White House aides, could be an amendment drafted by Sen. James Webb (D-Va.), a former Marine, to mandate that home leaves for troops last as long as their deployments.
The Pentagon now may keep units in Iraq as long as 15 months and send them back after 12 months of rest. Webb's measure could force the Bush administration to trim troop levels to comply with its requirements, and the White House opposes it. But it appears to be gaining momentum in the Senate, where it received 56 votes in July, just four shy of the 60 needed to break a filibuster.
Webb may have 60 this time with the return of Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) and some Republican converts. Brian C. Nick, chief of staff to Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), said she is looking at the proposal "very carefully" and has been influenced by a Marine helicopter pilot who told Bush that short stateside breaks are limiting training and wearing down families. "Nobody's in the same place they were a few years ago," Nick said.
If Webb's measure passes, it will be the first Iraq policy bill opposed by the White House to reach Bush's desk over a Republican filibuster. Still, it will not stop the war. In the end, analysts said, that will be up to Bush or his successor.
"It's very difficult to force a president, once you've given him power to go to war, to get him to change," said Lawrence Korb, a former Reagan Defense Department official now at the liberal Center for American Progress. "It's almost impossible for Congress to do that."
--------------
I will support other efforts for force reduction, Iraqi training and support, redeployment and border security - the redeployment down to 60,000 I have mentioned for more than a year. But, Jim Webb has all my backing - he earned it, his son is earning it.
(Thanks for the heads-up lenal - I'll watch.
)
Appears that Gates is drinking the WH Koolaid, swallowing executive/unitary power and to hell with the troops, plus war-mongering against Iran.
From the Houston Chronicle:
From the Houston Chronicle:
QUOTE
Sept. 16, 2007, 12:50PM
Gates opposes plan to give troops more rest
Legislation allowing as much time at home station as deployments would be dangerous route to drawdown, the defense secretary says
By HOPE YEN
Associated Press
U.S. military interventions since '50s WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert Gates said today he would recommend a veto of a Senate proposal that would give troops more rest between deployments in Iraq, branding it a dangerous "backdoor way" to draw down forces.
Democrats pledged to push ahead with the plan by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., and expressed confidence they could round up the votes to pass it, although perhaps not by the margin to override a veto.
"The operational tempo that our forces are under is excruciatingly difficult for our soldiers, Marines, all of our personnel and their families," said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. "They deserve the same amount of time back home as they stay in the field."
The comments represented the latest political clash over the future course of the war. Last week, President Bush announced plans for a limited drawdown but indicated that combat forces would stay in Iraq well past 2008.
With the Senate expected to resume debate this week on anti-war legislation, Gates sharpened his criticism of Webb's proposal. It would require troops get as much time at their home station as their deployments to the war front.
"If it were enacted, we would have force management problems that would be extremely difficult and, in fact, affect combat effectiveness and perhaps pose greater risk to our troops," he said.
Supporters of Webb's proposal say it has at least 57 out of the 60 votes needed for passage. It would need 67 votes to override a veto.
A separate proposal by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., seeks to restrict the mission of troops to fighting terrorists and training the Iraqi security force.
"The president has dangled a carrot in front of the American people talking about troop reductions," Levin said. "But, again, it is an illusion of a change of course and the American people are not buying it. My colleagues are not buying it."
If Webb's amendment were enacted, the defense secretary said, it would force Gates to consider again extending tours in Iraq. He explained that the military commanders would be constrained in the use of available forces, creating gaps and forcing greater use of an already strained National Guard and Reserve.
"It really is a backdoor way to try and force the president to accelerate the drawdown," Gates said. "Again, the drawdowns have to be based on the conditions on the ground."
Active-duty Army units today are on 15-month deployments with a promise of no more than 12 months' rest. Marines who spend seven or more months at war sometimes get six months or less at home.
"We're having difficulty trying to keep to my policy of 15 months deployed, 12 months at home, for the active force and a full-year mobilization limit on the Guard and Reserve. We're having enough trouble trying to make that work, without the strictures of legislation," Gates said.
Bush said last week that he had approved a plan by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, to withdraw 5,700 troops from Iraq by the holidays and reduce the force from 20 combat brigades to 15 brigades by July.
There are about 169,000 U.S. troops in Iraq today.
Gates on Friday raised the possibility of cutting troop levels to 100,000 or so by the end of next year, well beyond the cuts Bush announced.
But Gates said today he could not say how large the force would be in the coming years, stressing that it would depend on conditions on the ground and whether the security situation in Iraq had improved dramatically.
In the long term, Gates said, U.S. forces would focus on border security, fighting terrorists and training and equipping Iraqi security forces.
Meanwhile, Gates said he disagreed with assertions by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in Greenspan's new book that the Iraq war "is largely about oil."
"It's really about stability in the Gulf. It's about rogue regimes trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. It's about aggressive dictators," Gates said.
Gates spoke on Fox News Sunday and ABC's This Week. Reed was on ABC and Levin appeared on CBS' Face the Nation.
Gates opposes plan to give troops more rest
Legislation allowing as much time at home station as deployments would be dangerous route to drawdown, the defense secretary says
By HOPE YEN
Associated Press
U.S. military interventions since '50s WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert Gates said today he would recommend a veto of a Senate proposal that would give troops more rest between deployments in Iraq, branding it a dangerous "backdoor way" to draw down forces.
Democrats pledged to push ahead with the plan by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., and expressed confidence they could round up the votes to pass it, although perhaps not by the margin to override a veto.
"The operational tempo that our forces are under is excruciatingly difficult for our soldiers, Marines, all of our personnel and their families," said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. "They deserve the same amount of time back home as they stay in the field."
The comments represented the latest political clash over the future course of the war. Last week, President Bush announced plans for a limited drawdown but indicated that combat forces would stay in Iraq well past 2008.
With the Senate expected to resume debate this week on anti-war legislation, Gates sharpened his criticism of Webb's proposal. It would require troops get as much time at their home station as their deployments to the war front.
"If it were enacted, we would have force management problems that would be extremely difficult and, in fact, affect combat effectiveness and perhaps pose greater risk to our troops," he said.
Supporters of Webb's proposal say it has at least 57 out of the 60 votes needed for passage. It would need 67 votes to override a veto.
A separate proposal by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., seeks to restrict the mission of troops to fighting terrorists and training the Iraqi security force.
"The president has dangled a carrot in front of the American people talking about troop reductions," Levin said. "But, again, it is an illusion of a change of course and the American people are not buying it. My colleagues are not buying it."
If Webb's amendment were enacted, the defense secretary said, it would force Gates to consider again extending tours in Iraq. He explained that the military commanders would be constrained in the use of available forces, creating gaps and forcing greater use of an already strained National Guard and Reserve.
"It really is a backdoor way to try and force the president to accelerate the drawdown," Gates said. "Again, the drawdowns have to be based on the conditions on the ground."
Active-duty Army units today are on 15-month deployments with a promise of no more than 12 months' rest. Marines who spend seven or more months at war sometimes get six months or less at home.
"We're having difficulty trying to keep to my policy of 15 months deployed, 12 months at home, for the active force and a full-year mobilization limit on the Guard and Reserve. We're having enough trouble trying to make that work, without the strictures of legislation," Gates said.
Bush said last week that he had approved a plan by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, to withdraw 5,700 troops from Iraq by the holidays and reduce the force from 20 combat brigades to 15 brigades by July.
There are about 169,000 U.S. troops in Iraq today.
Gates on Friday raised the possibility of cutting troop levels to 100,000 or so by the end of next year, well beyond the cuts Bush announced.
But Gates said today he could not say how large the force would be in the coming years, stressing that it would depend on conditions on the ground and whether the security situation in Iraq had improved dramatically.
In the long term, Gates said, U.S. forces would focus on border security, fighting terrorists and training and equipping Iraqi security forces.
Meanwhile, Gates said he disagreed with assertions by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in Greenspan's new book that the Iraq war "is largely about oil."
"It's really about stability in the Gulf. It's about rogue regimes trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. It's about aggressive dictators," Gates said.
Gates spoke on Fox News Sunday and ABC's This Week. Reed was on ABC and Levin appeared on CBS' Face the Nation.
Congress has no constitutional power to micromanage the war. Every time the Democrats in Congress try to do so they simply buy more ownership of the war. They do have the constitutional power to declare war and to undeclare war. So long as Pelosi keeps Impeachment off the table, Bush will be able to keep withdrawal off the table. who is it still not obvious to that the Democratic Party
Leadership does not want to end the war, even though a majority of citizens are demanding that we end it. Kerry refused to face the nation on Face the Nation, this morning by refusing to de-fund the war. This shows him in the league with Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Hillary and probably Obama. Accommodating the military-industria-financial networks is more important to them.
Leadership does not want to end the war, even though a majority of citizens are demanding that we end it. Kerry refused to face the nation on Face the Nation, this morning by refusing to de-fund the war. This shows him in the league with Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Hillary and probably Obama. Accommodating the military-industria-financial networks is more important to them.
I just saw Senator Webb on C-Span's Newsmakers...(thanks lenal!)
I am soooo proud of this man.
He knows what Congress can do...he knows what
troops need as a basic neccessity...he has been
stable, standard and enduring in his push for
diplomacy, engagement of surrounding nations,
and redeployment.
This man loves this country...his life has been dedicated
to it, his son's is dedicated to it...he bleeds Red, White and Blue.
I've never seen a Freshman Senator so important...as a
member of Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees...
leading the way for sanity amidst insanity...he is in his realm.
It's fine and good to cry for immediate reversal of a flawed
ideological invasion, a fiasco of planning and strategy...
but in the real world...Jim Webb is the guy carrying the ball.
I wish he were my Senator...and I'm proud as hell to
call him "brother"...as a Vietnam Vet and a Southerner.
I am soooo proud of this man.
He knows what Congress can do...he knows what
troops need as a basic neccessity...he has been
stable, standard and enduring in his push for
diplomacy, engagement of surrounding nations,
and redeployment.
This man loves this country...his life has been dedicated
to it, his son's is dedicated to it...he bleeds Red, White and Blue.
I've never seen a Freshman Senator so important...as a
member of Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees...
leading the way for sanity amidst insanity...he is in his realm.
It's fine and good to cry for immediate reversal of a flawed
ideological invasion, a fiasco of planning and strategy...
but in the real world...Jim Webb is the guy carrying the ball.
I wish he were my Senator...and I'm proud as hell to
call him "brother"...as a Vietnam Vet and a Southerner.
I think webb is as phoney as a three dollar bill, just like his mentor, Ronald Reagan.
Indianhead -- pleased you were interested enough to catch the re-air of the Webb interview. Just think, after John Warner's retirement, Webb will be the senior senator from Virginia. Now if we increase the D and I membership, maybe our country can be salvaged although IMO "W" has inflicted damages that are going to take generations to recover from.
Regarding the post above about Gates........He's the disappointing one. Bush Daddy Buddy trying to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for the son.
Just as "W" wouldn't serve in Nam, he is checking out on what he has wrought during his disastrous administration and even has the gall to proclaim that he is going to pass the buck to the successor. Same M.O. ------ the yellowbellied chicken hawk.
lenal
Regarding the post above about Gates........He's the disappointing one. Bush Daddy Buddy trying to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for the son.
Just as "W" wouldn't serve in Nam, he is checking out on what he has wrought during his disastrous administration and even has the gall to proclaim that he is going to pass the buck to the successor. Same M.O. ------ the yellowbellied chicken hawk.
lenal
GW's probably never been in a fist fight...
he acted like the bored man in the Dylan song...
"Now the rowin' gambler he was very bored
He was tryin' to create a next world war
He found a promoter who nearly fell off the floor
He said I never engaged in this kind of thing before
But yes I think it can be very easily done
We'll just put some bleachers out in the sun
And have it on Highway 61." (last verse, Highway 61 Revisited)
Webb is the out-front guy of the Conservative Democrats.
Some will like him, others will not. But his type is the potion Democrats
need if they want to take The South and a super majority in the Senate.
For those seeking Nirvana...I suggest visiting a different section
of the music store.
lenal - I liked that reporters from the LA Times and the Richmond (?) paper
were the ones asking questions. He also adeptly handled the host's targeted
question concerning "success" of the surge in al-Anbar.
he acted like the bored man in the Dylan song...
"Now the rowin' gambler he was very bored
He was tryin' to create a next world war
He found a promoter who nearly fell off the floor
He said I never engaged in this kind of thing before
But yes I think it can be very easily done
We'll just put some bleachers out in the sun
And have it on Highway 61." (last verse, Highway 61 Revisited)
Webb is the out-front guy of the Conservative Democrats.
Some will like him, others will not. But his type is the potion Democrats
need if they want to take The South and a super majority in the Senate.
For those seeking Nirvana...I suggest visiting a different section
of the music store.
lenal - I liked that reporters from the LA Times and the Richmond (?) paper
were the ones asking questions. He also adeptly handled the host's targeted
question concerning "success" of the surge in al-Anbar.
QUOTE(lenal @ Sep 16 2007, 06:56 PM)
Indianhead -- pleased you were interested enough to catch the re-air of the Webb interview. Just think, after John Warner's retirement, Webb will be the senior senator from Virginia. Now if we increase the D and I membership, maybe our country can be salvaged although IMO "W" has inflicted damages that are going to take generations to recover from.
Regarding the post above about Gates........He's the disappointing one. Bush Daddy Buddy trying to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for the son.
Just as "W" wouldn't serve in Nam, he is checking out on what he has wrought during his disastrous administration and even has the gall to proclaim that he is going to pass the buck to the successor. Same M.O. ------ the yellowbellied chicken hawk.
lenal
Regarding the post above about Gates........He's the disappointing one. Bush Daddy Buddy trying to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for the son.
Just as "W" wouldn't serve in Nam, he is checking out on what he has wrought during his disastrous administration and even has the gall to proclaim that he is going to pass the buck to the successor. Same M.O. ------ the yellowbellied chicken hawk.
lenal
One thing I have to say about, "John webb," is he attracts a high class, intellectually potent
following... and I pretty much know how Dennis Kucinich might sometimes feel, when the
Party Leadership says: This Cowboy is the very best You can expect from the Democratic Party
Leadership in the real world or from the Democratic Party Leadership in Congress.(I do appoligize
for the small w, my capital w doesn't work)
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jDKgnV...wlEmUf46qSdtpHg
Us Senate rejects anti-war bill
1 hour ago
WASHINGTON (AFP) — President George W. Bush's administration Wednesday beat off the latest bid by Democrats to derail its Iraq strategy, as the Senate blocked a bid to limit numbers of troops ready for deployment.
After wavering Republican senators came under fierce political pressure, the bill garnered 56 votes in the 100-member chamber, but fell four votes short of the 60-vote supermajority needed to pass the bill.
The measure, framed by Democratic Senator James Webb, and backed by Republican war critic Senator Chuck Hagel, would have mandated rest periods for troops equal to the length of time they spent on combat tours.
Its failure was the latest bitter disappointment for Democrats who grabbed control of Congress last year, but have repeatedly failed to change the course of US strategy in the unpopular war.
"We cannot continue to look at war and the people who fight and die in wars as abstractions, as pawns, as objects," said Hagel, who has branded the Iraq war a foreign policy disaster.
"The humanity of this is lost."
But critics branded the bill a "back-door" attempt to enforce a drawdown of US troops from Iraq. Supporters did not dispute the fact it would limit troop levels, but said it was vital to ease the strain on the US military.
Though Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had warned he would ask Bush to veto the measure had it passed, the bill was seen as the Democrats' best shot of passing measures this year to challenge Bush's control of the war.
Republicans celebrated the defeat of the bill.
----------------
I don't call this an anti-war bill...I call it a "support the troops" bill.
Let me tell you this...these chickenhawk MFs can kiss my Rebel A*ss.
They can alibi all they want. But they don't support troops.
They don't know war. I don't give a d*amn about their politics...
I curse their political prostitution. They should shoulder a
weapon and go to war...those sorry SOBs...those chickensh*t
politicians. And, anybody who wants to argue this can kiss
it too. I'm hot and am taking no prisoners in this Republican
c*rap. Support the troops? Kiss my Rebel A*S*S!
and...an edit...anyone who wants to explain away this political
decision...f*ck U and the horse you rode in on. Stand down,
or else I'll dress your company-man, officer-kissing a*s*s, down.
This sh*t don't fly, anyway, anyhow. A fraggin' is in order.
Us Senate rejects anti-war bill
1 hour ago
WASHINGTON (AFP) — President George W. Bush's administration Wednesday beat off the latest bid by Democrats to derail its Iraq strategy, as the Senate blocked a bid to limit numbers of troops ready for deployment.
After wavering Republican senators came under fierce political pressure, the bill garnered 56 votes in the 100-member chamber, but fell four votes short of the 60-vote supermajority needed to pass the bill.
The measure, framed by Democratic Senator James Webb, and backed by Republican war critic Senator Chuck Hagel, would have mandated rest periods for troops equal to the length of time they spent on combat tours.
Its failure was the latest bitter disappointment for Democrats who grabbed control of Congress last year, but have repeatedly failed to change the course of US strategy in the unpopular war.
"We cannot continue to look at war and the people who fight and die in wars as abstractions, as pawns, as objects," said Hagel, who has branded the Iraq war a foreign policy disaster.
"The humanity of this is lost."
But critics branded the bill a "back-door" attempt to enforce a drawdown of US troops from Iraq. Supporters did not dispute the fact it would limit troop levels, but said it was vital to ease the strain on the US military.
Though Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had warned he would ask Bush to veto the measure had it passed, the bill was seen as the Democrats' best shot of passing measures this year to challenge Bush's control of the war.
Republicans celebrated the defeat of the bill.
----------------
I don't call this an anti-war bill...I call it a "support the troops" bill.
Let me tell you this...these chickenhawk MFs can kiss my Rebel A*ss.
They can alibi all they want. But they don't support troops.
They don't know war. I don't give a d*amn about their politics...
I curse their political prostitution. They should shoulder a
weapon and go to war...those sorry SOBs...those chickensh*t
politicians. And, anybody who wants to argue this can kiss
it too. I'm hot and am taking no prisoners in this Republican
c*rap. Support the troops? Kiss my Rebel A*S*S!
and...an edit...anyone who wants to explain away this political
decision...f*ck U and the horse you rode in on. Stand down,
or else I'll dress your company-man, officer-kissing a*s*s, down.
This sh*t don't fly, anyway, anyhow. A fraggin' is in order.
Yee-Haa! (Rebel Yell from a Northerner IH!)
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Sep 19 2007, 07:21 PM)
Yee-Haa! (Rebel Yell from a Northerner IH!)
Anyone who defends this is a pariah to me.
Anyone who wants to explain why a grunt can't stay home
as long as he humps a theater of war is full of it
These sorry SOBs don't deserve the service of warriors.
They don't step up, not even for those who do.
Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel deserve more.
They want to diss their service? They want to
abuse troops for their fiasco mission? Lifers only.
And grunts don't respect it.
Y'all know I don't mind fightin' for the colors...
but these SOBs have dissed my colors with their neo-con
mission...without any respect for those who bleed for it.
I am hot.
I've been tryin' to tell everyone for years what I've seen the Republican Party morph into. I get called partisan for it, but the Party of Ike is no more. Our greatest warrior's own progeny rejects what his party has sunk to. They need to wander in the wilderness and get rid of the diseased within their ranks before they would deserve to get near power again. The Dems need a spine transplant, and as more Vets run it may recover some of it.
I'm a simple guy. Nothin' but a grunt...
but, a fraggin' is in order. It's the last
resort for men who pay...led by "company" men.
Sometimes, many times, enemy fire takes care
of business...but sometimes...call for exceptional cirumstances.
I don't expect those who have not been there to understand.
However, if a commander, of any level, endangers the lives
of the ones who carry the ball...for political promotion....well,
he takes his place...and his chances. As he should. Chose your
loyalties...and cover your a*s*s. Where're your loyalties?
but, a fraggin' is in order. It's the last
resort for men who pay...led by "company" men.
Sometimes, many times, enemy fire takes care
of business...but sometimes...call for exceptional cirumstances.
I don't expect those who have not been there to understand.
However, if a commander, of any level, endangers the lives
of the ones who carry the ball...for political promotion....well,
he takes his place...and his chances. As he should. Chose your
loyalties...and cover your a*s*s. Where're your loyalties?
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Sep 19 2007, 06:42 PM)
I've been tryin' to tell everyone for years what I've seen the Republican Party morph into. I get called partisan for it, but the Party of Ike is no more. Our greatest warrior's own progeny rejects what his party has sunk to. They need to wander in the wilderness and get rid of the diseased within their ranks before they would deserve to get near power again. The Dems need a spine transplant, and as more Vets run it may recover some of it.
One needs to be a VET to help the Dems? The people who keep scaring the Dem pols at every turn (like what happened with Joe of Conn) are the people the Dems need to be rid of. DIsagreement is one thung, but hate and hysteria are another.
The Dems are in danger of becoming what the GOP did if they allow the wingnuts to set an agenda. What happened to the party of *ike*?
exactly
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Sep 19 2007, 08:14 PM)
would have mandated rest periods for troops equal to the length of time they spent on combat tours
Actually methinks, if you care to look at it, you'll find that's not quite what Webb's bill said. It said overseas tours and deployments, not just combat tours, eh? Seems, for instance, if a soldier spent two years in Germany, a sailor two years in Japan, an airman two years in Italy or a Marine two years in Scotland, even if accompanied by their family, they wouldn't be deployable into a combat zone for an additional two years.I watched on C-Span2 how both Senators Warner and McCain on the Senate floor tried to get the Democrats to change the bill (actually an amendment) to make it more workable and therefore passable, but without success, eh? After watchin' this methinks the Senate Democrats were more worried 'bout keepin' this alive as a political issue than they were 'bout actually supportin' the troops by gettin' it passed and solvin' the problem!
I'm sure lotsa people, includin' here, will make rhetorical hay with the defeat of Webb's faulty legislation, but IMHO the Democrats were just as guilty as Republicans were on this.
ahh, no delete button again? I forgot about the control factor.
sigh
sigh
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Sep 19 2007, 05:58 PM)
I'm a simple guy. Nothin' but a grunt...
but, a fraggin' is in order. It's the last
resort for men who pay...led by "company" men.
Sometimes, many times, enemy fire takes care
of business...but sometimes...call for exceptional cirumstances.
I don't expect those who have not been there to understand.
However, if a commander, of any level, endangers the lives
of the ones who carry the ball...for political promotion....well,
he takes his place...and his chances. As he should. Chose your
loyalties...and cover your a*s*s. Where're your loyalties?
but, a fraggin' is in order. It's the last
resort for men who pay...led by "company" men.
Sometimes, many times, enemy fire takes care
of business...but sometimes...call for exceptional cirumstances.
I don't expect those who have not been there to understand.
However, if a commander, of any level, endangers the lives
of the ones who carry the ball...for political promotion....well,
he takes his place...and his chances. As he should. Chose your
loyalties...and cover your a*s*s. Where're your loyalties?
Careful Bro. Cool the Tiger flame in your eyes. This is a Nation of Heros. These creatures will meet the fate history has for their ilk.
QUOTE(flydangler @ Sep 19 2007, 07:04 PM)
Actually methinks, if you care to look at it, you'll find that's not quite what Webb's bill said. It said overseas tours and deployments, not just combat tours, eh? Seems, for instance, if a soldier spent two years in Germany, a sailor two years in Japan, an airman two years in Italy or a Marine two years in Scotland, even if accompanied by their family, they wouldn't be deployable into a combat zone for an additional two years.
I watched on C-Span2 how both Senators Warner and McCain on the Senate floor tried to get the Democrats to change the bill (actually an amendment) to make it more workable and therefore passable, but without success, eh? After watchin' this methinks the Senate Democrats were more worried 'bout keepin' this alive as a political issue than they were 'bout actually supportin' the troops by gettin' it passed and solvin' the problem!
I'm sure lotsa people, includin' here, will make rhetorical hay with the defeat of Webb's faulty legislation, but IMHO the Democrats were just as guilty as Republicans were on this.
I watched on C-Span2 how both Senators Warner and McCain on the Senate floor tried to get the Democrats to change the bill (actually an amendment) to make it more workable and therefore passable, but without success, eh? After watchin' this methinks the Senate Democrats were more worried 'bout keepin' this alive as a political issue than they were 'bout actually supportin' the troops by gettin' it passed and solvin' the problem!
I'm sure lotsa people, includin' here, will make rhetorical hay with the defeat of Webb's faulty legislation, but IMHO the Democrats were just as guilty as Republicans were on this.
If you break it you own it. Who broke it?
QUOTE(70sliberalism @ Sep 19 2007, 06:03 PM)
One needs to be a VET to help the Dems? The people who keep scaring the Dem pols at every turn (like what happened with Joe of Conn) are the people the Dems need to be rid of. DIsagreement is one thung, but hate and hysteria are another.
The Dems are in danger of becoming what the GOP did if they allow the wingnuts to set an agenda. What happened to the party of *ike*?
exactly
The Dems are in danger of becoming what the GOP did if they allow the wingnuts to set an agenda. What happened to the party of *ike*?
exactly
The proportion of Vets in Congress is at a historical low since WWII. The proportion used to be about 50%. It is now down to less than 25%. Service isn't necessary to be in office but it helps especially where decisions about War and the needs of Troops, exit strategies, and Vets needs (wounded and otherwise) are concerned.
Bad decisions are made when ChickenHawks are in charge. That is what happened to the Party of Ike.
Fly, hello.
If the surge or the war in Iraq were to turn out positively conservatives and supporters of Bush/Cheney policies would be gloating with a "we won" attitude. they would denounce all who disagreed. Yet when thing do not work out well they always seem to spread the blame or walk away from ownership )petraeus' plan?).
If the surge or the war in Iraq were to turn out positively conservatives and supporters of Bush/Cheney policies would be gloating with a "we won" attitude. they would denounce all who disagreed. Yet when thing do not work out well they always seem to spread the blame or walk away from ownership )petraeus' plan?).
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Not Voting
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
--------------
Warner-R, Va. voted yea...
I apologize to him...
Any vet who wants to parse this sh*t...
you have the right, but not the righteousness.
If y'all want to serve the Republican Party (check the vote)
serve 'em. But...that's who you serve...put the flag down.
Because it ain't the colors...it's the ideology...I won't serve that.
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Not Voting
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
--------------
Warner-R, Va. voted yea...
I apologize to him...
Any vet who wants to parse this sh*t...
you have the right, but not the righteousness.
If y'all want to serve the Republican Party (check the vote)
serve 'em. But...that's who you serve...put the flag down.
Because it ain't the colors...it's the ideology...I won't serve that.
QUOTE(flydangler @ Sep 19 2007, 06:04 PM)
Actually methinks, if you care to look at it, you'll find that's not quite what Webb's bill said. It said overseas tours and deployments, not just combat tours, eh? Seems, for instance, if a soldier spent two years in Germany, a sailor two years in Japan, an airman two years in Italy or a Marine two years in Scotland, even if accompanied by their family, they wouldn't be deployable into a combat zone for an additional two years.
I watched on C-Span2 how both Senators Warner and McCain on the Senate floor tried to get the Democrats to change the bill (actually an amendment) to make it more workable and therefore passable, but without success, eh? After watchin' this methinks the Senate Democrats were more worried 'bout keepin' this alive as a political issue than they were 'bout actually supportin' the troops by gettin' it passed and solvin' the problem!
I'm sure lotsa people, includin' here, will make rhetorical hay with the defeat of Webb's faulty legislation, but IMHO the Democrats were just as guilty as Republicans were on this.
I watched on C-Span2 how both Senators Warner and McCain on the Senate floor tried to get the Democrats to change the bill (actually an amendment) to make it more workable and therefore passable, but without success, eh? After watchin' this methinks the Senate Democrats were more worried 'bout keepin' this alive as a political issue than they were 'bout actually supportin' the troops by gettin' it passed and solvin' the problem!
I'm sure lotsa people, includin' here, will make rhetorical hay with the defeat of Webb's faulty legislation, but IMHO the Democrats were just as guilty as Republicans were on this.
I don't have C-Span2 anymore so I could not watch it, but I doubt the Dems would reject a reasonable Amendment. I suspect there was a "poison pill" in it that caused the Dems to reject it. I have watched the Republicans too long to be fooled by their rhetoric.
Those who did not support the troops
deserve no place. Anyone...if y'all think
National Guard, Reserves, Army and Marines
don't deserve equal time...off...
Post pretty pictures and talk 'bout B.S.
This is simple to me. Service walks and B.S. talks.
If ya don't support troops...talk about the economy...
or the weather...but stand down on troops. Or ya lose
your place. Black and white here...black and white.
Vets love vets...or else...they lose place with me.
Who don't support equal time off?
Only those sold out...'nuff said.
QUOTE(flydangler @ Sep 19 2007, 09:04 PM)
Actually methinks, if you care to look at it, you'll find that's not quite what Webb's bill said. It said overseas tours and deployments, not just combat tours, eh? Seems, for instance, if a soldier spent two years in Germany, a sailor two years in Japan, an airman two years in Italy or a Marine two years in Scotland, even if accompanied by their family, they wouldn't be deployable into a combat zone for an additional two years.
I watched on C-Span2 how both Senators Warner and McCain on the Senate floor tried to get the Democrats to change the bill (actually an amendment) to make it more workable and therefore passable, but without success, eh? After watchin' this methinks the Senate Democrats were more worried 'bout keepin' this alive as a political issue than they were 'bout actually supportin' the troops by gettin' it passed and solvin' the problem!
I'm sure lotsa people, includin' here, will make rhetorical hay with the defeat of Webb's faulty legislation, but IMHO the Democrats were just as guilty as Republicans were on this.
I watched on C-Span2 how both Senators Warner and McCain on the Senate floor tried to get the Democrats to change the bill (actually an amendment) to make it more workable and therefore passable, but without success, eh? After watchin' this methinks the Senate Democrats were more worried 'bout keepin' this alive as a political issue than they were 'bout actually supportin' the troops by gettin' it passed and solvin' the problem!
I'm sure lotsa people, includin' here, will make rhetorical hay with the defeat of Webb's faulty legislation, but IMHO the Democrats were just as guilty as Republicans were on this.
Text of amendment:
http://webb.senate.gov/pdf/WebbAmdtSep07.pdf
I read the amendment and from what I see the amendment only addresses troops deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. Being clueless about military actions, maybe I missed something. Would you point out where the amendment refers to troops other than those deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq?
Also, I'm interested in knowing, specifically, the suggestions made by McCain and Warner that were rejected by the Dems. I've searched and can't find a text or video of the senate debate on this amendment. Thanks.
Here's how the backroom works and explains Senator Warner's doublecross of the Webb proposal:
CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
Sept. 19, 2007 – 2:02 p.m.
Amendment to Limit Troop Deployments Faces Long Odds
An amendment to mandate minimum rest times for U.S. troops between deployments faced long odds Wednesday after an influential Republican senator switched his position and said he would vote against it.
John W. Warner, R-Va., a senior Armed Services Committee member who voted for the amendment by Jim Webb, D-Va., when it last came to the floor in July, said he had changed his mind. He said the ranks of military specialists are so thin in many positions that commanders on the ground would be seriously hobbled by mandatory “dwell times” between deployments.
Bush administration officials have been furiously lobbying moderate Republican senators to oppose the measure.
The Webb amendment would require military personnel to be given at least as much time at home as they spend deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. National Guard and reserve forces would have to be allowed three years at home for each one at war.
As the Senate debated the measure, the operations chiefs of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Army huddled with a small group of centrist Republicans in a Russell Senate Office Building room.
The group included Republicans John W. Warner of Virginia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Afterwards, several sounded as if they had been won over.“My goal is not to create a management nightmare for our commanders,” said Alexander.
Warner announced on the floor that he would oppose the measure. He was one of 56 senators who voted for an earlier version in July, leaving Webb four votes short of the 60 needed to overcome a GOP filibuster.
In the face of another filibuster, several additional Republicans had been weighing a vote change to support the new proposal. But Warner’s switch the other direction is likely to bolster the administration’s case against it.
Source: CQ Today Midday Update
Political Clippings compiled from BNN Frontrunner and CQ Politics.com.
© 2007 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.
############
So you can see for yourself how difficult it is for the Democrats to round up those 60 or 67 votes........tell me, those here who are always carping about the Senate or House Dems not accompllishing what they feel the 2006 election votes mandated ........just what would be your strategy to overcome the stacked deck?
Impressive presentations on the floor again today by the Dems on the Feingold-Hagel amendment to the same bill that got defeated too.
lenal
CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
Sept. 19, 2007 – 2:02 p.m.
Amendment to Limit Troop Deployments Faces Long Odds
An amendment to mandate minimum rest times for U.S. troops between deployments faced long odds Wednesday after an influential Republican senator switched his position and said he would vote against it.
John W. Warner, R-Va., a senior Armed Services Committee member who voted for the amendment by Jim Webb, D-Va., when it last came to the floor in July, said he had changed his mind. He said the ranks of military specialists are so thin in many positions that commanders on the ground would be seriously hobbled by mandatory “dwell times” between deployments.
Bush administration officials have been furiously lobbying moderate Republican senators to oppose the measure.
The Webb amendment would require military personnel to be given at least as much time at home as they spend deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. National Guard and reserve forces would have to be allowed three years at home for each one at war.
As the Senate debated the measure, the operations chiefs of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Army huddled with a small group of centrist Republicans in a Russell Senate Office Building room.
The group included Republicans John W. Warner of Virginia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Afterwards, several sounded as if they had been won over.“My goal is not to create a management nightmare for our commanders,” said Alexander.
Warner announced on the floor that he would oppose the measure. He was one of 56 senators who voted for an earlier version in July, leaving Webb four votes short of the 60 needed to overcome a GOP filibuster.
In the face of another filibuster, several additional Republicans had been weighing a vote change to support the new proposal. But Warner’s switch the other direction is likely to bolster the administration’s case against it.
Source: CQ Today Midday Update
Political Clippings compiled from BNN Frontrunner and CQ Politics.com.
© 2007 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.
############
So you can see for yourself how difficult it is for the Democrats to round up those 60 or 67 votes........tell me, those here who are always carping about the Senate or House Dems not accompllishing what they feel the 2006 election votes mandated ........just what would be your strategy to overcome the stacked deck?
Impressive presentations on the floor again today by the Dems on the Feingold-Hagel amendment to the same bill that got defeated too.
lenal
In the title of Webb's amendment:
Purpose: To specify minimum periods between deployment
of units and members of the Armed Forces deployed for
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
All this Republican tap dancing can not remove the fact
that they went to war with the Army we had, made huge
mistakes and therefore the strength of our combat forces
are sub-standard...causing neo-cons to use up every reserve,
and national guardsman we have, besides redeploying regulars,
until they stumble from fatigue.
Now if the ideology is more important than the troops,
the health of the military, and the individual soldier and
his/her family...say so...call for a draft. Anything else
is the Washington two-step at the expense of troops.
So, peel the magnetic ribbons off those vehicles and
stick a Bush-Cheney sticker in their place.
Does neo-con hyprocracy have no limits? (rhetorical question)
By the way all the other services are being retrained to replace the army as boots on the ground. Air force and navy are now fulfilling infantry duty.
This is also why the vice presidential motorcade arrived at congress and again Chaney only met with the Republican members.
If you want to portray the military honorably then present your argument without dissing men who served honorably
This is also why the vice presidential motorcade arrived at congress and again Chaney only met with the Republican members.
If you want to portray the military honorably then present your argument without dissing men who served honorably
QUOTE(amy @ Sep 20 2007, 09:43 AM)
Text of amendment:
http://webb.senate.gov/pdf/WebbAmdtSep07.pdf
I read the amendment and from what I see the amendment only addresses troops deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. Being clueless about military actions, maybe I missed something. Would you point out where the amendment refers to troops other than those deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq?
From readin' last week the Webb Amendment that was actually filed on the "Thomas" web site (where, surprisingly it seems it no longer appears with the same provisions) and listenin' to the debate on the Senate floor yesterday (where the provisions I'm referrin' to were quoted verbatim), then goin' to Senator Webb's government web site and readin' the incomplete draft of his legislation you provided the link to (it lacked some of the generalized provisions regardin' individuals servin' deployments to non combat areas and/or overseas tours) methinks I smell a rat! IMHO Senator Webb and/or other Democrats inserted a poison pill regardin' individuals returnin' from overseas tours/deployment to other than combat areas that they tried to hide, but got caught by Senators McCain and Warner, eh?http://webb.senate.gov/pdf/WebbAmdtSep07.pdf
I read the amendment and from what I see the amendment only addresses troops deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. Being clueless about military actions, maybe I missed something. Would you point out where the amendment refers to troops other than those deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq?
Lemme give you an example of what the section apparently bein' hid pertains to. Since I was a Navy Hospital Corpsman methinks I can relate directly to this one. Under the language in the Webb Amendment actually filed and voted on yesterday had someone like me completed a three year accompanied tour ashore overseas (like one of the Naval Hospitals in Japan) they could not then be sent to a Marine unit deployin' to a combat area in SW Asia for a period of at least three years. Likewise a soldier comin' back from a tour in Germany where he and his family were nice and cozy would be in exactly the same situation. Even I can recognize the unworkable bureaucratic nightmare that would result in!
IMHO there's much more goin' on than meets the eye, eh?
QUOTE
I'm interested in knowing, specifically, the suggestions made by McCain and Warner that were rejected by the Dems
They was askin' for the language I quoted from Indianhead's note here which says "mandated rest periods for troops equal to the length of time they spent on combat tours", eh? Can you see the difference?Methinks this'll get some folk's ideological knickers in a knot, but I don't care anymore! Folks on both sides of the aisle're playin' politics usin' our troops in harms way as pawns, and I don't like it!!!
QUOTE(cutecat @ Sep 20 2007, 07:33 PM)
By the way all the other services are being retrained to replace the army as boots on the ground. Air force and navy are now fulfilling infantry duty
We had a thread on this very subject here not so long ago, but methinks you musta missed it. The Air Force and Navy only expanded a bit their already existin' program of ground combat duties, eh? I know this 'cause I was in the Navy for 30 years, but served over 20 of them years with Marine Corps units, includin' tours in combat.
I did a bit of editing and deleting on this thread. If anyone has a question about this, please contact me by pm.
Thanks,
amy
Thanks,
amy
It seems you need a slide-rule to decifer the
specifics of this argument, while a simpleton like me
believes the decision to be made is this:
Does this War in Iraq (I refuse to call it Operation
Iraqi Freedom, or Save the World etc.etc.) rise
to the level of national emergency?
Is it an effort to Save America? The Middle East?
The Bush Presidency? The Republican Party?
The source of oil?
If it is to "save America" from terrorists then it
rises to a state of "national emergency". That
calls for a draft. Slide rules aside.
But none dare call it a "national emergency",
although they twist their hands (and panties?)
like it is the challenge of freedom in our time.
We used to have a saying...sh*t or get off the pot.
Or you can use: Fish or cut bait, or a hundred others.
I don't know much about other branches, but Army
grunts always wanted a clear mission with appropriate
national commitment. This chickenhawk led tap-dance
is killin' GIs without a clear mission statement, and I'm sick
of it and the tepid excuses why we can't either "go for it"
or admit a mistake and redeploy. It's the same old crap
that hung out 58,000+ KIAs in Vietnam while politicians and
diplomats parsed terms like"peace with honor".
Those who are calling for half steps during a war
need to visit The Wall and talk to the dead GIs that
suffered this crap. The wall climbs from initial involvement
through Tet to the diplomatic end. The last name is as dead
as the first...and those names are my interest...not some
slide-rule argument. Shame on the ideologues of that war
and this one...GIs die for their detailed, intricate politics.
If you believe in it step up...or stand down.
Blood, American heros' blood,
is on the hands of this war's promoters.
And, they will take it to their graves...I thank God I
learned that lesson and don't have that rock in my rucksack.
specifics of this argument, while a simpleton like me
believes the decision to be made is this:
Does this War in Iraq (I refuse to call it Operation
Iraqi Freedom, or Save the World etc.etc.) rise
to the level of national emergency?
Is it an effort to Save America? The Middle East?
The Bush Presidency? The Republican Party?
The source of oil?
If it is to "save America" from terrorists then it
rises to a state of "national emergency". That
calls for a draft. Slide rules aside.
But none dare call it a "national emergency",
although they twist their hands (and panties?)
like it is the challenge of freedom in our time.
We used to have a saying...sh*t or get off the pot.
Or you can use: Fish or cut bait, or a hundred others.
I don't know much about other branches, but Army
grunts always wanted a clear mission with appropriate
national commitment. This chickenhawk led tap-dance
is killin' GIs without a clear mission statement, and I'm sick
of it and the tepid excuses why we can't either "go for it"
or admit a mistake and redeploy. It's the same old crap
that hung out 58,000+ KIAs in Vietnam while politicians and
diplomats parsed terms like"peace with honor".
Those who are calling for half steps during a war
need to visit The Wall and talk to the dead GIs that
suffered this crap. The wall climbs from initial involvement
through Tet to the diplomatic end. The last name is as dead
as the first...and those names are my interest...not some
slide-rule argument. Shame on the ideologues of that war
and this one...GIs die for their detailed, intricate politics.
If you believe in it step up...or stand down.
Blood, American heros' blood,
is on the hands of this war's promoters.
And, they will take it to their graves...I thank God I
learned that lesson and don't have that rock in my rucksack.
Thanks Indianhead... couldn't have said it better.
In the spirit of these High Holy Days...I must ask forgiveness.
My experience raises such personal emotion (that I contain day-to-day) that I become a bit radical. And, I must remember to understand others.
To forgive...so that I may be forgiven. I found this poem about the Iraq War and it touched me...
http://www.angelfire.com/wa/warpoetry/President.html
TO MR. PRESIDENT
I CRY, I YELL AND SOMETIMES I SCREAM
PEOPLE WOULDN’T LISTEN, BUT I DID HAVE DREAM
I’M WRITING THIS LETTER IN THE FORM OF A POEM
BECAUSE I WANT YOU TO LISTEN; BECAUSE I WON’T BE GOING HOME
WHEN I WAS LITTLE I WAS TAUGHT THAT POEMS CAN RHYME
SO I’M USING THIS KNOWLEDGE SO PEOPLE WILL REMEMBER OVER TIME
I WAS SO INNOCENT, I DID NOTHING WRONG
BECAUSE OF THIS WAR MY DREAMS DIDN’T LAST LONG
MY LIFE WAS MASKED WITH HATRED AND FEAR
WHEN ALL I WANTED WAS FOR SOMEONE TO HEAR
I WANTED SOMEONE TO LISTEN AND LISTEN WELL
I WAS INVOLVED IN A WAR BUT I’M NOT GOING TO HELL
I THOUGHT AS A CHILD I COULD RUN AND PLAY
AND TELL MY PARENTS I LOVE THEM AT THE END OF EACH DAY
THE WAR HAS TAKEN MY SISTERS AND BROTHER
YOU EVEN TOOK MY FATHER AND MOTHER
BECAUSE OF THE WAR I WAS FORCED TO GROW UP FAST
BECAUSE OF THE WAR MY DREAMS DIDN’T LAST
THERE IS ONE OTHER THING I WAS TAUGHT FROM DAY ONE
WE NEED TO FORGIVE NO MATTER WHAT YOU HAVE DONE.
IT IS HARD FOR ME TO FORGIVE YOU FOR WHAT YOU DID
BUT I WILL AND I WANT YOU TO FEEL WHAT THIS IS LIKE FOR A KID
MY FAMILY IS GONE AND NOW SO HAVE I
I FORGIVE YOU SIR FOR LETTING ME DIE
-------------------
So, I'll stand down for awhile and let my passions cool.
I am so far from perfect...that I need to work on it.
It's just that young people with such faith are wasted...wasted...
I still weep easily when thinking on this...I don't consider it weakness. Rather, humanity. Father forgive them, for they don't know what they do.
And, forgive me for not doing more to save them.
My experience raises such personal emotion (that I contain day-to-day) that I become a bit radical. And, I must remember to understand others.
To forgive...so that I may be forgiven. I found this poem about the Iraq War and it touched me...
http://www.angelfire.com/wa/warpoetry/President.html
TO MR. PRESIDENT
I CRY, I YELL AND SOMETIMES I SCREAM
PEOPLE WOULDN’T LISTEN, BUT I DID HAVE DREAM
I’M WRITING THIS LETTER IN THE FORM OF A POEM
BECAUSE I WANT YOU TO LISTEN; BECAUSE I WON’T BE GOING HOME
WHEN I WAS LITTLE I WAS TAUGHT THAT POEMS CAN RHYME
SO I’M USING THIS KNOWLEDGE SO PEOPLE WILL REMEMBER OVER TIME
I WAS SO INNOCENT, I DID NOTHING WRONG
BECAUSE OF THIS WAR MY DREAMS DIDN’T LAST LONG
MY LIFE WAS MASKED WITH HATRED AND FEAR
WHEN ALL I WANTED WAS FOR SOMEONE TO HEAR
I WANTED SOMEONE TO LISTEN AND LISTEN WELL
I WAS INVOLVED IN A WAR BUT I’M NOT GOING TO HELL
I THOUGHT AS A CHILD I COULD RUN AND PLAY
AND TELL MY PARENTS I LOVE THEM AT THE END OF EACH DAY
THE WAR HAS TAKEN MY SISTERS AND BROTHER
YOU EVEN TOOK MY FATHER AND MOTHER
BECAUSE OF THE WAR I WAS FORCED TO GROW UP FAST
BECAUSE OF THE WAR MY DREAMS DIDN’T LAST
THERE IS ONE OTHER THING I WAS TAUGHT FROM DAY ONE
WE NEED TO FORGIVE NO MATTER WHAT YOU HAVE DONE.
IT IS HARD FOR ME TO FORGIVE YOU FOR WHAT YOU DID
BUT I WILL AND I WANT YOU TO FEEL WHAT THIS IS LIKE FOR A KID
MY FAMILY IS GONE AND NOW SO HAVE I
I FORGIVE YOU SIR FOR LETTING ME DIE
-------------------
So, I'll stand down for awhile and let my passions cool.
I am so far from perfect...that I need to work on it.
It's just that young people with such faith are wasted...wasted...
I still weep easily when thinking on this...I don't consider it weakness. Rather, humanity. Father forgive them, for they don't know what they do.
And, forgive me for not doing more to save them.
QUOTE(flydangler @ Sep 20 2007, 09:25 PM)
From readin' last week the Webb Amendment that was actually filed on the "Thomas" web site (where, surprisingly it seems it no longer appears with the same provisions) and listenin' to the debate on the Senate floor yesterday (where the provisions I'm referrin' to were quoted verbatim), then goin' to Senator Webb's government web site and readin' the incomplete draft of his legislation you provided the link to (it lacked some of the generalized provisions regardin' individuals servin' deployments to non combat areas and/or overseas tours) methinks I smell a rat! IMHO Senator Webb and/or other Democrats inserted a poison pill regardin' individuals returnin' from overseas tours/deployment to other than combat areas that they tried to hide, but got caught by Senators McCain and Warner, eh?
According to Sen. Webb's website, the amendment I linked to is the one that was voted on (I think).
It is the final version after he made some changes addressing some concerns expressed by Gates. Does that sound right? His website states that this version is the "updated" one as of Sept. 19.
http://webb.senate.gov/
Add:
I found this record of the senate's discussion about the Webb amendment. I can't figure out what could have been adjusted that would have allowed the amendment to be approved. I also think that many republicans just don't like the idea of Congress making any decisions concerning how the military does its business. So, no matter how many accommodations could have been made, it was probably doomed to failure.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110...~r110BskKL9:e0:
QUOTE(amy @ Sep 21 2007, 10:49 AM)
According to Sen. Webb's website, the amendment I linked to is the one that was voted on (I think)
What was on his web site appeared to be a simple draft, not a filed bill, eh? It lacked the data assigned when any legislation is filed.The bill I saw a week earlier was on Thomas, but like I said it's no longer there - very mysterious methinks. It contained the provisions regardin' folks servin' overseas assignments in other than combat zones, which's also what Senators Warner and McCain was discussin' and supposedly readin' from (I believe durin' a colloquy durin' "Morning Business" and not the actual debate).
Sorry it took so long to respond.
QUOTE(flydangler @ Sep 19 2007, 08:04 PM)
Actually methinks, if you care to look at it, you'll find that's not quite what Webb's bill said. It said overseas tours and deployments, not just combat tours, eh? Seems, for instance, if a soldier spent two years in Germany, a sailor two years in Japan, an airman two years in Italy or a Marine two years in Scotland, even if accompanied by their family, they wouldn't be deployable into a combat zone for an additional two years.
I watched on C-Span2 how both Senators Warner and McCain on the Senate floor tried to get the Democrats to change the bill (actually an amendment) to make it more workable and therefore passable, but without success, eh? After watchin' this methinks the Senate Democrats were more worried 'bout keepin' this alive as a political issue than they were 'bout actually supportin' the troops by gettin' it passed and solvin' the problem!
I'm sure lotsa people, includin' here, will make rhetorical hay with the defeat of Webb's faulty legislation, but IMHO the Democrats were just as guilty as Republicans were on this.
I watched on C-Span2 how both Senators Warner and McCain on the Senate floor tried to get the Democrats to change the bill (actually an amendment) to make it more workable and therefore passable, but without success, eh? After watchin' this methinks the Senate Democrats were more worried 'bout keepin' this alive as a political issue than they were 'bout actually supportin' the troops by gettin' it passed and solvin' the problem!
I'm sure lotsa people, includin' here, will make rhetorical hay with the defeat of Webb's faulty legislation, but IMHO the Democrats were just as guilty as Republicans were on this.
Webb's bill and the republicans' arguments against it were all play acting to preserve the status quo
and try to cover the Democrats' unwillines to not fund the War.
QUOTE(rla @ Sep 26 2007, 09:48 AM)
play acting
Methinks I'd not disagree with that premise. IMHO it's the same on this and other bills.I wonder how many here realize how all the "play acting" on the two most recent supplemental military funding bills've affected the troops, eh? For instance the new MRAP vehicles. many of which are basically completed except for their electronics suites, won't be delivered in theater 'til 'bout the end of the year 'cause of money delays in gettin' their equipage.
QUOTE(flydangler @ Sep 27 2007, 03:53 AM)
Methinks I'd not disagree with that premise. IMHO it's the same on this and other bills.
I wonder how many here realize how all the "play acting" on the two most recent supplemental military funding bills've affected the troops, eh? For instance the new MRAP vehicles. many of which are basically completed except for their electronics suites, won't be delivered in theater 'til 'bout the end of the year 'cause of money delays in gettin' their equipage.
I wonder how many here realize how all the "play acting" on the two most recent supplemental military funding bills've affected the troops, eh? For instance the new MRAP vehicles. many of which are basically completed except for their electronics suites, won't be delivered in theater 'til 'bout the end of the year 'cause of money delays in gettin' their equipage.
Good, they should be shipping equipment out of Iraq, not into Iraq.
QUOTE(flydangler @ Sep 27 2007, 01:53 AM)
Methinks I'd not disagree with that premise. IMHO it's the same on this and other bills.
I wonder how many here realize how all the "play acting" on the two most recent supplemental military funding bills've affected the troops, eh? For instance the new MRAP vehicles. many of which are basically completed except for their electronics suites, won't be delivered in theater 'til 'bout the end of the year 'cause of money delays in gettin' their equipage.
I wonder how many here realize how all the "play acting" on the two most recent supplemental military funding bills've affected the troops, eh? For instance the new MRAP vehicles. many of which are basically completed except for their electronics suites, won't be delivered in theater 'til 'bout the end of the year 'cause of money delays in gettin' their equipage.
This equipment and plenty more should have been delivered to our troops years ago Doc. It wasn't for lack of money, it was total incompetence by the Procurement Division and the pencil necked geeks running it. I saw the hearings on this about a year ago. Even Duncan Hunter was outraged at the Generals sitting in front of him and doing a kabuki dance around the fact that they weren't doing their job. This is the Bush Pentagon that lost track of a Trillion dollars. But the talking points are already out there I see, to blame the Dems for any delay reasonable or not with the lastest loot grab.
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Sep 27 2007, 11:41 AM)
This equipment and plenty more should have been delivered to our troops years ago Doc. It wasn't for lack of money, it was total incompetence by the Procurement Division and the pencil necked geeks running it. I saw the hearings on this about a year ago. Even Duncan Hunter was outraged at the Generals sitting in front of him and doing a kabuki dance around the fact that they weren't doing their job. This is the Bush Pentagon that lost track of a Trillion dollars. But the talking points are already out there I see, to blame the Dems for any delay reasonable or not with the lastest loot grab.
We should have started Impeachment, in earnest, a year ago but its probably too late
now. We should not allow Bush to prolong the war, as a payoff for new equipment.
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Sep 27 2007, 12:41 PM)
This equipment and plenty more should have been delivered to our troops years ago Doc
Yup! Methinks I'd hafta completely agree on this. Might be it shoulda been approved and procurement begun back in the 1988 to 1991 time frame when both the Army and Marines was askin' the House Armed Forces Committee for both V-bottomed patrol vehicles (similar to what the South Africans were buildin' at the time) like today's MRAPs, and the armored HUMVEES, eh? Didn't happen though.Unfortunately the then majority House Democratic leadership and senior members of the committee at that time wouldn't go for anything other'n the regular unarmored HUMVEE, but methinks with the predominant ideological blinders seen here on CGCS we might not wanna mention that. Could it be the fix was in 'cause of financial support and lobbyist influence? Them Republicans ain't blameless though, after they became the majority in '94 they didn't even start consideration of the often asked for armored HUMVEE 'til maybe 1999, eh? IMHO there's plenty of blame to go 'round and not as one sided as some here'd like to pretend.
Tends to piss you off, don't it?
QUOTE(flydangler @ Sep 19 2007, 08:04 PM)
Actually methinks, if you care to look at it, you'll find that's not quite what Webb's bill said. It said overseas tours and deployments, not just combat tours, eh? Seems, for instance, if a soldier spent two years in Germany, a sailor two years in Japan, an airman two years in Italy or a Marine two years in Scotland, even if accompanied by their family, they wouldn't be deployable into a combat zone for an additional two years.
I watched on C-Span2 how both Senators Warner and McCain on the Senate floor tried to get the Democrats to change the bill (actually an amendment) to make it more workable and therefore passable, but without success, eh? After watchin' this methinks the Senate Democrats were more worried 'bout keepin' this alive as a political issue than they were 'bout actually supportin' the troops by gettin' it passed and solvin' the problem!
I'm sure lotsa people, includin' here, will make rhetorical hay with the defeat of Webb's faulty legislation, but IMHO the Democrats were just as guilty as Republicans were on this.
I watched on C-Span2 how both Senators Warner and McCain on the Senate floor tried to get the Democrats to change the bill (actually an amendment) to make it more workable and therefore passable, but without success, eh? After watchin' this methinks the Senate Democrats were more worried 'bout keepin' this alive as a political issue than they were 'bout actually supportin' the troops by gettin' it passed and solvin' the problem!
I'm sure lotsa people, includin' here, will make rhetorical hay with the defeat of Webb's faulty legislation, but IMHO the Democrats were just as guilty as Republicans were on this.
Hey, if you had to eat Scottish food you'd volunteer for a combat zone.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.