NBC's Reid reported McCain's blast of Dems for "no" vote on troop funding, but not McCain's prior "no" vote
On the May 25 edition of MSNBC Live, NBC News congressional correspondent Chip Reid uncritically read a statement from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) attacking Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) for their May 24 votes against a war funding bill that did not include a binding timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. In the statement, McCain said he was "disappointed to see" Obama and Clinton "embrace the policy of surrender by voting against funds to support our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan." McCain continued: "This vote may win favor with MoveOn[.org] and liberal primary voters, but it's the equivalent of waving a white flag to Al Qaeda." Yet Reid did not mention that McCain himself has recently voted, in McCain's words, "against funds to support our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan." On March 29, McCain voted against a war spending bill that funded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 51-47 and was then merged with a similar House version. Bush ultimately vetoed it on May 2, citing the inclusion of a withdrawal timetable.
A May 25 Associated Press article by Liz Sidoti also uncritically quoted McCain's statement attacking Obama and Clinton. Moreover, Sidoti added that with their votes against the most recent war funding bill, Obama and Clinton "opened themselves up to criticism from Republicans that they were denying 165,000 troops the resources they need -- an argument that could be damaging in a general election." However, the article ignored that Obama and Clinton did vote to give the troops "the resources they need" when they supported the earlier war funding bill that Bush vetoed.
From the 10 a.m. ET hour of the May 25 edition of MSNBC Live:
CHRIS JANSING (host): So the antiwar activists aren't going to have their complaints, but I'm guessing the Republicans certainly will.
REID: Oh, absolutely, Chris. In fact, within the last hour, we've gotten a couple of emails from John McCain and [former Massachusetts governor] Mitt Romney. Just listen to this. I think we have full screens we can look at here.
Here's McCain: "I was very disappointed to see Senator Obama and Senator Clinton embrace the policy of surrender by voting against funds to support our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"This vote may win favor with MoveOn and liberal primary voters, but it's the equivalent of waving a white flag to Al Qaeda."
The bill McCain voted against had a timetable in it, this one does not. Agree with either, or neither, bill is fine, but to conflate the two as MMFA is doing here is blatantly unfair.
It is not 'blatantly unfair'... It is the truth- McCain voted NOT to fund the troops... that is his perogative. He chastised the democrats for NOT funding the troops JUST LIKE HE DID!! I know one had a time table and the other didn't, but, he can't cry foul when he voted to not support our troops because of his irrational belief that Americans must still die in a country that we gave weapons to, and that did nothing against us...
Tommy, you are 100% correct.
The two bills had a BIG difference. This is a totally invalid and dishonest comparison by MMFA.
of course every bill has a difference. logic 101. but that does not justify the term not funding the troops or the term "surrender". the troops will have the money to do what they need, or if it should be decided, to leave iraq in a safe manner. mccain's words were reckless rhetoric.
I can see both sides of this argument.
But the key point is that McCain is quite willing to see more Americans die in a futile effort.
That's exactly right Tommy. Talk about MISINFORMATION!
MMFA does a whopper here.
are you australian? i hear they actually have the most colorful parrots.
The bill McCain voted against had a timetable in it, this one does not. Agree with either, or neither, bill is fine, but to conflate the two as MMFA is doing here is blatantly unfair.
- tommy / Friday May 25, 2007 03:11:31 PM EST
Welcome to Tommy 101. I'm Mr. Chimpevil your instructor. Now, class, pay close attention and this will be a short lesson and you can all be off to enjoy your Memorial Day festivities. First, notice how Tommy Da Shill (his RNC gangland handle) pounces on a topic and puts his particular spin on it, nearly always including a reference to why MMFA should not have posted an item, or why MMFA is being disingenous, etc. Thus, "Tommy" neatly diverts the focus of the article and subsequent posters then begin debating what "Tommy" said instead of talking about what MMFA posted. In this case, please note that Da Shill reflexively faults MMFA for "conflating" the two bills to put McCain's comments in a bad light, when it was McCain who did the conflating in the first place by framing the vote as a "funding the troops" issue when he knows very well that the controversial aspect concerned including a timetable. MMFA was simply exposing his slimy tactic, which is nothing more than a variation of RNC talking point 1,000,001, one that Bush used when he vetoed the original bill, that the Dems don't "support the troops" (and by extension are weak on defense, etc etc). The real story here, and the one that lil "Tommy's" obfuscation wants to divert your attention from, is that the mainstream press allows these talking points to be endlessly repeated without challenge, especially when St John The Maverick mouths them.
OK, class dismissed! Enjoy your day, but remember the men and women who have fought and died in our eternal battles, and particularly those now entrapped in the hellholes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and pray that one day soon our politicians will extricate them from this horror instead of playing politcal football with their very lives.
LOL. This is spin at its worst. Saying McCain's "no" vote on the previous bill WITH A TIMETABLE is the same as voting "yes" for a bill WITHOUT A TIMETABLE is disingenuous, regardless of what side you're on.
Let me clarify. It's disingenuous to say that McCain voting "no" on a funding bill with a timetable is completely different than voting "no" to a funding bill without a timetable.
So you think it makes sense to give McCain the opportunity of clarification (the previous bill had a timetable vs. this bill not having a timetable), but you don't want to give the same to the Dems? His comment is as disingenuous as you're trying to make MMFA out to be. If he's judging them strictly on the vote, without their reasoning, he sohould be judged the same.
Why is conflating the two unfair? The bills provided over $120B to "support the troops". McCain cannot fairly argue that his vote against providing funding is somehow better than Obama and Clinton voting against funding.
McCain did not address the difference in the two bills, or mention that he voted against the first funding bill because of the deadlines. He just repeated the typical GOPer talking point that Democrats are automatically assumed to be against the troops.
Real journalists would have pointed out the hypocrisy in his position, or at least given some of the history of his votes. They chose not to.
Why did the senators vote "yes" for the previous bills but "no" on this one?
Gotcha.
Why doesn't McCain say publicly that he voted NOT to fund the troops? Could it be because that is 'suppossed' to be the role of all the democrats, eh? Gotcha!
Gotcha? I'm not sure you understand the point. The point is this: McCain, Obama and Clinton all at one point recently voted against a war funding bill. McCain is saying that with their no votes, Clinton and Obama are "voting against funds to support our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan." But McCain has done the very same thing. They all had reasons but McCain can't just say that and get away with it.
Look at the bill from March 29th that MMFA references here. Clinton and Obama voted yes, then. Now, they voted no.
Yyyyyyyyyyyyeah... and McCain voted no then and now he's voting yes. All three of them have voted NO to a funding bill that's been presented within the past month, but somehow the Democrats' no votes are politicized and they're surrender monkies but he's a mav'rick and standing up for the troops.
Yyyyyyyyyyyeah.
Excellent point. Yes, why did Clinton and Obama change their yes vote to now, a no vote, denying the troops funding? But that is different from McCain..........how?
It's not different than McCain which is exactly the point. There's reasons behind the changed votes and he chose to not discuss them. All he was interested in is talking sh*t about his opposition, not divulging some greater truth.
this is all such a fake argument anyway. the idea that any of these bills is the one and only bill that will or will not provide funding for the troops is absurd. but that is how the republicans are trying to spin it. there are many votes and many bills.
They voted No because they knew this bill would pass anyway. Pandering to the anti-war vote, when we already have their track records in front of us to see it for what it is. They didn't vote from principle, they voted from a safe, secure, and totally hypocritical political position.
could you explain how the democrats can get the troops withdrawn from iraq?
Simple. All they have to do...and now get this...this is the really tricky bit....is to stop voting FOR it!!! To oppose it in every way possible. To demand the troops are brought home, now, right away, pronto. If they do not carry the vote, they introduce again and again and again. Monthly. Weekly. Daily. Public pressure to end it will build so fast and so overwhelming that the Repubs will have to cave in.
There. That's how you stop the war. By actually STOPPING it. Not by funding it and putting off the ending till the next election.
and all that ignores the fact that they have no actual power to bring the troops home and bush will not do it. bush will veto any bill that does it. it's called reality.
The Democrats have the power of the purse. If they don't allocate money for the war then Bush cannot fight it [theoretically]. I think what most Democrats are afraid of is that Bush will leave the troops there to die and blame the lack of funding for causing their deaths.
correct
Nah, they're just pandering to the same interests that wanted us in Iraq in the first place... AIPAC, oil industry, arms industry, etc. They're not resisting the war crime, they're collaborating in it. That's why they refuse to stop it. They LIKE it.
Redking, I think you are being too cynical, as usual.
I know that you are a Green, and that you are 100 times harder on Democrats than Republicans. I support just about most things the Democrats as well as the radical Greens stand for, but I think you are out of line to say that the Democrats (although I'll leave Joe Lieberman as an exception to this, but he's an independent at this point) LIKE this war. Certain candidates who did vote for it say they regret it and probably most likely do. Same reason the American public was behind this President and now isn't: they saw what happened. Yes I know some of them voted to fund the war, but it wasn't in support of Bush's policy, it was simply to protect contractors and our troops. But now they are trying to end it.
Now, I am pretty disappointed, just like Olbermann was, over the fact that the Democrats buckled. But do you really think they went through all the trouble and media hoopla before buckling because they LIKE the war? I think that's illogical. I'm disappointed that they chickened out myself, but why don't we actually replace all Democrats with Greens and see if Greens would NEVER make ANY compromises whatsoever. And yes, I do believe that circumstances should never cause a politican to compromise, but how do you know if public opinion for Bush to sign the bill would have grown? The public, while mostly against the war, probably still would have had the same feelings for it but got mad at the Democrats for not giving a bill Bush would sign. The general public normally doesn't like to see political games played. No politician is perfect.
When the Murtha resolution to immediately pull out of Iraq was put to the House, only 3 people voted FOR it. THe rest were all too happy to keep our troops in Iraq. Yup, they LIKE this war. They're voting PROVES it.
I'm very sick of the way Dems are being portrayed as the saviours from the Republicans, when they are in collaboration with them for exactly the same goals, with the same policies. Good fascist, bad fascist game. Repubs screw up so the Dems can come in and screw it up just as badly, but with more tact. No more fascists, period. No more Dems and Repubs and their torture chambers (rendition began under Clinton).
same goals. same policies? you're lying again.
You can agree or disagree, but there is no hypocrisy. McCain does not want timetables and he knew Bush would veto the bill, he voted against it. When a bill came to him that did not have timetables, he voted for it.......it's very simple. Timetables were a deal breaker for him, apparently.
I think Tommy and Dexter are right on this. McCain only wants to fund the troops if there isn't any sort of exit strategy involved.
His deal breaker was the option that included some responsibility along with the funding.
I am not sure that I agree 100% with the way you framed McCain's intentions, but you are still correct.
And if that's the case, there IS hypocrisy in this statement:
"...embrace the policy of surrender by voting against funds to support our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan."
If all it takes is a no vote on funding to be a surrender monkey, McCain was a surrender monkey in the last vote, because he DID vote against the funding.
Here's the point. I believe Republicans and McCain believe a timetable is a recipee for failure and view such measures as advocating defeat and failure.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether they are right but to compare the two votes is invalid.
“Here's the point. I believe Republicans and McCain believe a timetable is a recipee for failure and view such measures as advocating defeat and failure.”
The Iraqis will decide what happens to their country, we can’t decide it for them. Bush has caused so much death and destruction by starting this pointless war (and now occupation) and for some reason he continues on with this foreign policy disaster for an outcome no one is sure about.
"recipe for failure"? where you been, bud? bush cooked up that dish four years ago.
So say you...and you're entitled to your OPINION!
There'sonly one way we'll actually lose in Iraq. By leaving. We can't be defeated militarily, only politically.
Same as Vietnam. We never lost a battle in Vietnam. But we lost the war. Not militarily. Politically.
I'll agree that the war has been a disaster though. And if the Iraqi parliament goes on vacation I'm in favor of leaving the very next day.
it's not my opinion. it's called a fact.
and you're correct. it is political, so you make my argument. there's no military solution by us.
It's true there's not a "military solution." I agree.
However, a political solution will also be impossible with the country in chaos. it may be chaotic now, but it's not chaos.
And you might think it's a fact. But that don't make it so.
There's only one way we'll actually lose in Iraq. By leaving. - ehull
So all we have to do is stay there until the rapture, or forever, whichever comes first, to declare victory.
Great plan.
So what is your point about Vietnam that we should STILL be there killing and being killed and THAT would constitute winning? Two million of THEM dead and 58,000 of US dead isnt enough to satisfy your bloodlust? Are you kidding me?
Yes it is hypocrisy. It doesnt matter that their reasoning was different. Both voted yes on a funding bill and no on another. Whether or not you agree with the reasoning both were still funding bills. You seem to be saying its ok because we need to ACCEPT McCains reasoning and REJECT Obama and Clintons. It doesnt work that way
I am not accepting or rejecting anything.......this piece is about the reporter's non-mention of McCain's no vote earlier, when that no vote is totally in a different bill and context than the yes vote he just cast.
There is no misinformation by the reporter or some dereliction in his duty here whatsoever, that is the point.
Thats your opinion. I think it merits mention when a guy blasts someone else the he has done EXACTLY the same thing. It IS the same context in that McCain voted against a funding bill HE didnt like and Obama and Clinton voted no on one THEY didnt like. The only difference is WHAT they didnt like. It IS hypocrisy.
It's not an opinion that the earlier no vote by McCain was in a different bill and in a completely different context.
was there "funding for the troops" in the bill mccain voted against? yes is the answer.
And lack of timetables was a deal-breaker to them. They all voted not to fund the troops because of the timetable kicker.
DesertJim: "McCain cannot fairly argue that his vote against providing funding is somehow better than Obama and Clinton voting against funding."
Yes, he can! The issue of a timetable is a HUGE factor. One bill had a timetable; the other didn't. Got it?
Yes its a huge factor most likely it is why Obama and Clinton voted against it THIS time because it didnt have a timetable. So the ONLY difference is they BOTH voted against a funding bill based on whether or not it had a timetable which makes McCain a hypocrite. He did EXACTLY the same thing they did.
So hilary, who's voted FOR every other bill, did the same thing MCCain did?
Don't think so. Let's make it real simple. JM is voting to win the war! His votes are consistent in that contest.
Hilary's vote is inconsistent! Obama, on the other hand, has been more consistent in his opposition to the war.
Another example of HiLARY LACKING CORE CONVICTIONS!
I would have said “JM consistently votes to support this foreign policy disaster.”
"jm is voting to win the war." damn, all this time and nobody realized it was as simple as "voting to win". who knew it was so easy?
Yes, in deference to YOU, lets make it VERY SIMPLE. McCain is voting to get as many Americans killed as possible. Showing HIS lack of higher brain function. Both bills contained funding for troops. McCain voted against one of them then attacked Obama and Clinton for voting against another. Both doing what THEY thought best for both the troops and America. McCain is a hypocrite for blasting THEM for doing the same thing HE did.
The question is why the reporters chose not to mention the earlier vote at all. McCain's claim that Obama and Clinton do not support the troops is allowed to stand with no discussion. Whether I think McCain is a horse's ass is not particularly pertinent. The reporters are simply repeating his words instead of telling the whole story.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make... the first version of the bill required a pull-out timeline and McCain was oppsed to that requirement. He would have been a hypocrit if he had voted for the first version and, in his opinion, that requirement was in direct opposition of a 'support the troops' perspective.
I thought the mission of this site was to 'correct' 'conservative' misinformation... all I see here is a spewing of misinformation with a definite liberal bias. So typical....
He blasted them for voting against a funding bill for the troops which he also did. Your rationale could also be given fairly to Clinton and Obama. THEY couldnt in good concience vote for a spending bill that did not have a timetable to bring the troops home as it didnt fit THEIR idea of supporting the troops, you know supporting them NOT DYING, that is clearly reasonable. Your argument only boils down to you agree with McCain and not Clinton and Obama thats fine but McCain clearly blasted them for something he also did, that does merit mentioning
McCain the lying pig voted yes after he voted no. Bush vetoed funding the troops before he agreed to fund the troops. Sound familiar? Funny how the Republiks can't see their own hypocricy when it suits them. McCain is a coward for using ridiculous rhetoric in this manner. I hope Ron Paul smacks the smug grin off his face.
You can can your comments against liberals Jack. We have been right all along while idiots like you have been too busy calling us traitors to stop and realize you blindly follow a mad man. A mad man who has made the world a far more dangerous place so he and his buddies get rich. You're covered in blood of innocents, everyone who supported this war has blood all over them and it won't come off. Traitors, all of them. Shame on them, shame shame shame.
Bing,
I agree, the Democrats were correct.
But they just caved to Bush. Good intentions are nice....but IF they don't bring results they're not worth sh#t..
Yeah, I gotta agree with you there
all the intentions in the world do not give the democrats the power to withdraw the troops.
You're right...I keep washing,washing,washing...it won't come off..washing,washing.
What a joke.
Get used to it: The Republicans cannot "wash away" the Iraq disaster
Right...
Let's not forget that pretty much all the dems voted for this war too. And most of the dems agreed with and echoed the reasons given for going to war.
They voted based on a so called eminent threat that turned out to be a lie.
And let's also not forget that Bush had access to then-classified intelligence warning of the risks posed by an invasion of Iraq; most of the Democrats did not.
And don't forget that none of the Democrats who voted for the authorization made the decision to invade or had any control over the horribly bungled post-invasion planning; Bush did.
From the McClatchy News Service:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17281224.htm
The full declassified report can be found here:
http://intelligence.senate.gov/prewar.pdf
You are of course flat out WRONG. Which is typical of rightwingers who just repeat the mantras of their bloviating propagand masters. A MAJORITY of House Democrats voted AGAINST the IWR. 149 of them to be exact. A BARE majority of Dem Senators with 23 voting AGAINST it so no RATIONAL reading of the term ' pretty much all' could be applied here. Chatty Con wind them up they say what they were TOLD to think
McCain cares about our troops and knows that some falsely imposed timetable would jeopardize American lives. Obviously, Clinton and Obama do not - they're playing their cards for the primary vote...
This is one of reasons that I can hardly stomach politicians, from all sides, anymore. They rarely cast votes based on leadership and principles, but rather how their vote plays when they are trying to get elected.....makes me wonder how they will ever lead if they get the job they ask for.
I could not agree MORE with you on this one. It's getting extremely sickening.
McCain knows no such thing and neither do you, in fact it make a whole lot more sense to say the troops will be safer HOME than they are in Iraq so its counterintuitive. McCain has his opinion and is welcome to it as are Obama and Clinton it still means both voted for ONE funding bill and against ANOTHER funding bill for their reasons. In other words they did the SAME THING.
baaaa baaaaaaaaa, you're a pathetic sheep if you truly believe that garbage. Iraqis want a time table, the Iraq parliment wants a time table, the majority of Americans want a time table. You have a lot of nerve! McCain put all those troops at risk for his little photo op. He put the people that work there at risk. In fact they're dead. I hope your proud. I hope your really proud.
Jeopardizing lives by leaving Iraq...to die and get blown up and shot at and etc if they stay? Uhm I don't follow your logic. How is keeping people in a war zone a way to make their lives safer?
Exactly right, although they might have been referring to Iraqi lives. Iraq apparently had no al-Qaida ties before the war, although it is now...I honestly have no idea how we would deal with that.
The Iraqis will throw Al-Qaeda out. They are only prominent in the Sunni areas and the Sunni themselves are not happy with their tactics. Iraq can police it's own if it weren't under occupation. US troops in country prevents that from happening.
The invasion of Iraq on false pretenses has endangered the troops.
GJ& Tommy:
McCain is a prime example of grubbing for votes- he's done a 180- he's no longer the man who challenged W. in the primaries two elections ago- with His "Straight Talk Express"
One thing that has to STOP- is not only implying but out and out saying that Dems "don't support the troops- by voting against the never ending war debacle created by Bush and Co".
I think most everyone in Congress on both sides of the aisles CARES about the troops- and the Democratic party have more than their fair share of military heroes.
Caring about the troops and stopping the carnage of a war of choice by the Bush administration are one in the same. Literally NOT trashing our military forces and subjecting them to loss of limbs, brain damage, countless injuries, and DEATH is supporting the troops. Our Constitution charges Congress with oversight of the Executive Branch and it's war powers.
And Tommy if you want to see what happens when a pol is "elected" after promising empty rhetoric during campaigns- well now is the prime viewing time.
George W. has been the worse President of the Unites States. No contest. He rules with propaganda, he has subverted the Constitution, he uses fear to control the masses- with a little help from his friends.
Well, W might be right up there with Reagan. We'll have to see the longterm effects of Bush's actions, which don't look pretty.
Wait a minute! You mean... McCain voted AGAINST funding the troops, before he voted FOR funding the troops?! OMG!!!!
Damn, Flak, I meant to mention thas too.
THANK YOU! This is priceless. Either conservatives have no memory, no sense of irony, or they're hopeless liars. (Maybe all three?) Have they forgotten how they hammered Kerry for saying "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it"?
This is the SAME DAMNED THING! JESUS!
The "policy of surrender" should have been challenged. They are never called on on who would the official surrender be sent to if it means the end of an actual war as opposed to what it really is, an occupation.
They are also never called out on how a timetable puts troops in more danger by being asked to name a single occupation withdrawal timetable at any point in US history where this set of circumstances actually occurred.
They are getting away with just randomly saying anything they think sounds catchy without being challenged to provide any facts or statistics whatsoever.
Yahavi for the win! You are exactly correct on this one - the Right's talking points have been self-verified in the echo chamber, and so infused in the public discourse that politicians can pull them up to combat reasonable arguments and the media will repeat them without even looking a little bit sick.
I highly recommend watching Ron Paul's address from 5/22 (it's available in 3 parts on You Tube, a little less than 10min apiece) on what a patriot's patriotism means vs. a scoundrel's patriotism, and following that up by a short jaunt through Al Gore's The Assault on Reason.
War pigs. The Republican party and theblue dog Democrats are war pigs and we will all suffer for their arrogant march over the cliff. Cowards!
Amen, brother. Down with the fascisti and their never-ending wars!
I was very dissapointed to see McCain make such an ass of himself for dropping this juvenile crap on his political opponents. It's a waste of his time because A. as I said they're juvenile comments that only register as legitimate with a small fraction of the American publi, B. his vote for further spending will ensure our troops stay through 2008 where the war will no doubt become less popular, C. this kind of talk is exactly what the public is becoming increasingly cynical towards. Over simplifying to score political points, it is treasonous to imply that colleagues in the Congress want surrender. THAT is the kind of rhetoric that actually hurts the morale of the troops and emboldens our enemies. Same old scumbag divisive Republikan tactics. I'm sure Karl Rove is real proud of the guy he slandered in 2000 for his boy George.
George Lucas warned us.
http://scorpionbowl.blogspot.com/2007/05/george-lucas-american-orwell.html
That's interesting. Conservatives like to compare us to Rome, insisting that if we don't become more "Christian", we'll fall as Rome did. However, history is never all that simple. Rome fell for a variety of reasons, and "moral decay" was probably pretty far down on the list. Imperialism and overextension of their military had more to do with it. It's ironic that the same tongue-wagging conservatives are driving us down the same path that Rome followed, but it has nothing to do with bath houses.
Rome fell after it Christianized. It was far more tolerant towards other religions prior to the Christianization, making it far easier to trade or work with foreigners. America shows that. Right now we got the Judeo-christian war god beating up an Arabian moon god while chanting about Armageddon, all in the cause of nihilism. The moon does attract the mad ones.
Give up politics, and get into poetry! That piece is pretty fine.
I used to dabble, mainly free form like Morrison. My favorite is Robert Burns. I'd never get away from politics, I love history too much. Right now I'm into a best-seller on the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939, the democratic Republicans versus the autocratic Nationalists. A bewildering mix of party affiliations and alliances on both sides. Saddest part....US industry and finance was cheering for Franco, who's troops committed seriously gross human rights violations when they took territory. All cause he was fighting them evil "reds". Never trust a fascist, they're sadists at heart.
I love good poetry. Especially Stephen Crane and Rumi.
I want to hear something from O'Really and Savage today...
The majority of America wants us out. The Iraqi population wants us out. The majority of their Parliment wants us out. How can any civilized human being look at this President with any respect.
They're not civilized. They're yuppie barbarians.
Hillarious, Mccain voted against the first bill because of the timetables for withdraw. Shouldn't the question be why many of the dems who originally supported the Iraq war are now trying to distance themselves from their past votes? the unfortunate reality is that we ARE in Iraq. We can him and haw all day about why but it doesn't change the fact that we are there now. Mcain believes we should remain until Iraq is stabilized and he voted against the earlier bill because of the artificial timelines. That said, I believe we need our military at home and should reliquish our current "world police" status. While I don't hold the same views on Iraq as Senator Mccain to state that he "voted against the funding of the troops" when in fact his vote was against the timelines (and the president's veto made the vote moot, but I digress) is intellectually dishonest
NO IT ISNT. I am confident that Obama and Clintons vote AGAINST the war was because it DIDNT have a timetable, both were funding bills so BOTH of them voted against a funding bill based on whether it had a timetable or not. So McCain is blasting them for doing EXACTLY what he did. The intellectual dishonesty is YOURS.
The real elephant in the room.
According to CNN today "The percentage of career officers deciding not to stay in the military is the highest it has been since the Vietnam War and includes many West Point graduates, "creating a brain drain in the top ranks." If you don’t want to leave anytime soon you better demand that they bring back the draft. Or would you rather not send your kids? Let the troops be ground to the nub with back door drafts and 15 month tours of duty. Hell that’s 3 longer that required in Vietnam. Unlike Vietnam these troops are in a war zone the minute they get off the plane to the time they leave. No Saigon bars and nightclubs there. I say if Congress wants no timetables or limits then they need to back it up with unlimited manpower otherwise were slowly destroying our military and as Colin Powell recently said" it’s broken". Think about that this Memorial weekend. I’m sick of these gun ho politicians and there defenders waving the flag on the cheap. It’s time for serious sacrifices or shut up and get out of this meat grinder now while we still have some semblance of a military left to do our bidding.
You are 100% right, we should leave immediately and should've never been there in the first place. We need to beef up our home security and it's extremely difficult to do that when our armed forces are sterched out the way they are.
brillian post since, A) the troops in Iraq would have little or nothing to do with domestic security. Most troops are BARRED from domestic action.
Are there any consequences for leaving tommorrow? What do you suppose would happen in Iraq if we left? Big lovefest? End to the violence?
Oh wait, I know, I ran will help to stabilize Iraq. With Al Sadrs help. And those two will protect the Sunni's and Kurds from slaughter.
The US is fighting the Sunni and the Kurds are in alliance with the Shi'a. You got all your facts wrong.
I suppose you forgot that the parting act of the Repugnant Congress was to gut posse comitatus, leaving the Guard (about 50% of the force in Iraq) acting as sort of Praetorian Guard for the Bungle? Oh, you didn't forget - your MSM just didn't tell you?
This article may not be sourced to your approval - being sort of "liberal" and all - but it contains enough of the essential information to show both why there is concern, and what the bases are for that concern.
John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (HR 5122) (2)
Try that link again - somehow I copied the MMFA url into the link, which, together with the balance, made the link go "404"
John Warner Defense Authorization Act Of 2007 HR5122 (2)
got it this time (preview worked, at least)
I'm well aware of the potential genocide that is possible if we leave prematurely and guess what? I don't care. We've provided the Iraqis with a chance at a free society but they are, so far, failing to stand on their own. Enough americans have died for these ingrates and we've spent more than enough time and money over there.
And cocerning your strawman of "soldiers not being deployed in regards to domestic issues"....you do know that a huge number of the soldiers in Iraq are National gaurd right? I mean, I'm pretty sure these guys could be used domestically since, well, that is their job.
Beyond the "normal" use of the Guard by the Governors, they are (thanks to that John Warner act linked above) now at the beck and call of the Prez, for duties previously denied to them, including "law enforcement". That little development inspires in me the fear that MY State's Guard may be used to enforce Federal calls, good or bad, in another State, while theirs may be used to prevent me from protesting some dubious vote-counting scheme in Michigan.
This would have been front-page news for a month or longer, anytime in the past two centuries, other than the 29* years since Ray-Gun and the Repugnants allied with the Corporate Media Oligopoly to reciprocally serve each other. Yet only a handful of liberal blogs even noted the change, so far as I can now tell; and nothing from that Corporate Media albatross rely upon to inform us.
*They lied for him to such an extent during the run-up to the 1980 election, that this confirmed Republican/Libertarian voter of 20 years standing, could no longer stomach the lies, the man, or the party.
The grand plan is total federalization of everything. State government are to be destroyed and all their functions, policing, education, transportation, is to become federal. This has been going on for a century now. Both parties are intent on giving the White House total authority over all aspects of our lives and can't seem to understand that the US is a federation based on a level of de-centralization.
One of the Ten Key Values of the Green Party is decentralization of political power. We don't want our schools and local parks and police forces micro-managed by beauracrats in DC who have never even visited the areas they are responsible for. We see how that's not working on now.
It's all about concentration of power into DC's hands. Much of what they do now is outside their constitutional jurisdictions. And since we have the two party duopoly in control of almost all the states, you'll see little to no resistance. Last thing DC wants is a state that acts independently.
Remember that it was the little Lithuanians who brought down the mighty Soviet Empire. Only takes one pebble to start a landslide.
I just love the meme that its the IRAQI's fault that OUR invasion of THEIR country didnt go the way WE wanted it to.
We are certainly using a lot RESOURCES in Iraq that could be used to shore up our home security. The lack of comprehension here is YOURS not Shaw's. I dont know what will happen in Iraq WHEN we leave and niether do you. No one I know is saying it will turn into a lovefest so that strawman is just dumb. What I DO know is that poll after poll shows the Iraqis WANT us to leave. To pretend we ought to stay there for THEIR sake is ludicrous. We are paying a HUGE price being in Iraq, in lives on both sides, in resources, in international respect and co-operation. We NEED those things and nothing I have seen says the price is worth it. The Iraqis want us gone, we cannot do anything further to help them solve THEIR problems. Its time to come home, its long PAST time to come home.
What is going on here is McCain is criticizing those who voted "no" to this current bill without a timeline as people who are "denying troops with resources that they need." When McCain voted "no" to the other bill WITH the timeline, he was "denying troops with the resources that they need." These commentators then went on to say that this could hurt them in the general elections because it is seen a "voting against the troops."
I believe if anyone is against the war, or any war, I think they have every right to not fund it.