| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Senate RINO Stampede |
| 2005-11-15 |
| This is too disgusting. I have nothing to say. Senate to call for Bush plan to end Iraq war The Senate is expected to vote today to demand that the Bush administration "explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq." Republican leaders are resisting Democrats' call for the administration to provide a plan for withdrawal, but in agreeing that the administration must provide more information and a schedule for reaching full Iraqi sovereignty, they are joining Democrats in signaling that the White House and the Iraqi government must produce results in 2006. Democrats have grown bolder in their criticism of the war and have forced the debate onto the Senate floor as the body considers the Defense Department authorization bill. They offered an amendment calling for the administration to report on progress in Iraq, explain its strategy and set goals that would lead to a timeline for withdrawal. Republican leaders, facing the prospect of losing that vote, countered with their own version -- an edited copy of Democrats' amendment that still requires the administration to give a schedule for meeting specific conditions on the road to Iraqi sovereignty, but drops the requirement that the schedule be tied to troop withdrawals. "I think they're reasonable reporting requirements, but the real objective is to get out of this timeline, cutting and running, which the Democrats have in their amendment," said Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, who is sponsoring the Republicans' alternative along with Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner, Virginia Republican. Both their amendment and the Democrats' amendment face votes today, before the Senate finalizes its version and sends it to a House-Senate conference committee. The Senate also will take final votes on setting a policy for detainees in the war on terror and their access to the American judicial system. The bill has become a battleground for old fights over intelligence in the run-up to the war and how the Bush administration has prosecuted the war. Last week, President Bush began fighting back against Democrats' claims over intelligence, saying in a Veterans Day speech that it was "irresponsible to rewrite the history" of how the United States went to war, pointing to Democratic support of the 2003 invasion. The president reiterated that argument yesterday during a stop in Alaska en route to an eight-day Asian trip. Democrats responded with harsh criticism of Mr. Bush. "You, sir, have failed our troops. You, sir, have failed the American people by the failure of your policy in Iraq," Sen. Mark Dayton, Minnesota Democrat, said yesterday. Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said Mr. Bush was off target. "It's not easy for the president to admit mistakes, as we've come to learn," Mr. Reid said. "It's a lot easier for him to lash out at those who question his policies. But political attacks are not going to get the job done." Senate Republicans said their support for the Democrats' demand for more information isn't a break with the administration, although they acknowledged it is designed to send a message. "I'm not trying to reflect on the past. It's forward-looking," Mr. Warner said. "I do not deem this as critical. I deem it as, in the sense of the Senate, the Senate is saying we believe the next 120 days are serious, and it must be viewed with equal seriousness here in this country and in Iraq." He said he chose to edit the Democrats' amendment rather than introduce a new version to show how much bipartisan agreement there is on what the administration must do. The major change was the deletion of a paragraph in the Democrats' version calling for a "campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased redeployment of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq as each condition is met, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise." Still, Democrats said that by agreeing to the bulk of their amendment, Republicans also think "that the administration needs to come forward and explain to Congress and the American people its strategies for success in completing our mission in faraway Iraq," Mr. Reid said. Last night, a group of senators reached a compromise on detainee lawsuits that would allow prisoners at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to appeal the rulings of military tribunals. According to the Associated Press, the agreement gives detainees who receive 10 or more years in prison or the death penalty an automatic appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Those who receive lesser sentences could petition the court to hear their cases at the judges' discretion. The 500 or so detainees also could challenge in federal court their having been classified as "enemy combatants." "Instead of unlimited lawsuits, the courts now will be looking at whether you're properly determined to be an enemy combatant and, if you're tried, whether or not your conviction followed the military commission procedures in place," Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, told the AP. Yo, Graham. I used to think you weren't stupid. Now I only have the following questions for you: Do you own a sword? Want to borrow mine? |
| Posted by:.com |
| #33 ^5 Bobby! |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-11-15 22:19 |
| #32 Ladies and Gentlemen - I just e-mailed this to six US Senators, and customized versions to Kennedy and Kerry (total of eight).... I read with alarm today, Senator, your perspective on the Sense of the Senate Amendment to S. 1042. I agree we do not need an âexit timetableâ. The North Vietnamese won in 1975 because they did not have an exit timetable. (Hat Tip - Phil) I believe you have already encouraged our enemies, Senator, who will not read the âfine printâ about what this bill is supposed to mean. They will se it as a weakening of American resolve, which (of course) it is. It reflects the polls, Senator, not the reality of the war on terror. Youâre scared about the way the war is going, but youâre making it harder to win. Somewhere, another suicide bomber is being recruited right now, because of this amendment. Tomorrow, people will die because of it â Iraqis and Americans â and my son is a United States Marine. The Senate is making this war fit the âVietnamâ model, and many Americans will die. And all of you Rantburgers are "Muzzie Wuzzies" if you don't e-mial six or eight Senators! C'mon! Make a difference! Bobby |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-11-15 20:59 |
| #31 I just sent an email to Frist and told him should step down and let a Republican take over the leadership. |
| Posted by: Grigum Flatch6083 2005-11-15 20:58 |
| #30 I thought Trent Lott was bad, but Frist is feckless. It sounds like most of the Republican sebators don't even realize what they did today. Pfeh. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2005-11-15 20:21 |
| #29 #22 i changed my mind. You guys are right. the "RINOSs' who voted for this ARE traitors. my search function must be broken. This is the only instance I can find of the word traitor in this entire thread. Perhaps lh is a liberal. He argues like one. |
| Posted by: Jomolet Unotch7137 2005-11-15 20:18 |
| #28 BTW - Mark Dayton is a full-on lying nutcase - read Powerline, Capt Ed for his antics. He's out after this term IIRC |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-11-15 20:05 |
| #27 yeah, but the libs want it to be another Vietnam. That was their glory days. They were thrilled when they "won" that one. It was a virtually orgy of self-destructive, self-loathing - which is what liberalism is all about anyway. They got the "peace" they wanted, at least it was peace if you forget about the millions slaughtered by Pol Pot. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-11-15 19:01 |
| #26 Democrats responded with harsh criticism of Mr. Bush. "You, sir, have failed our troops. You, sir, have failed the American people by the failure of your policy in Iraq," Sen. Mark Dayton, Minnesota Democrat, said yesterday. Interesting refrain coming from folks, many of whom have have never worn a uniform. I suspect the "failed our troops" line might to poll too well at Fort Bragg, Fort Hood, or Iraq. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2005-11-15 18:59 |
| #25 liberal Interesting--this is how liberals "frame" the debate. The point is the Senate and the House get enough briefings about the war. This is nothing more than a public relations/media circus feeding frenzy designed to confuse the issue for the public. They already KNOW that no timetable can be set, and only want to create an opportunity to advance themselves politically. Even if it costs soldiers their lives. Even if it costs the area its first chance at freedom. Evidently, the Dems were pushing something through, and the Republicans tried to stop it with a "better" bill. The last thing we want is for Congress to get nit-picky about controlling the war. Been there. Done that. It was called Vietnam. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2005-11-15 18:54 |
| #24 I wanna see Lh lay out the chain of command that shows Mrs NEA, 4th grade teacher and Numbnutz Elementary is accountable to Margaret Spellings, SecEd. That should be some seriously fucking funny shit. Go ahead, Lh. Let's see it. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-11-15 17:02 |
| #23 You think a US colonel, say, whos out training Iraqis, isnt held accountable for results? You think a general like Petraeus, whos job it was to train Iraqi forces, isnt held accountable? Of course they are held accountable. By the general in charge of them, who is held accountable by the regional commander, who is held accountable by the theater commander, who is held accountable to the joint chiefs and the pentagon, who is held accountable to the commander in chief, who is held accountable to the voters. See? No room for intern-grabbing congressmen. BTW, most of the training is done by NCOs and O-1s through O-3s. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-11-15 16:57 |
| #22 i changed my mind. You guys are right. the "RINOSs' who voted for this ARE traitors. You should all pledge never to vote for any of them ever again, for any office. :) |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-11-15 16:22 |
| #21 "Accountablility in war is making sure your enemy doesn't have the will or the people to wage war anymore. Bush has stated over and over with the pentegon, as the Iraqis ramp up their forces, we will pull out ours. " Then it would seem that to achieve that, weve got to ramp up the Iraqi forces. You think a US colonel, say, whos out training Iraqis, isnt held accountable for results? You think a general like Petraeus, whos job it was to train Iraqi forces, isnt held accountable? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-11-15 16:17 |
| #20 "Uh, no, the two situations are not comparable. The North Penn School District isn't trying to regain control of the Senate. If a school meets its goals, it gets funding. If the administration meets its goals, the Democrats bash them anyway" So youre saying there shouldnt be national goals on education, that the secretary of education is answerable for? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-11-15 16:14 |
| #19 Vote was 79-19. See here for the text of the amendment and the names of those who voted "No". You WILL be surprised. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2005-11-15 14:41 |
| #18 Why do I always think of Mrs Presky when Lh says this sort of, um, stuff? |
| Posted by: .com 2005-11-15 13:07 |
| #17 Accountablility in war is making sure your enemy doesn't have the will or the people to wage war anymore. Bush has stated over and over with the pentegon, as the Iraqis ramp up their forces, we will pull out ours. That is the exit stratagy. The accuntablility in the mean time is "Steel Fist" by fucking killing as many of the fucking scum terrorists we can. Congress needs to get their stupid dick beaters and intern grabbers out of the war and let the military fight it. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-11-15 13:00 |
| #16 liberalhawk wrote: Kinda the way the admin sets targets for schools, and if the target isnt met, its a basis for bashing teachers and principles. Thats called accountability. That would make sense if our enemy was merely the National Education Association. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2005-11-15 11:41 |
| #15 LH: Uh, yes. Kinda the way the admin sets targets for schools, and if the target isnt met, its a basis for bashing teachers and principles. Thats called accountability. Jonathan: Uh, no, the two situations are not comparable. The North Penn School District isn't trying to regain control of the Senate. If a school meets its goals, it gets funding. If the administration meets its goals, the Democrats bash them anyway. There is no way the administration can ever satisfy the Democrats. Period. |
| Posted by: Jonathan 2005-11-15 11:40 |
| #14 What they shoudl do is take a counter stance that they are the "Surrender Party" and let the chips fall where they may politically. That would be the ultimate insult - equating the Democrats with the Phrench. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-11-15 11:36 |
| #13 The Onion had it best a few months ago: “We'll just go through Iran.” |
| Posted by: Eric Jablow 2005-11-15 11:19 |
| #12 "LH, that's a disingenuous explanation. At first maybe there will be a demand for target dates with slippage built in, but then the Democrats will raise an uproar if the target date isn't met precisely. Then they will characterize any missed target date as a failure, and use it as an excuse to bash the administration." Uh, yes. Kinda the way the admin sets targets for schools, and if the target isnt met, its a basis for bashing teachers and principles. Thats called accountability. "Then, since they got this bit of "accountability," they will demand even more accountability in the form of firm dates for withdrawal, arguing that since they got a timetable for one thing, why not a timetable for this?" Doesnt follow at all. McCain is calling for more troops, and without him and his fellow "rinos" theres no majority. "The whole discussion implies that the only reasons we went into Iraq was because of Iraq, and that there weren't any larger issues involved. Imagine someone saying in Feb. 1944 that we needed a timeline for withdrawing forces from Italy." But the proposed timeline is NOT for withdrawing forces. Its for certain steps that need to be accomplished to WIN. you guys seem to have read the Dem bill (ignoring the softening clauses) and then attributing that to the GOP bill, despite the fact that the two bills are totally different. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-11-15 11:10 |
| #11 LH, My problem is having politicians making quasi-military decisions. They are not doing this for the good of the country they are doing this so they can use some imaginary matrix to gauge success or failure in Iraq. I would also point out that success in Iraq will not end the WOT and there will almost certainly be troops there for at least a decade or more. Our worst possible scenario would be to leave Iraq at the first convenient moment. This is political grandstanding, nothing more, and the RINOs should be shameful for aiding the Democrats. What they shoudl do is take a counter stance that they are the "Surrender Party" and let the chips fall where they may politically. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-11-15 10:45 |
| #10 "Charlie don't get much USO. He's dug in too deep, or moving too fast. He has only two ways home - death or victory." -- Apocalypse Now |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-11-15 10:38 |
| #9 I got an exit strategy. How about...win the fuckin war? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-11-15 10:37 |
| #8 LH, that's a disingenuous explanation. At first maybe there will be a demand for target dates with slippage built in, but then the Democrats will raise an uproar if the target date isn't met precisely. Then they will characterize any missed target date as a failure, and use it as an excuse to bash the administration. Then, since they got this bit of "accountability," they will demand even more accountability in the form of firm dates for withdrawal, arguing that since they got a timetable for one thing, why not a timetable for this? For the basis for my reasoning you need only look at the Democrats' talking points about the Iraqi constitution. When the Iraqis didn't get the consistitution passed on exactly the date they projected clowns like Carl Levin [spit] and Teddy K. were saying that we should pull out. We must remember, now more than ever: Every move the Democrats make between now and 2006 will be calculated for maximum political effect, consequences be damned. |
| Posted by: Jonathan 2005-11-15 10:36 |
| #7 1. There's an expression that the reason the N. Vietnamese won their war was because they didn't have an exit strategy. 2. The whole discussion implies that the only reasons we went into Iraq was because of Iraq, and that there weren't any larger issues involved. Imagine someone saying in Feb. 1944 that we needed a timeline for withdrawing forces from Italy. |
| Posted by: Phil 2005-11-15 10:29 |
| #6 whats your problem? this isnt a schedule for withdrawls. Its more like, ok, you say you're going to have 50,000 more Iraqi troops go from level 3 readiness to level 2, now give us a target date. Youre going to shift control of 3 more provinces to Iraqi forces, give us a target date. Etc, etc. Its called accountability, and is what the Bush admin wants in education and everywhere else. I think the GOP bill sounds better than the Dem bill (even the Dem bill allows for unexpected circumstances) |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-11-15 10:22 |
| #5 Has my party gone bonkers? WTF Frist? This bill didn't need to get written except we have pussies like Frist and McCain in so called leadership roles. They being lead by the Dems and the worst part is they probably know it. How about you tell the Democrats "Not only no but FUCK NO!" Of course they will wail but they will do that anyway. This will only embolden our enemies. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-11-15 10:17 |
| #4 Badanov, that is exactly what the Democrats (and the RINOs) want - more dead americans that they can lay at the whitehouse's feet. All to advance their political ambitions. Sick! |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-11-15 09:14 |
| #3 Shame. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2005-11-15 09:00 |
| #2 This is the single most appalling piece of news I've seen since the start of the war, bar none. If the Republican leadership cannot do any better than this, we are well and truly FUCKED. Fucked, because what this really means is that Osama bin Laden was dead-on right about America: the American people do NOT have the stamina, courage and will to fight a long war; bleed them enough, and sooner or later, they will lose heart, turn tail and run home. If the spineless wimps in the Senate have their way, Iraq will become Mogadishu writ large: living proof of American weakness and lack of resolve. Bah. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-11-15 08:53 |
| #1 As I have said before hopefully our spooks and troops will eliminate the illegal combant problem, by just not capturing anyone. This is a war in which we should be giving no quarter, because our enemies are giving no quarter, yet a group of Americans want to give quarter. Why? Why is the military enforcing laws they must operate under are now being advised they may not enforce the rules? I don't understand this. Do they just want to even the kill ratio up to terrorists? Do they want more dead Americans, because that will be the net result. It may not happen in Iraq but it will happen. Could a senator actually discuss cogently how changing the rules in a war in which the enemy is granted a status they did noting to earn is going to help the US win the war? What happened to ex post facto? These new rules should only apply to illegal combatants captured after the rules are adopted, not before. The current enemy combants should not be granted rights retroactively, not even in the interest of justice. Is the Senate throwing out a basic and valuable premise in common law, ex post facto? Here is the bottom line for those RINOs who want to do our enemies a favor: The left is pursueing this not becuase they care about illegal combatants, but because acquiesence in this matter will make the right look weak. Will the left say after these insane rules are adopted, what a bunch of great guys? No, they will tell the world, look: we have been telling you this and that all along, and now they agree. The net result will be a more leftist congress unless and until the senate leaders and the president have the cojones to stop this now. My view is that as long as Bush continues appointing conservative judges and fixing the federal judiciary, I will show upat the polls in 2006. But there are an awful lot of folks who won't, who will just jump on the leftist bandwagon and let the left help kill more Americans. In other words, they won't shoew up to the polls in 2006, unless they see the president and Congress stand hard and firm against this. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-11-15 07:54 |