Scarborough baselessly claimed Dems voting against Kerry amendment "voted with George Bush" to "maintain the course in Iraq"
SUMMARY: Joe Scarborough baselessly claimed that "the majority" of Senate Democrats, by voting against a proposal by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) to redeploy troops from Iraq by mid-2007, "voted with George Bush" to "maintain the course in Iraq." In fact, 37 of 43 Senate Democrats voted in favor of a nonbinding amendment sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) calling for "the beginning of a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of the year," which all but one Republican voted against.
On the June 22 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, host Joe Scarborough baselessly claimed that "the majority" of Senate Democrats, by voting against a proposal by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) to redeploy troops from Iraq by mid-2007, "voted with George Bush" to "maintain the course in Iraq." In fact, while Kerry's amendment received the support of only 11 other Senate Democrats plus Sen. James Jeffords (I-VT), 37 of 43 Senate Democrats voted in favor of a nonbinding amendment sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) calling for "the beginning of a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of the year.
The Bush administration and all Senate Republicans but one (Sen. Lincoln Chafee [R-RI]) have publicly opposed proposed timetables for withdrawing troops, although a June 25 report by the New York Times indicated that Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top American commander in Iraq, has "drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there [in Iraq] by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September."
From the June 22 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:
SCARBOROUGH: Now, from terror at home to the war on terror in Iraq. Today, the United States Senate continued its fiery debate on whether to maintain the status quo or to bring our troops home. Now, if it's true, as Abraham Lincoln said in his historic 1858 Senate campaign, that a house divided against itself cannot stand, today's vote shows the Democratic Party's foundation to be a little shaky because when the Senate voted today on John Kerry's plan, that would have set July 2007 as a withdrawal date from Iraq, only 12 Democrats and one independent voted yes. The majority of Mr. Kerry's party voted with George Bush, which allowed the measure to be defeated by an overwhelming 86 to 13.
You know, the bitter Iraq debate, I believe, holds the greatest opportunity for Democrats to retake control of Congress for the first time in 12 years. But once again, the party appears determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Make no mistake of it, George Bush's Iraq war is unpopular. Americans don't trust the president. They don't think the cost in blood and money are worth it, and they don't think the Pentagon has a plan to lead this great country to victory.
And even though I still support the war, it's obvious even to me that the Democratic Party's unity on this issue would spell doom for the president and his party. Democrats, independents, moderate Republicans would all support candidates this fall who promise to bring the troops home in a year.
But unfortunately for John Kerry and the volunteers who run Democratic campaigns across the country, the overwhelming majority of Democrats didn't even support their own party's amendment on the Senate floor.
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: You know what's going to happen is those on the far left will stay at home before they will vote for a candidate that voted basically for George Bush's position today, to maintain the course in Iraq.
This left winger will go to the polls and vote for a Democrat, even if it requires holding my nose and voting for one of the cowards who votes in favor of Bush's war or the ridiculous Flag Burning Amendment.
The point is that we MUST break the Republican stranglehold on government, or the country is screwed.
This is all wishful thinking on these guys' parts... he should worry more about the growing number of disgruntled (true) conservatives who've had enough with this madness.
Is there some unreported rash of flag burning going on that I just don't know about? The way the right wing talks you would think that every campfire in this country was started by burning an American Flag.
You also might want to talk yourself into believing that the current national polls don't really put Bush at only 33% support.
If you close your eyes and wish real hard, you never know what might happen....
After living under the reign of the Bush administration for nearly 6 painful years, anyone with conscience or a grain of intelligence who can truly justify voting Republican should be entitled to a lifetime of free psychotherapy.
Let's send them a bill for the Iraq Mistake.
No doubt that the clash between conservatives and liberals will rage on forever. Both sides present valid points. But what I can’t fathom is why conservatives so fervently back the president no matter what he does, no matter how many times he contradicts himself, no matter how many times his poor judgment compromises America and threatens the Constitution. Political discourse is the backbone of democracy. Without it, America is merely a country made up of subservient sheep. Yet conservatives are willing to go down with the ship at all costs. It seems that they’re so obsessed with proving liberals wrong that preserving democracy and pointing the country in the right direction is an afterthought. Here’s what Teddy Roosevelt said:
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
We all have a responsibility to question our lawmakers. And when they screw up, the onus is on us; we have an obligation to set them straight. Iraq clearly was a mistake—a catastrophic mistake whose ultimate consequence will impact generations to come. We entered into this war under false pretenses; no one with a grain of reason could possibly deny this. After 9-11 our thirst for Muslim blood was so intense that we abandoned all sense of reason and let our patriotic bravado distort our thinking. Of course Bush made it easy for us to back him; he force-fed us lies to justify the unprovoked attack on Iraq, leading us to believe that Saddam was harboring WMD and that he was directly connected to 9-11.
The warmongers who support this war have only two trump cards, and they play them constantly: the war in Iraq is a global war on terrorism, and anyone who doesn’t support the war, doesn’t support the troops. This twisted logic is, of course, without merit. It is a desperate attempt to change the voice of reason to the voice of treason. Terrorism is a global matter. Extremists dwell under every flag, even the American flag. To believe that we can defeat terrorism by waging war on a nation that has never threatened us nor was involved with 9-11, is foolhardy. To support the troops means to preserve their lives. And the only way to accomplish this is to get them out of harm’s way and bring them home.
I am conservative, as well your beloved friend Michael Savage. If you spent one painful afternoon listening to him, you would realize fewer conservatives support Bush's policies then you care to imagine, for whatever foolish reason. With that said, you are corect about one thing, I do respect the presidents position as president. I will not talk bad about him, nor would I Gore.
I did not support the reasons for going to Iraq. But, seeing all these animals go into a market filled with kids and woman and simply pull a cord and destroy them, makes me very very angry, and resentful torwards the Muslim culture. I have two friends that are muslim, or have a connection with them through marriage. The men are screwed up people. Simply put, MONGORS. Hate mongors, war mongors, control mongors.
I try really hard not to divide the party lines. You, sound very divided, just what the big government wants. You think Hillary and crew dont put around in golf carts with Bush and crew? The democrats are just as selfish as the republicans, and visa versa.
Flag burning, that is simply un-patriotic, arrogant, and I would like to see ya try that in Mexico!
Your point about career politicians id valid. However, I'd like to see (honestly) a good example of Democrats engaging in the sort of no-holds-barred criminality we're seeing these days.
Also, I agree the office of President should be respected. However, the President is STILL no better or worse than any of us -- perhaps naive sentiment, but one this country is built upon... that is, gov't for the people and by the people. Bush has proven that he doesn't car a wit about any of us and he deserves no respect. He should be fired.
I have one Muslim friend. He is as kind, generous and God loving a man as I have ever met
I notice his attack on the muslims and it tick me off. I have a friend who is married to an former Irak national. He is a highly intelligent and educated man who came to this country in the 90's for political asylum because he spoke out agaist the the government. He married my friend has raised her childern that her american redneck ex-husband abandoned. He is a devoted husband and father and treasures his the freedoms he has in this country. He works two jobs to support his family that now includes thier new son. He reminds us all the time never to take it for granted. He also hears often of the loss of family and friends back home who are still caught up in this war. Normal people who like him just want a chance to live a normal live.
They are not that different from us. Yes He is Muslim. He does not resent my beliefs and repects others around him. He deals with this type of hate all the time. It hurts me to see a man that has given so much to this family be humilated by ignorance such as this.
After reviewing your comment I had to read what I wrote to be sure I wasn't losing my mind. First, if you paid attention you would have concluded that I have no party allegiance. I lean left but I am neither conservative nor liberal; I carefully weigh each issue and make a decision based on logic, not labeling. I am clearly against the Iraqi occupation and I don't think anyone with conscience--left or right--could come up with a credible argument to support the war. I've grown weary of the war on terror as the convenient justification. I clearly explained this in my prior post.
You seem proud that you back the president and respect him. Here's the most compelling question: what does Bush or any other president for that matter have to do to lose your support and respect? Surely there must be something that would result in your giving him a thumbs down. If not, I can only hope that you remain in the minority, lest democracy be reduced to a country of mindless puppets. It was never the intent of the Constitution for Americans to categorically support our lawmakers. Perhaps you should read Teddy Roosevelt's quote again.
I could almost forgive you for all of your myopic viewpoints, however, the comment about Muslims was the deal breaker. Anyone who would judge one billion Muslims based on his limited experiences with only two, and the twisted perception that all Muslims enjoy blowing up little babies--well--it typifies the conservative perspective. I have met many Muslims and have found them to be kind and gentle people.
A president's legacy is usually written years after he vacates the Oval Office. No doubt that Geo W. --the man you support and respect--will go down in history as the worst president ever.
As you say , Muslims are nothing but "animals, hate mongors, war mongors, control mongors", why the hell are we over there trying to do something for them? If you believe that, you should be angry that your president is sending Americans to die.
If you really cared about your country, flag burning would not offend you nearly as much as ignoring the constitution. I'd suggest you grow up and calm down.
Deitl is a complete moron, he's one of the regular bigots on Imus. Bigotry even if unintentional is ugly and it's so easy to fall into especially when you seek out people like Savage who reaffirms it regulary for you. This is what this Stain is doing with his assessment of Muslims. He did this on a previous post about Mexicans as well. All other posters were speaking about the real issue of illegal immigration as people here are speaking about Iraq policy, but some how he managed to turn the previous thread into a rant about the unworthiness of Mexicans and now somehow this is about the unworthiness of Muslims. It's sad that some need to negate others to feel good about themselves. I also doubt very seriously that he supports the argument that we went there to bring Iraqi's democracy. Some rallied behind this war because they saw it as punishing Muslims and it didn't matter that we attacked a country that had not attacked us because they see all Muslims regardless of nationality or real culpability in 911 as interchangeable evil parts.
So you respect the president's position and you will not talk bad about him even if it was a dem in office. You must be the only righty I have ever known who never criticized Bill Clinton when he was in office. Is that what you are saying?
Now you're engaging in that 'factual recall' thing... Conservatives don't seem to do very well with that.