 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:33 am Post subject: Senate Weighs Measures Urging Bush Set Limits in Iraq |
 |
|
Is this the start of a repeat of Viet Nam, with Congress gradually withdrawing support and turning against the President?
| Quote: | Nov. 14 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Senate opened debate today on measures that would put the chamber on record for the first time asking President George W. Bush to set limits for keeping American troops in Iraq.
The Bush administration ``needs to explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission,'' say resolutions introduced separately by both Republicans and Democrats. >>snip<<
The measures will prove attractive to Republicans up for re-election next year who want ``to distance themselves from the White House,'' Fisher said. >>snip<<
The Republican resolution is sponsored by Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, John Warner of Virginia. The Democratic version is pushed by their counterparts, Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the armed services panel. Votes on the amendments are likely tomorrow. >>snip<< |
And of course, the loser sKerry couldn't resist adding this one cents worth to it.
| Quote: | | "We need to move forward with fixing the mess the administration has created in Iraq,'' said Kerry, his party's 2004 presidential nominee and a persistent critic. ``Fighting for the right policy for our troops sends them exactly the right message to the troops: that we take the decision to put them in harm's way seriously and that our democracy is alive and well.'' |
Bloomberg News
I'm surprised that sKerry hasn't convened another "winter soldier" campaign to elicit bogus testimony about all the everyday atrocities being committed.
Does he have a clue our troops overall can't stand him anymore than we Veterans do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mtboone
Founder
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 470
Location: Kansas City, MO.
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 1:51 pm Post subject: Re: Senate Weighs Measures Urging Bush Set Limits in Iraq |
|
|
I'm surprised that sKerry hasn't convened another "winter soldier" campaign to elicit bogus testimony about all the everyday atrocities being committed.
Was it not the St. Louis newspaper that caught a ex-marine in a lie about atrocities in Iraq that the left and Cindy S**than was using in her tour of disgracing her self?
_________________
Terry Boone PCF 90
Qui Nhon 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jwb7605
Rear Admiral
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 690
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:14 pm Post subject: Re: Senate Weighs Measures Urging Bush Set Limits in Iraq |
|
|
| LewWaters wrote: | Is this the start of a repeat of Viet Nam, with Congress gradually withdrawing support and turning against the President?
| Quote: | Nov. 14 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Senate opened debate today on measures that would put the chamber on record for the first time asking President George W. Bush to set limits for keeping American troops in Iraq.
The Bush administration ``needs to explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission,'' say resolutions introduced separately by both Republicans and Democrats. >>snip<<
The measures will prove attractive to Republicans up for re-election next year who want ``to distance themselves from the White House,'' Fisher said. >>snip<<
The Republican resolution is sponsored by Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, John Warner of Virginia. The Democratic version is pushed by their counterparts, Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the armed services panel. Votes on the amendments are likely tomorrow. >>snip<< |
And of course, the loser sKerry couldn't resist adding this one cents worth to it.
| Quote: | | "We need to move forward with fixing the mess the administration has created in Iraq,'' said Kerry, his party's 2004 presidential nominee and a persistent critic. ``Fighting for the right policy for our troops sends them exactly the right message to the troops: that we take the decision to put them in harm's way seriously and that our democracy is alive and well.'' |
Bloomberg News
I'm surprised that sKerry hasn't convened another "winter soldier" campaign to elicit bogus testimony about all the everyday atrocities being committed.
Does he have a clue our troops overall can't stand him anymore than we Veterans do? |
The relevant stuff above is highlighted.
I have a dog (make that a son ...) in this hunt.
Kerry (and the "bipartisan rest of them") have a clue.
Why should they care? As the song went when "we were there":
"I'd like to help you son, but you're too young to vote".
That's not strictly true today, but there aren't enough to make a difference.
The MSM is exaggerating the atrocities, underreporting successes, and not reporting at all on most other points of view.
BUT: That's all the mainstream public sees or hears.
It's all bad. There's no progress. We're getting killed. We need to look at the other point of view. Bush lied. Global warming. Halliburton. Indictments.
35 years ago, I got out of the Navy because every time I turned around, it seemed like some elected idiot was making a new stupid rule that made no sense. I decided that was a good decision when Carter got elected, except I felt like I needed to apologize for being in the military while he was president. It was a full ten years before I didn't feel like I needed to keep quiet any more ... it was longer than that before I would openly admit I was in (off the coast of ... anyway) VietNam.
The reason all that happened was the MainStream Media and the MainStream Public. The series of events then made no sense to me, and the series of events now make no sense to me. Both series of events are, to me, strikingly similar in pattern and nonsense.
So I just keep telling my son that shortly, he could be the bad guy because he actually tried to help somebody out, and when it comes down to it, to remember what he did and be proud of himself, do it again when he needs to, and to hell with the idiots.
... sorry for the rant, but a nerve just got struck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AMOS
Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 30 Jul 2004
Posts: 558
Location: IOWA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:33 pm Post subject: Stupid. |
|
|
| These Senators, and a lot of others, are stupid people. That's all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jwb, no need to apologize, similar matters happened with me. I never felt ashamed of serving in Viet nam, but I just never talked about it, no one was willing to listen. I was still on Active Duty when Carter was elected and granted complete and total amnesty to draft dodgers. That was the final straw in my decision to end my Army career at 8 years instead of going the full 20 or more.
A Vietnamese lady cuts my hair that remembers the fall of Saigon and now has a son in Iraq. Her son tells her the truth about Iraq but no one is willing to listen to him or her either.
I see this article I posted as the same leftist hate America crowd repeating what they did during Viet Nam. I don't intend to sit by and just watch this time. I may not have the notoriety of the leftist media, but I will and do speak out every way I can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just heard the Senate passed the resolution 79 to 19.
I guess the Senate believes they now THEY set our foreign policy, rather than the President, whose job that is!!
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Just heard the Senate passed the resolution 79 to 19. |
That must be the Republican bill ( there were 2 bills, one from the Dems, the other from the Reps)
link
| Quote: | Senate Republicans Block Iraq Timetable
Nov 15 11:50 AM US/Eastern
By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON
The Republican-controlled Senate on Tuesday easily defeated a Democratic effort to call for President Bush to outline a timetable for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
The vote was 58-40 against a Democratic plan that the minority party's leadership advanced in the wake of declining public support for a conflict that has claimed more than 2,000 U.S. lives and cost more than $200 billion.
Republicans countered with their own alternative, urging that 2006 "should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty," with Iraqi forces taking the lead in providing security _ a step lawmakers hope will speed a reduction of U.S. forces.
Given the Republican majority, passage of the alternative plan seemed a certainty. |
any info re the gist of what the Reps's bill said?
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, Kate
Now I see what Frist and Warner were doing. They offered a counter to the Democrats who were determined to set a TIMETABLE for withdrawal of our troops. Which would lead to sure defeat and eventual downfall of Iraq to the terrorists. Something that the Left WANTS to happen.
Had the Republicans not put up a counter bill, the Dem bill might have passed since there are a number of weak-knee Repubs who felt they would have to vote for the Dem bill it in order to get reelected .
The Repub resolution is just what Bush strategy is anyway: Keep building the Iraqi forces to take over more of the fighting, which they are doing quite well, and as more Iraqis can handle the defense of their country, the American troops can slowly be drawn down. Just what Bush has planned that we can start doing next year.
My only problem is that this allows the left to credit themselves with having forced Bush to withdraw.
The very plan that Bush has promoted all along will be claimed by the MSM as a great victory for those who opposed the war. Grrrrr!
Its a shame that we have to put up with these kind of games, but political cover is the name of the game!!
I'm sure the 19 who voted against it have to be the hard Left.
Now those weak-kneed Pubs can tell their voters that they voted for the resolution to demand that Bush start withdrawing troops.
Games Games Games.
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shawa wrote: |
I'm sure the 19 who voted against it have to be the hard Left. |
Not quite. The nay votes are a mix of the hard-left and Repubs who learned the hard-lesson of Vietnam. Those Repubs should be commended. As to the leftists...well... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PhantomSgt
Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 972
Location: GUAM, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is the small matter of dealing with the Syrian and Iranian Terror Sponsoring Regimes before we ever think about leaving the area.
I continue to wonder if America has the heart to fight this long war on terror. Anyone who truly understands the fight would realize it may take forty years or more to defeat organized terror and the elements that promote or support their actions.
The best strategy we have now is the open invitation for Jihadists to enter Iraq and be killed or captured. This war of attrition removes potential threats against the West daily.
Another phase of the war is the elimination of potential threats that are being groomed within our own borders. It will take a strong will and the realization that our own treasured Constitution may impede the effort. The Founders were wise when they wrote the document to fit the emergence of the United States. Unfortunately they could not forsee the threats we face now and how the fight must proceed.
Each time the ACLU, MSM or a member of Congress takes up the case to defend a Jihadists rights, it diminishes our capacity to wage the war we need to win and emboldens our enemies.
So members of Congress it is time to wake up and realize the only chance America has to survive the Islamic Jihad against the West is to fight and win. Capitulation or appeasement is not an option.
_________________
Retired AF E-8
Independent that leans right of center. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You're right Me#1.
I guess I was busy typing and editing my rant, and didn't see that you had put up the Warner Amendment results.
What I noticed was the 5 Democrats who should be commended for voting against the Levin Amendment.
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776)
Last edited by shawa on Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
...and Pryor  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jwb7605
Rear Admiral
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 690
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LewWaters wrote: | jwb, no need to apologize, similar matters happened with me. I never felt ashamed of serving in Viet nam, but I just never talked about it, no one was willing to listen. I was still on Active Duty when Carter was elected and granted complete and total amnesty to draft dodgers. That was the final straw in my decision to end my Army career at 8 years instead of going the full 20 or more.
A Vietnamese lady cuts my hair that remembers the fall of Saigon and now has a son in Iraq. Her son tells her the truth about Iraq but no one is willing to listen to him or her either.
I see this article I posted as the same leftist hate America crowd repeating what they did during Viet Nam. I don't intend to sit by and just watch this time. I may not have the notoriety of the leftist media, but I will and do speak out every way I can. |
Thanks, Lew ... to address your original point, here's exactly, regardless of what is specified in either bill, the fundamental reason I now potentially "see this as another VietNam":
| Quote: | | The Iraq resolutions would be attached to the Senate's fiscal 2006 defense authorization bill, which sets military policy and has become a vehicle for lawmakers' efforts to weigh in on the administration's handling of the conflict. |
Sounds like we both got sick of that, although you apparently have a lot more patience than I do.
Although much more palatable than the Democrat version, I have "issues" with these inclusions as well:
| Quote: | | The bill already includes amendments governing the treatment of enemy combatants, the rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the nature of any secret U.S. detention facilities |
Lets see ... the Republican version is willing to stipulate there are treatment problems at Guantanamo, and wants details made public of clandestine (but "outed") CIA facilities (because Valerie Plame is more serious?)
in summary:
| Quote: | | While the measures express a non-binding ``sense of the Senate,'' together they're ``early pressure on a major U.S. military operation, in contrast to the Vietnam War'' where congressional resistance didn't occur until the early 1970s or about eight years after the start of the major military build- up, said Louis Fisher, a senior specialist on congressional war powers for the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. |
... which, of course, to me means "let's gut these people sooner rather than later" ... Vietnam took much too long and we lost seats!
in contrast to the Vietnam War, my a**!
  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You're right jwb.
I note that Conrad of North Dakota is the only Democrat who voted NO to BOTH amendments which indicates to me that he opposes interference by the Senate.
So out of the total Senate only 14 stand AGAINST Congress 'weighing in' on the conduct of the war.
And don't forget McCain's amendment a few weeks ago that I felt was totally disrespectful of our Military that they needed a ruling from the vaunted Senate to stop torture and abuse of prisoners!! WHAAAT!!! I believe there were only nine with spine enough to vote against McCain's bill.
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
