Posted on 05/14/2007 8:27:54 PM PDT by kellynla
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democrats are staging a dramatic anti-war vote this week, with moderates collaborating behind closed doors on legislation that could call on President Bush to rethink his war strategy.
Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Monday that members will decide whether to cut off money for the Iraq war next year, as well as consider a softer proposal calling for troops to leave this fall. The two measures would be offered as amendments to a water projects funding bill to be debated this week.
The votes, expected by Wednesday, will probably fall short of the 60-vote threshold usually needed to advance controversial legislation. But they will help Reid, D-Nev., test the Senate's political waters at a time when the Democratic caucus is divided on how far Congress should go to end the war.
"These are important votes," said Reid spokesman Rodell Mollineau. "This will give members an opportunity to debate these issues and have up-or-down votes" on whether to end the war.
Earlier this month, Bush vetoed a $124 billion supplemental bill, which would have funded the war but demanded troops begin coming home on Oct. 1.
Not having enough votes to override the veto but unwilling to back down, House Democrats last week pushed through a new bill that would fund the war only through July. That bill is unlikely to survive the Senate, where several Democrats say they do not want to appear to be turning their backs on the troops by funding combat in installments.
"On our side of the aisle, Democrats believe they should do something very, very close to what was done in the bill that was sent to the president to be vetoed," Reid said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.washingtontimes.com ...
ping
Reprising the Hippie-HeyDay Mentality. Poltroons the lot of them then and the same today.
Amendments to a water project bill? Like the President will sign that one. LOL
America is just beginning to understand who and what the Dems are. Their treason is front and center.
Pray for W and Our Troops
I guess the troops just won’t get the money, rations, fuel, ammunition, weapons, vehicles, or medicine that they surely would prefer. Over the course of this biennium, the Army, Navy, and Air Force will transform involuntarily from a taxpayer-funded military to a troop-funded military. I don’t know of a military in history that defeated an enemy with unfunded, demoralized, and abandoned troops operating on a strict deadline [20 January 2009].
It`s getting closer to tough decision time, unless something breaks , it`s going to be Rudy vs Hillorat and then we`ll find out what the constant Rudy bashing has cost our troops.
The following is something I posted back in January:
As I said after the election there will be numerous committees and investigations that will climax with calls for impeachment reminiscent of the early ‘70s. (Although they may not be dumb enough to go “all the way” as that would display them as the liberals they are rather than the “moderates” they were elected as in many states).
Here’s a blast from the past from 1971 with many parallels (substitute Vietnam with Iraq):
DELLUMS COMMITTEE HEARINGS ON WAR CRIMES IN VIETNAM
April 25, 1971
Caucus Room, Cannon House Office Bdlg
This nation will be shocked by what it hears, but America will be better for having heard it. We call upon our fellow Congressman to attend these sessions and to learn from what is said here. The people are war-weary and the Congress must assert its constitutional prerogative to end the longest war in history.
This Congress has had chance after chance to end the war, and we have not done it. Hopefully these hearings in combination with all the other pressures that can be exerted, hopefully, we will then force the Congress to act and to cause it to end this bloody and immoral war in which we have been so long engaged. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CONYERS: ..... I want to emphasize that this Congress has displayed a complete lack of moral responsibility and legislative integrity in not having the courage to openly look at the actions that we are forced to do .....
Sounds quite germane.
America is just beginning to understand who and what the Dems are. Their treason is front and center.
Well, it's not going to change your understanding of them (and neither mine). You already knew that. It's not going to change their supporter's minds about the Democrats. They already knew that they wanted to get the U.S. out of Iraq as soon as possible, like right now. In fact, it's not going to really tell anyone anything new about the Democrats that they didn't already know -- and were either supporting them (i.e., the Democrats) or not. So, what has changed?
The thing that has changed is that there are now people starting to switch sides on the issue. And they're not switching sides to go to the Republican side of things. Nope! They're switching to the Democrat side of things.
So, one might ask why, then? Well, it's because there is a significant number of Americans who are now getting tired of this WOT over in Iraq and they want out. They are tired of getting troops killed and they want out. So, this significant number is going to join up with the Democrats and start pushing for that withdrawal.
The handwriting is on the wall -- now. It's pretty much a done deal, come the elections of 2008.
So, the fact (as you put it) that "... their treason is front and center" will have nothing to do one way or another with what happens with the troop withdrawals which will be coming about soon. It's basically a "non-issue" (what you're saying) because when a significant number end up joining the Democrats and then become the majority, no matter if it's a slight majority, that becomes not relevant any more, because then it's simply a political decision and that puts the end to that...
Regards,
Star Traveler
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
They will throw a party and everyone will come for the free food and drink. With a majority of Americans on the government dole and payroll, it really is all about government largesse with the treasury. To put it another way, the battle cry has become, “We don’t need no stinking war! Party on!”
Personally, after 9/11, I have learned to hate all Muslims, so I no longer give a darn what happens to them.
“After 1975, over 2 million Asians were murdered as a direct result.
Personally, after 9/11, I have learned to hate all Muslims, so I no longer give a darn what happens to them.”
Yep, but the difference is that when we pulled out of Nam the VC & NVA didn’t follow us home.
I would rather fight the muzzies on their sand than ours.
Semper Fi,
Kelly
This country forgot Vietnam and the reason we lost. We allowed a minority, and the media, to control it all. We allowed the degradation of our troops all for some convoluted peace crap. Now, we’re allowing the nonsense of supporting our troops but not their mission - and that can’t be separated - you support our troops and the mission or you don’t support our troops. Unless we fight, here in America, the media, the celebrities some idolize, hold our reps to the voters who got them the damn position/office, it will never change.
Americans are getting tired because they’re soft. We’re becoming soft. We can’t sacrifice, it’s too hard. We’re lazy. Mostly, we don’t protest like the dems, liberals, illegals. It’s very easy to turn this around, simply because what’s happening is evil, it’s unpatriotic, it’s basically telling our troops that we don’t support them and the tiny loss of life of American troops in Iraq is something we’ll keep pushing to justify our non support of the troops and the mission.
The libs think they won’t suffer the wrath of Islam. They have no spine, surrendering. It’s disgusting, disgraceful. When you fight a war, you fight to win, no matter what. No matter how barbaric that is. War isn’t pretty, it isn’t nicely packaged or on a timetable. I hate this intellectual elitist crap, this from someone with two Master degrees.
So what is your point? Do you think we, those who are patriotic and value our American lifestyle, should finally start fighting back? Or are you just pointing out how we’re going to lose in 2008, and I don’t see us losing in 2008 yet.
You`d fit right in over at DU. You want to not dicuss this issue, OK, I`m done. your safe. But someday, you might just be forced too..
If you want to “discuss” the comparison of Rudy & Hillary start your own thread.
We’re dealing here with the PRESENT day Congress, POTUS and war;
not two wannabee presidential candidates.
gezzzzzzzz...the IQ level drops by the minute ‘round here. LOL
This country forgot Vietnam and the reason we lost. We allowed a minority, and the media, to control it all. We allowed the degradation of our troops all for some convoluted peace crap. Now, we’re allowing the nonsense of supporting our troops but not their mission - and that can’t be separated - you support our troops and the mission or you don’t support our troops. Unless we fight, here in America, the media, the celebrities some idolize, hold our reps to the voters who got them the damn position/office, it will never change.
Well, here's the thing about the media and information that can get to the public, today, versus back then, in the late 60s and early 70s. It's not as controlled now. We have a lot better access to all sorts of information. So, people are capable of having the right information if they want it.
The deal about the degradation of the troops is simply a political move to start the withdrawal process, more than anything else. In other words, you try and force the issue through the money side of things. That's what Congress is all about anyway. They appropriate the money. So, yes the President can order the troops over there and fight a war, but if Congress refuses to spend the money for it, then the President is just sh*t out of luck on the matter. That's the nature of our system. Congress has always had the "purse strings" in its hands. So, the President can't pay for anything unless Congess agrees. And so, that's exactly what they're doing.
Americans are getting tired because they’re soft. We’re becoming soft. We can’t sacrifice, it’s too hard. We’re lazy. Mostly, we don’t protest like the dems, liberals, illegals. It’s very easy to turn this around, simply because what’s happening is evil, it’s unpatriotic, it’s basically telling our troops that we don’t support them and the tiny loss of life of American troops in Iraq is something we’ll keep pushing to justify our non support of the troops and the mission.
Well, for whatever the reason is that they're getting tired, it's just the fact that it's happening. And that's that. So, let's say that all of it is true. We can't sacrifice, it's too hard, we're lazy..., okay, then what do you have? You sure don't have any better chance at keeping the troops over there in Iraq to finish out the next decade of occupation, like we need to have in Iraq. You still get withdrawal, no matter what you want to call the American public.
Now, you said something that I'm not quite sure about, though. It's like you're saying that once the troops are over there, that we can't pull them out, or else we're betraying them. Well, I don't think that's the reason for keeping the troops over there in Iraq. The answer to that is, no, you can pull the troops out of there and not betray them. You simply make a policy decision, the troops do what they're supposed to do and "wrap it up" and that's that. End of story.There's no betrayal simply from the withdrawal itself.
No, the betrayal, is from the standpoint of not the troops (if you say, "Come home", that's not a betrayal to say that...) -- no, the betrayal is to the original goal and idea that we had for going over there in the first place. The troops are simply the extension of our policy. If we don't follow through with our policy, then that is the betrayal. It's a betrayal of the original policy and reason for being over there. The troops can come home or they can stay, and that is simply a policy matter. BUT to have the original policy betrayed is another matter. There are many different things involved in that policy and that would require a lot more typing to go into it. Suffice it to say that if the orders are given to the troops to "come home" that's no betrayal of the troops. I'm sure they would like to come home. It's simply a betrayal of our original reason for being there and our policy.
The libs think they won’t suffer the wrath of Islam. They have no spine, surrendering. It’s disgusting, disgraceful. When you fight a war, you fight to win, no matter what. No matter how barbaric that is. War isn’t pretty, it isn’t nicely packaged or on a timetable. I hate this intellectual elitist crap, this from someone with two Master degrees.
Well, first of all, I don't think this country can fight a war any more, not from the way it looks now. I mean, we can bomb some places, and send missiles and stuff. We can make a quick "in and out" like we did in the first Gulf War, as along as no one gets killed and stuff. But, as soon as things turn into a real war, "it's time to go home." That's what it looks like to me.
So, the only thing that is really going to work for the U.S., in terms of this war against the religio-fanatical-governmental idealogy of Islam, is for them to succeed in another major attack on the U.S. (perhaps with a nuclear weapon) and maybe that will keep us going for about ten years of warfare. Any longer war that is needed, we'll probably need another attack at home.
So what is your point? Do you think we, those who are patriotic and value our American lifestyle, should finally start fighting back? Or are you just pointing out how we’re going to lose in 2008, and I don’t see us losing in 2008 yet.
My basic point is that you are outnumbered in the political process -- that is, in the voting booth. And as a result, no matter what you are saying about the American public, true or not, isn't going to make a bit of difference. The handwriting is on the wall and the withdrawal is probably going to be started around the future election time.
Regards,
Star Traveler
If the Democrats want to vote to cut off funding for the troops, let them explain it to the American people.
There's really not too much to explain about it. Anyone with half a brain knows perfectly well what it means. It means "withdrawal time". Nothing more simpler than that. That's what Congress does, in its Constitutionally-granted powers -- the power of the "purse string". Thus, if a President wants to fight a war, and the Congress does not think that he should, they have the ability and the power to cut off the money in order to defund the war and force the troops home. That's exactly what is going to be happening.
So, as a result of that, look for the withdrawals to begin around election time.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.