Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 11/15/2005 View Mon 11/14/2005 View Sun 11/13/2005 View Sat 11/12/2005 View Fri 11/11/2005 View Thu 11/10/2005 View Wed 11/09/2005
1
2005-11-15 Home Front: Politix
Senate RINO Stampede
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by .com 2005-11-15 06:09|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#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|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org]  2005-11-15 07:54|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-15 08:53|| Front Page Top

#3 Shame.
Posted by SR-71 2005-11-15 09:00||   2005-11-15 09:00|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-15 09:14|| Front Page Top

#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">Cyber Sarge  2005-11-15 10:17||   2005-11-15 10:17|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-15 10:22|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-15 10:29|| Front Page Top

#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">Jonathan  2005-11-15 10:36||   2005-11-15 10:36|| Front Page Top

#9 I got an exit strategy. How about...win the fuckin war?
Posted by tu3031 2005-11-15 10:37||   2005-11-15 10:37|| Front Page Top

#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">mojo  2005-11-15 10:38||   2005-11-15 10:38|| Front Page Top

#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">Cyber Sarge  2005-11-15 10:45||   2005-11-15 10:45|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-15 11:10|| Front Page Top

#13 The Onion had it best a few months ago: “We'll just go through Iran.”
Posted by Eric Jablow">Eric Jablow  2005-11-15 11:19||   2005-11-15 11:19|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-15 11:36|| Front Page Top

#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">Jonathan  2005-11-15 11:40||   2005-11-15 11:40|| Front Page Top

#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|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com]  2005-11-15 11:41|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-15 13:00|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-15 13:07|| Front Page Top

#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">Chuck Simmins  2005-11-15 14:41|| http://blog.simmins.org]">[http://blog.simmins.org]  2005-11-15 14:41|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-15 16:14|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-15 16:17|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-15 16:22|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-15 16:57|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-15 17:02|| Front Page Top

#25 liberalhawk Nuff said?

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||   2005-11-15 18:54|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-15 18:59|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-15 19:01|| Front Page Top

#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">Frank G  2005-11-15 20:05||   2005-11-15 20:05|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-15 20:18|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-15 20:21|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-11-15 20:58|| Front Page Top

#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 “exit timetable”. 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 “fine print” 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. You’re scared about the way the war is going, but you’re 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 – Iraqis and Americans – and my son is a United States Marine. The Senate is making this war fit the “Vietnam” 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||   2005-11-15 20:59|| Front Page Top

#33 ^5 Bobby!
Posted by Cyber Sarge">Cyber Sarge  2005-11-15 22:19||   2005-11-15 22:19|| Front Page Top

23:28 trailing wife
23:26 trailing wife
23:21 trailing wife
23:19 Bomb-a-rama
22:59 Bomb-a-rama
22:57 Frank G
22:54 Alaska Paul
22:54 3dc
22:50 Sock Puppet O´ Doom
22:39 C-Low
22:29 jules 2
22:26 jules 2
22:19 Cyber Sarge
22:15 Alaska Paul
22:13 Edward Yee
22:12 2b
22:10 Alaska Paul
22:10 Besoeker
22:04 Besoeker
22:01 Redneck Jim
22:01 SouthernIllinoian
21:54 Jarong Angaviper4129
21:52 DMFD
21:52 hehehehehe









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com