Friday - June 23, 2006

Need A New Menu?

_{Mike Lester—Rome News-Tribune (GA)}

- Washington Post (June 23, 2006): “Senate Rejects Democrats’ Calls For Iraq Timetable”

The Republican-controlled Senate, embracing President Bush’s handling of the unpopular war in Iraq, rejected two Democratic efforts yesterday to begin a withdrawal of U.S. troops from the three-year-old conflict. Displaying cohesion that has eluded Democrats, Republicans voted overwhelmingly to leave deployment decisions in the president’s hands. The votes, which followed three days of sometimes-fierce debate, outlined the positions the two parties will carry into the November congressional elections and underscored the Democratic constituency’s split between staunchly antiwar activists and those who are frustrated but less fervent. Thirty-one of the Senate’s 44 Democrats opposed setting a firm deadline for withdrawal.

The Senate voted 86 to 13 to reject a proposal by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) that would have ordered Bush to bring most of the troops home within 13 months. Another Democratic measure—a nonbinding call on Bush to begin a troop drawdown by December—fared better but still failed, 60 to 39. Republicans unanimously opposed Kerry’s plan and lost only one member, Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.), on the second proposal. Six Democrats, meanwhile, sided with Republicans in opposing both measures. One of them was Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), the Democrats’ 2000 vice presidential nominee, who is in danger of losing his party’s senatorial nomination this year to a strongly antiwar challenger.

The Senate action, which mirrored a House vote last week, ratified congressional Republicans’ decision to stake their electoral fortunes largely on Bush’s prosecution of a war that nearly two-thirds of Americans say is not worth fighting, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. The GOP solidarity was a vote of confidence in the White House and a gamble that the situation in Iraq will stabilize, or at least not worsen, between now and November. The administration worked hard to reassure nervous Republicans, having the Pentagon send them a thick binder of talking points about the war’s progress and the need to stay the course until Iraqis can maintain order in their country.

Throughout the debate, Senate Republicans said troop deployment decisions must be left to military leaders advising Bush. “The proponents of these amendments want us to tell the new government of Iraq that we are leaving . . . no matter what the implications for the future of their country, no matter how much they plead with us to stay,” said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.). “The time to leave Iraq is when we have achieved our objectives.”

Democrats argued that Iraqis need a strong signal that it is time for them to ready their army and police for self-sufficiency. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) criticized what he described as “cheap political tricks” from the “playbook” of Bush political adviser Karl Rove, “saying Democrats want to surrender” in Iraq. Both parties, meanwhile, claimed to be in touch with U.S. public sentiment over the conflict, which has claimed more than 2,500 American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. “The Republicans in the Senate stand alone in insisting on ‘no plan and no end,’ “ Reid said.

While Republicans in recent weeks gravitated toward a consensus in support of Bush’s policies, Democrats held intensive closed-door debates on what alternatives to offer. Liberals wanted a firm date for troop withdrawals, but others argued for a more moderate approach that would urge, but not compel, Bush to start a drawdown this year. Efforts to reconcile the two camps failed, resulting in the competing measures that were voted on yesterday.

Kerry’s proposed amendment to a military policy bill to set a deadline for withdrawal was co-sponsored by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.). Both men are weighing presidential bids in 2008 and drawing support from antiwar Democrats busily writing blogs and raising money. As the party’s 2004 presidential nominee, Kerry has a high profile, and his insistence on pushing his measure angered some colleagues who felt that it fueled the GOP’s “cut and run” taunts. All 55 Republicans opposed Kerry’s amendment, as did 31 Democrats. Of the 12 Democrats and one independent who voted for it, only two had voted in October 2002 to authorize military force in Iraq: Kerry and Tom Harkin (Iowa). The senators from Maryland and Virginia voted against the Kerry amendment.

- More on the Chicken-crats at the WAPO ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 06/23/2006 at 08:58 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Iraq •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner