posted on February 1, 2007 01:24:12 PM
The battle lines were carved into the Senate floor over a Democratic resolution condemning President Bush's war plans to send more troops to Iraq.
But it was hard to ignore the inconvenient truth that this ill-timed measure will aid the terrorists and depress the morale of our soldiers who are fighting to defeat them.
Democrats insisted last week that the resolution, a nonbinding statement that does not have the force of law, was needed to begin a long-overdue debate on the war, its direction and America's participation in it.
But Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, the Foreign Relations Committee's ranking Republican, wondered, as did others, what signal this debate and this resolution would send to the Iraqis government, its civilian population, and the terrorists who are bent on killing as many of them as they need to seize power and end the country's experiment in democracy.
"In an open democracy, we voice our agreements and disagreements in public, and we should not be reticent to do so. But official roll call votes carry a unique message," Lugar told the committee's members before they voted 12-9 largely along party lines for the resolution.
A vote for the measure that the Senate will begin debating this week "will confirm to our friends and allies that we are divided and in disarray," Lugar warned.
Indeed, if one were looking for contradictions, mixed messages and confusion within Democratic ranks about the war and what to do about it, they were easy to find last week.
Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, one of President Bush's staunchest allies in the war, pointed out that the senators were condemning the war in the Foreign Relations Committee at a time when the Armed Services panel was in the midst of making Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus a four-star general and wishing him "God speed" in his new and incredibly difficult job as the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.
Here we have one of the military's smartest leaders, who helped write the army's manual on counterinsurgency warfare, heading to Iraq to turn around a dismal situation that even Bush has described as a "slow failure." And the Senate is preparing to pass a resolution essentially saying that the war is a mistake and it would be a fool's errand to send in more troops to help stabilize the country long enough for the Iraqis army to take over.
Rarely, if, in fact, ever in our history, has this country sent a war leader into battle while condemning the mission that he and the armed forces he will be leading have been asked to complete.
Looking for more confusion within Democratic ranks? Reread Virginia Sen. James Webb's response to Bush's State of the Union address. He called the war "reckless" and "mismanaged," but what would he do differently? Well, he said, we need a new direction, but "not a precipitous withdrawal." On the other hand, we need "a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq."
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
[ edited by Bear1949 on Feb 1, 2007 01:26 PM ]
posted on February 2, 2007 01:40:09 PM
"Troop surge debate signals weakness"
of course it does.
And again, just like in VN, we can see which party IS the weakest party - the party that can't get enough backbone to WANT TO WIN are war.
But it looks like, at least in the Senate, that may be CHANGING. I'll post the link in a minute.
Meanwhile:
Since the liberals have FALSELY accused this President of removing Gen. Casey because he didn't agree with him - IMPLYING that Casey knew we weren't doing very well.....here's statements from the man himself.
Gen. George Casey Astrid Riecken (THE WASHINGTON TIMES)
The outgoing U.S. commander in Baghdad yesterday broke with his superiors, including President Bush, by telling a Senate committee he does not agree with their dire assessments that the Iraq war is failing.
"I do not agree that we have a failed policy," Army Gen. George Casey told the Senate Armed Services Committee in confirmation hearings for him to be the next Army chief of staff.
Questioned by Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, Gen. Casey repeatedly defended his 21/2-year command, conceding that Baghdad fell into cycles of relentless killing during his term and that "the situation is definitely deteriorating in Baghdad."
But he said much of Iraq has made progress.
"I believe the president's new strategy will enhance the policy that we have," he said of Mr. Bush's Jan. 10 plan to send 21,500 additional troops into Iraq, most to Baghdad.
As Gen. Casey testified, a bipartisan group of senators put the finishing touches on a nonbinding resolution opposing Mr. Bush's troop boost. Sponsored by Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican, and backed by Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat and Armed Services Committee chairman, the measure would also oppose a cutoff of war funds, an action demanded by some anti-war liberals.
It was not clear yesterday whether Mr. Warner has the 60 votes needed to clear the resolution for a floor vote.
Gen. Casey broke with comments by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who has said the United States is not winning, and with Navy Adm. William Fallon, who told the same committee this week that the strategy was not working. Adm. Fallon is to be the next Middle East commander.
The general did not stop there. Asked about Mr. Bush's assessment that his Iraq policy was headed to "slow failure," Gen. Casey said, "I actually don't see it as a slow failure. I actually see it as slow progress."
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 2, 2007 01:46:39 PMAnd again, just like in VN, we can see which party IS the weakest party - the party that can't get enough backbone to WANT TO WIN are war.
And which party would that be when you have
Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican, putting the finishing touches on a non-binding resolution which would oppose the troop increase by Bush and also oppose a cutoff of war funds.
You still are in your fantasy world that is only Democrats that are against the war.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on February 2, 2007 01:53:13 PM
Thank God....that there are still SOME in Congress who refuse to put their own political gain AFTER their oath to protect this Nation of ours....AND it's interests.
Way too many are using the SAFETY of our troops in Iraq....our national security for their own personal political gain.
======================
Majority in Senate support 'stay the course' resolution
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 2, 2007
A bipartisan majority in the Senate yesterday united behind a firm "stay the course" resolution on the war in Iraq, despite searing public criticism from both sides in Congress over President Bush's handling of the war.
The resolution is critical of the war's execution and condemns any effort by Mr. Bush to send reinforcements to the region. In the measure, the Senate also promises not to cut off funding for the increasingly unpopular war.
"Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such an action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions," says the resolution, authored mainly by Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican.
Although backers say they are deeply dissatisfied with the execution of the war, the resolution says that the United States "should continue vigorous operations" in parts of Iraq and that early withdrawal "would present a threat to regional and world peace."
Sen. Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who has always opposed the war, called the resolution weak and misguided.
"The resolution rejects redeploying U.S. troops and supports moving a misguided military strategy from one part of Iraq to another," he said. "The American people have rejected the president's Iraq strategy, and it's time for Congress to end our military involvement in this war."
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, also said yesterday that he would oppose the resolution because it doesn't call for withdrawing the troops quickly enough.
"I strongly oppose the Warner-Levin legislation," said Mr. Dodd, who voted in 2002 in favor of the war. "It is essentially an endorsement of the status quo, an endorsement I simply cannot make in light of the dire circumstances in Iraq, and the need for meaningful action now."
Debate over the resolution angered some anti-war voters who were crucial to Democrats' victory in the November midterm elections.
"The whole reason so many of us worked for Democratic candidates was so that they would get a majority in Congress and bring the troops home," said Tina Richards, who described herself as a lifelong Republican from Missouri whose opposition to the Iraq war turned her into a Democrat. "They're in the majority now, but they won't bring the troops home."
She said her son is a Marine reservist who expects to be called up as part of Mr. Bush's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
"It's pointless. These are nonbinding resolutions, and they won't do a thing to bring our troops home," Mrs. Richards said. "This is the definition of insanity; they're banging their heads against the wall and expecting a different result."
But the nonbinding resolution was embraced yesterday by several key members of both parties, including Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat, and Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Republican. Both men, like Mr. Warner, voted in 2002 to go to war with Iraq. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who opposed the war, also signed on to the Warner resolution.
Although both sides agree that there is a majority of support to approve the resolution, there is far less certainty about whether it has the 60 votes needed to overcome any filibuster.
Approval of the resolution will have no real effect on war policy because it's nonbinding, said Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, adding that its criticism of the administration's policy serves only to undermine the war effort.
"We are not simply speaking to the president," Mr. Kyl said. "Everyone else in the world will get that message. ... Those are the words that will resonate around the world."
=======================
So, ONCE AGAIN, we see that the GUTLESS dems/liberals aren't going to do what those who voted them into office WANTED THEM TO DO. LOL LOL LOL Nope....they're in office now....they don't NEED your votes anymore...and they're going to do EXACTLY what they want to do....no matter how much it pisses you liberals off.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 3, 2007 05:56:59 PM
I see all the Einsteins in Congress want to follow the same failed "stay the course" strategy that has not worked for years now.
If it first you do not succeed, try the same failed policy again and again.
The Republicans do not have a plan B with the Iraq War so they have to stick with the same failed play.
How many times does the Parrot in Chief have to keep shouting his cheers of "stay the course"
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
