"I regret that my amendment to protect the well-being of our troops and their families, which received a clear majority of 56 votes in the Senate, did not reach the number of votes to break a Republican filibuster."In the past two weeks we have learned a great deal about the intentions of the Republican Party as it relates to the war in Iraq.
"From the testimony of Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus, we learned two things: first, that there have been few political or diplomatic gains due to the increased military activities of the so-called 'surge,' and second that the intended troop levels in Iraq after the 'surge' is completed will be the same troop levels that existed before the 'surge' began - more than 131,000 American troops."From the President's speech, and from the statements of key Republicans such as the Senate Minority Leader, we have learned that the Republican Party is now openly advocating a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq that could continue for at least the next 50 years. I personally warned against this prospect five years ago in a Washington Post editorial, stating that those who were advocating this invasion had no exit strategy, because they did not intend for the United States to leave.
"From the vote on my modest amendment, which was designed with the sole intention of guaranteeing that our military men and women are able to spend at least as much time away from Iraq as they spend in Iraq, we have learned that the Administration and its congressional allies do not consider the present stress on our operating units to be of significant consequence.
"We have done our best to attempt to put a reasonable operational policy, a safety net for our service members, into place as these other complex political and diplomatic issues are being debated. The Republican filibuster prevented us from doing so. It is now up to the Administration and its congressional allies to demonstrate the kind of compassionate, visionary leadership that might be equal to the standards we constantly set for our military men and women."
And what the hell with Warner??
Please read this Digby post for more on that.
Webb led; he handled the GOP talking points masterfully during the debate outside and inside the Senate. We and the Democratic Party should have his back and make this a real fight. I don't want anyone to be in a position to say this was all theater to make a political point: We want the troops to have more time between deployments. If that doesn't happen, we're going to push the Army and Marines way past the breaking point.
This business of putting bills out, falling short of 60 votes, and then meekly going on to the next item must stop. And the Webb bill is the perfect opportunity to break out of that box.
Dianne says in another diary on this: "Democrats: don't let this go." I couldn't agree more, but we have to do more than talk about how awful the Republcans are for doing this. We have to push the Democratic leadership not to let this go, by forcing a real filibuster.
Tell Harry Reid not to let this go:
Phone: 202-224-3542
Fax: 202-224-7327
email via web: http://reid.senate.g...
thank you jim.
Both voted in favor of the Republican political vote to bash MoveOn.org, and
both voted against the Feingold-Reid amendment to get out of Iraq by June of next year.
Now at the end of the day it doesn't make any difference because Bush would have vetoed anything Feingold had anything to do with. Since they can't get 60 votes, they can't come close to an override.
What is important is in Jan of 2009 when we have more Democrats in both houses and a vote comes up to end the war. How will Webb vote and how will Mark Warner vote? Will we have enough votes to get out of Iraq or will Bush have won?
I think republicans will latch onto to anything to divert attention away from their own sorry positions and performance, ala 'stuck in Iraq'. And, I'm not sure I would agree to vote to de-fund the war save funding for complete withdrawal. On this one, I'm going to defer to Mr. Webb and think he's probably got more incite into this than I.
Is that what you asked, or something else?
Judging from the Netroots reaction, apparently the Netroots feels that it's more important to pander to the Netroots and avoid hurting Moveon's feelings than it is to end the Iraq debacle.If that be the case, why should people take the Netroots seriously?
Wake up.
Newsflash, geniuses:
The Cornyn Amendment was a DISTRACTION to divert attention from efforts to end the war.
And you saps fell for it.
That's what I'm asking about, just trying to get a discussion going...
I also think that it was a terrible blunder on Moveons part. I get so tired of these stunts from both sides, but I also understand that you have to fight fire with fire sometimes and we've been taking on the chin for a long time.
I just think that ad could have been handled a little bit better, but hey, I'm not a political strategist and perhaps it will have positive results in a way I have yet to see.
As for the diary specifically, like I said, I don't think an immediate withdraw is a good idea, but I would like to see some redeployment and more pressure put on Iraqis to step up to the plate. All senators should be screaming in the media about how blocking the Webb ammendment that the republicans refuse to support the troops.
So why is a very political general immune from this kind of trash talking?
In a country where mocking the military, and especially the pomposity of beribboned officers -- from Mauldin to Beetle Bailey to Sgt. Bilko -- was once a staple of popular cultural, we're now reduced to abject bootlicking. Perhaps it was because, back then, a majority of Americans had first hand experience of the foolishness, mind numbing bureaucracy, kafkaesque surrealism and an officer corps replete with 90 day wonders and the American version of Colonel Blimp. Now, very few have been inside the Army and, perhaps not coincidentally, they're all treated as gods of war who must be worshipped. Well, and this may be shocking news for lots of folks, they're not gods.