Media uncritically report GOP charge that Senate Dems are withholding military funding
Reporting that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) decided to temporarily pull the annual Defense Department funding authorization bill from consideration after Senate Republicans blocked a vote on a Democratic amendment aimed at withdrawing troops from Iraq, a July 19 New York Times article asserted, "The pause will also allow Republicans to charge that Democrats are stalling a major Pentagon measure, including a military pay raise, to make political points." Yet the Times did not point out that the bill -- which would authorize defense spending for fiscal year 2008 -- is not set to take effect until October 1. By contrast, after reporting Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-SC) criticism of Reid's move, a July 19 McClatchy Newspapers article noted that the bill "wouldn't take effect until fiscal 2008 begins on Oct. 1 and isn't technically needed in order to continue military funding."
In addition, a number of other media outlets uncritically quoted Republican senators making the same claim without mentioning that the FY 2008 Defense authorization bill would not take effect before October 1, and the bill's provision of a pay raise for the military would not take effect until January 2008. For example:
- A July 19 Washington Post article uncritically quoted Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) claiming that "[w]e are abandoning the men and women in the military if we don't take this bill back up and pass it, conference with the House, and have it signed by the president of the United States, as we have for the past 45 years."
- A July 19 Washington Times article also uncritically quoted McCain's assertion.
Additionally, USA Today reported on July 19 in an article by reporter Kathy Kiely that "Republicans accused Reid of holding hostage a bill that would provide troops a 3.5% pay raise beginning Oct. 1." In addition to simply repeating without rebutting the Republicans' accusation about delaying the bill, Kiely did not point out that the claim she attributed to Republicans about when the pay raise takes effect is false. The same article also quoted McCain asserting that "[w]e are abandoning the men and women in the military if we don't take this bill back up."
In contrast to the above newspapers, McClatchy noted the distinction between the GOP charge that Reid and the Senate Democrats are withholding funds for the U.S. military, and the reality of when the funding is to take effect:
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said, "What I hate the most is that because of the next election, we can't set aside our differences and focus on what we have in common: providing our troops with what they need."
The authorization bill covers myriad aspects of defense policy, from treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to equipment levels.
While it wouldn't take effect until fiscal 2008 begins on Oct. 1 and isn't technically needed in order to continue military funding, the bill contains several politically popular elements: a 3.5 percent military pay increase, more money for mine-resistant vehicles known as MRAPS and improved care and benefits for wounded veterans.
The blog ThinkProgress also noted McCain's claim and a similar assertion from Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and pointed out that the defense bill is not set to take effect until October 1 and that "[f]unding for the troops -- including emergency appropriations -- has already been earmarked through September 30th, 2007."
From the July 19 New York Times article:
Republicans accused Democrats of wasting time on a fruitless talkathon. "Nothing we have done for the last 24 hours will have changed any fact on the ground in Iraq or made the outcome of the war any more or less important for the security of this country," said Senator John McCain of Arizona, senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee.
Democrats hope the intervening weeks and public unrest with the war will cause more Republicans to break with the president. Almost immediately, activist groups announced plans to conduct antiwar events in the states of key Republican senators. The pause will also allow Republicans to charge that Democrats are stalling a major Pentagon measure, including a military pay raise, to make political points.
In the House, Democrats said Wednesday that they were still considering pressing Iraq-related votes before the August recess.
The latest New York Times/CBS News poll showed that 6 in 10 Americans say Congress should allow financing for the war in Iraq, but only on the condition that the United States sets a timetable for the withdrawal of troops. Still, 28 percent say Congress should allow all financing for the war without conditions. Just 8 percent of those polled said Congress should block all money for the war.
From the July 19 Washington Post article:
The war proposals are amendments to the annual defense authorization bill, which includes a military pay raise and Iraq equipment upgrades. Reid's decision halted progress on that legislation, promoting criticism from Republicans.
"We are abandoning the men and women in the military if we don't take this bill back up and pass it, conference with the House, and have it signed by the president of the United States, as we have for the past 45 years," said Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).
But Reid's decision pleased antiwar groups, which have pressed Democrats to bring the war to a close. "I think Senator Reid took an important step toward confronting Republican obstructionism and ending the war," said Tom Matzzie, a strategist for MoveOn.org.
From the July 19 USA Today article:
In protest, Reid yanked a bill authorizing Pentagon programs for the next fiscal year from the Senate floor and predicted his side would pick up more votes by waiting. "Time and the American people are on our side," said Reid, D-Nev.
On the other side of the Capitol, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans a series of Iraq votes before the end of the month. The House of Representatives has gone on record six times this year calling for a change in Iraq strategy. "We will repeat that judgment legislatively as often as necessary," Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement.
Republicans accused Reid of holding hostage a bill that would provide troops a 3.5% pay raise beginning Oct. 1. "We are abandoning the men and women in the military if we don't take this bill back up," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
Reid's decision to shelve the bill, at least temporarily, came after an unusual around-the-clock session that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., derided as "gags, giggles and gimmicks." Democrats defended the all-nighter as an effort to dramatize their exasperation with GOP procedural maneuvers. "They blocked the will of the people," Reid said.
From the July 19 Washington Times article:
Shortly after yesterday's vote, Mr. Reid pulled the defense authorization bill from the floor in an attempt to secure more Republican support for the Levin-Reed amendment. He declined to say when he would reintroduce the bill, a move that angered Republican leaders.
"We are abandoning the men and women in the military if we don't take this bill back up and pass it," Mr. McCain said.
Mr. Reid's decision to set-aside the bill also freezes debate on other amendments intended to change the president's Iraq strategy, including a measure proposed by two Republican senators that calls on Mr. Bush to create a new plan for U.S. troops in Iraq by mid-October.
Didn't we just go through this with the April 15 "deadline" that wasn't really a deadline?
Well, in a way it is true, isn't it? The only misinformation here is we are only getting the GOP version of what's happening when the headlines should really be screaming "Reid and Dems pulled the bill from the floor to highlight GOP obstructionism!"
""Reid and Dems pulled the bill from the floor to highlight GOP obstructionism"
Obstructionism? The filibuster has been around for quite a while. It isn't anything new. When the Republicans were in the majority the Democrats would filibuster any legislation brought up by the Republicans that was even halfway controversial. Needing to have 60 votes to pass an amendment or bill isn't anything new. The Senate has always had that rule.
Instead of saying 'all the time'... I'd really like to know how often the Democrats actually filibustered during the Reagan years.
...Did you lament the notion of the 'nuclear option', when these arrogant Republicans were mocking the Democrats?
The nuclear option was only for judicial nominees. It didn't apply to legislation and amendments. It's always been the tradition that judicial nominees are afforded an up or down vote. Democrats broke that tradition around 2002 when they started filibustering judicial nominees. That was unprecedented and mean spirited. There's quite a difference between filibustering legislation vs. filibustering an actual person. The Senate should have the decency to give an actual person an up or down vote.
Right... and, of course, they would have been true to their word and ONLY used the nuclear option in regard to judicial nominees. Doubtful.
Rino,
In the same vein that people should be given an "up or down" vote, shouldn't the thousands of troops in Iraq receive the same level of respect?
Plus, Abe Fortas's nomination to the SC in 1968 was filibustered by Republicans and the Dixiecrats:
http://hnn.us/articles/11754.html
Do you not remember what the Republicans did to Clinton's judicial nominees?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/25/opinion/main683182.shtml
To quote: "All this changed in 1996. Rather than openly challenge President Clinton's nominees on the floor, Republicans decided to deny them Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Between 1996 and 2000, 20 of Bill Clinton's appeals-court nominees were denied hearings, including Elena Kagan, now dean of the Harvard Law School, and many other women and minorities. In 1999, Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch refused to hold hearings for almost six months on any of 16 circuit-court and 31 district-court nominations Clinton had sent up. Three appeals-court nominees who did manage to obtain a hearing in Clinton's second term were denied a committee vote, including Allen R. Snyder, a distinguished Washington lawyer, Clinton White House aide, and former Rehnquist law clerk, who drew lavish praise at his hearing -- but never got a committee vote. Some 45 district-court nominees were also denied hearings, and two more were afforded hearings but not a committee vote. Even votes that did occur were often delayed for months and even years. In late 1999, New Hampshire Republican Bob Smith blocked a vote on 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Richard Paez for months by putting an anonymous hold on the nomination. When Majority Leader Trent Lott could no longer preserve the hold, Smith and 13 other Republicans tried to mount a filibuster against the vote, but cloture was voted and Paez easily confirmed. It had been over four years since his nomination."
When his tactics on the Paez and Marsha Berzon nominations (Berzon was filibustered along with Paez, more than two years after her nomination) were challenged, Smith responded with an impassioned floor speech in defense of the judicial filibuster: "Don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court ... . That is my responsibility. That is my advice and consent role, and I intend to exercise it."
Anyone claiming that the judicial filibuster was started by this latest crop of Democrats either has a short memory on the subject or is ignoring what went on during the Clinton years.
Rino, read the linked story and let me know what you think of the previously used tactics.
Are you insinuating that Clinton's judicial nominees should not have been given the same level of "respect" that Bush's should?
"Anyone claiming that the judicial filibuster was started by this latest crop of Democrats either has a short memory on the subject or is ignoring what went on during the Clinton years"
The fact is that the Democrats had the first SUCCESSFUL PARTISAN filibuster in Senate history. I'll admit that both sides use obstructionism when it suits them. The Republicans did in the Clinton years. But that has always happened. The party in control of the Senate has always done that. The Democrats on the judiciary committee are now refusing to hold hearings for several of Bush's judicial nominees.
My point was simply that the partisan use of the filibuster to block judicial nominees is a new tactic. The current Democrats started using the tactic on a regular basis. As for our soldiers, the signed up to serve, and they probably believe in their mission much more than even conservative propenents of the war. And also, even if the bill would've passed the Senate, it wouldn't have passed into law. Bush would have simply vetoed it. So either way the bill had no chance of passing. It made no difference whether it was filibustered or whether Bush vetoed it.
You can keep saying that about democrats as much as you want, but it just ain't true. Never mind the FACT that Bush had more court appointees placed on the bench than any other President in history. You know, those darn democratic obstructionists.
Again, what the republicans did, during the Clinton years, started the ball rolling, as did their highly divisive partisanship, started mostly by the republicans and Newt G.
Please read some history as to what really happened. You might be surprised and actually learn something, but then again, I doubt it.
So, now that the Democrats have control of the Senate, they should do what the Republicans did?
I think what you meant was the Democrats, as the minority party, were perhaps the first minority party to use the filibuster. The tactics used during the Clinton years were certainly partisan. Plus, the Democrats never delayed a judge's confirmation hearing by four years as the Republicans had. The Republicans were just as bad if not worse in that article with their blocking of hearings. If you know of any, please post a Bush judicial nominee who went four years without getting a hearing
As far as the troops go, polling suggests that they don't believe in their mission nearly as strongly as they have before. (forgive me, this is the best poll I could find on short notice from February 28, 2006:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
72% believe the U.S. should leave within the next year, almost 90% believe the war is retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11. Only 58% thought the mission was clear and only 20% want to heed Bush's call to stay as long as they are needed.
"So, now that the Democrats have control of the Senate, they should do what the Republicans did"
They certainly have the right to. I'm sure that the Dems will be doing a lot of that over the next two years. They probably figure that particular nominees wouldn't get voted out of the committee anyway, so there's no point in holding a hearing. And yes, my point was that the Democrats were the first MINORITY PARTY to SUCCESSFULLY use the filibuster against judicial nominees by basically party line vote.
Ok, that makes your point a lot better, but they were still within their rights. Any luck with finding any Bush nominees who were railroaded for as long as the Clinton nominees were?
I don't know of any, but then again I'm not an expert on the issue. I looked on google to see if the same thing went on when Reagan and the the first Bush were President, and I didn't find anything. But I do know that the Democrats were the first MINORITY PARTY to actually block judicial nominees.
Perhaps one of the reasons is that statesmen like Bill Clinton reached across the aisle in a bipartisan manner and asked Republicans, the majority party in congress at the time, for a list of possible Supreme Court nominees. They provided him with Ginsberg's name, and I think Breyer's as well on another occasion.
"They provided him with Ginsberg's name, and I think Breyer's as well on another occasion"
If that's the case the Republicans were incredibly stupid to do that. Ginsberg and Breyer have both been incredibly liberal and committed to advancing a left wing agenda through the Supreme Court.
Great nominees if the conservatives on the Court had half their integrity Bush would have been sent back to Texas after losing the Presidential race to Gore and the court would be a much better servant of the American people. YOU want the SC to be filled with neandrathals that agree with your regressive policies. It is a partisan position. Bush is a disaster in judicial nominees just like in everything else he has done.
They are not nearly as extreme as the Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Alito, Roberts wing...
"And yes, my point was that the Democrats were the first MINORITY PARTY to SUCCESSFULLY use the filibuster against judicial nominees by basically party line vote."
And this is significant because...?
Oooh! I know! He loves jumping on any possible excuse to demonize Democrats?
How much futher are you willing to parse that to pretend you have a point. Were they the first minority party to successfully fillibuster a left handed judicial nominee from a midwestern state on a THURSDAY? YOU HAVE NO POINT.
Actually Rino, saying it's new is wrong...
The 20th century and the emergence of cloture
In 1917 a rule allowing for the cloture of debate (ending a filibuster) was adopted by the Democratic Senate[5] at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson.[6] From 1917 to 1949, the requirement for cloture was two-thirds of those voting.
In 1946 Southern Democrats blocked a vote on a bill proposed by Democrat Dennis Chavez of New Mexico (S. 101) that would have created a permanent Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) to prevent discrimination in the work place. The filibuster lasted weeks, and Senator Chavez was forced to remove the bill from consideration after a failed cloture vote even though he had enough votes to pass the bill. As civil rights loomed on the Senate agenda, this rule was revised in 1949 to allow cloture on any measure or motion by two-thirds of the entire Senate membership; in 1959 the threshold was restored to two-thirds of those voting. After a series of filibusters led by Southern Democrats in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Democrat-controlled Senate[5] in 1975 revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of the Senators sworn (usually 60 senators) could limit debate. Changes to Senate rules still require two-thirds of Senators voting. Despite this rule, the filibuster or the threat of a filibuster remains an important tactic that allows a minority to affect legislation.
Well, Rino is very carefully limiting his responses to the use of the filibuster against judicial nominees, as though that's somehow significant.
I also remember Raygun changing the law to allow the permanent replacement of striking workers. IT is illegal to fire striking workers according to a Supreme Court decision. Two years on a row a bill that made it illegal to permanantly replace striking workers was passed in the HOuse and had a majority willing to vote for it in the Senate BOTH times the GOP filibustered it to defeat on party line votes.
The Senate should have the decency to give an actual person an up or down vote.
Wow, to trot that meme out after the Republicans just pulled their own filibuster... I know you draw the line at judicial nominees, but seriously, what a load of bunk.
BM,
Unfortunately for proponents of the belief that the Democrats started the judicial filibuster, that is simply not true. Read the links I put in my previous post. It is a very interesting look at the Clinton era judges and the filibuster of Abe Fortas.
I'm not sure why its significant one way or the other. The filibuster is part of the rules of the purposely more deliberative body of the congress to ensure that the minority cannot be trampled. That Democrats were the first to use the filibuster in a particular manner is a) insigificant because SOMEone had to use it first, b) the Democratic Party has been around, oh, a hundred years longer? and c) probably never before had we witnessed a majority that so completely refused to compromise on anything.
My only regret is that Democrats didn't use more filibusters during the first six years of Bush/Cheney.
"obstructionism" is a fitting term since the republicans accused the democrats of doing it every chance they got during the last 6 years. Are you just upset that republicans are now getting their just desserts?
Are you just upset that republicans are now getting their just desserts?
Just dessert? No dinner?
Ah well...
I'll have a big piece of apple pie, thanks.
Don't forget the scoop of vanilla ice cream :-)
Apple pie? My, you are dreaming, Jeter! All we have for you today is Humble Pie.
Does the Humble Pie come with a ice cream?
Then stop yapping & cut me a slice ;-)
<snip!> there you go, and now for some reason I'm sleepy all of the time!
Apple pie is a 'just' dessert... and very American. Good call!
I used to own a CHEVY Blazer & I'm a BASEBALL fan. So I guess, along with my APPLE PIE...I am the All-American guy :-)
Oh, yes! Of course, the media play on Dem "obstruction" of those Repugnant measures was unanimously critical of the Dems. Headlines blared "Obstructionist" Dems. Endless parades of Repugnant officials criticized that "obstructionism". Every talking head on every major outlet spent 24/7 decrying the Dems for "obstruction" of (objectively) the worst 199 measures ever passed into law by any nominally elected officials anywhere, anytime. Half of the coverage was dedicated to ways the Repugnants could eliminate that "obstruction", famously the "nukular" option. Now aren't you glad the "gang of 14" managed to give Bungle and the Repugnants everything except the "nukular" part of the Repugnant program?
It would be sad to have to live with "turn about", eh?
I've never heard of the Repugnants, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Apparently there's a new party that recently formed.
Here's a chance to get your "Word for the Day" free! Since you and I have been posting to one another for several months, I may earlier have overlooked your enlightenment, suspecting that you would derive the meaning from context. Since you have not done so, here is the brief definition of a Repugnant:
The lowest, slimiest (and most repugnant) political creature extant; one of the PNAC/"neocon" heirs of what once was a proud, though misguided, Republican Party; capable of - no, consisting of - perpetual self-delusion, and insistant upon perpetrating that delusion upon the balance of the populace for purposes of self-enrichment or self-aggrandisement, with debasement or destruction of others as invidious advantage.
Now that we are on the same page vis-a-vis "Repugnants", does that enable you to contribute further to the discussion?
I've never heard of the Repugnants, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about
DemoRATS or DemoCraps [take your pick] are the opposing party ;-)
I'll accept your word for that, Jeter2.
Either seems tame, though, compared to the fact that there is a actual definition available from Merriam for "repugnant" - and it is exactly what the residue of the Republican Party has become.
If you insist on a dictionary entry...How about the Demoniacal Party?
possessed by or as by an evil spirit; raging; frantic. a person seemingly possessed by a demon or evil spirit
Now, that is not necessarily the way I think of the Democrats...but I'd bet Hannity, Coulter & Rush would be agreeable with that definition ;-)
I'd offer to forward your suggestion to them, but the Corporate Media would adopt it as the only acceptable reference to the DemocRATS, wouldn't they?
A Firesign version, Rippublicans vs Damnocrats.
Next "you guys" are gonna start picking on me about "Bungle"? O, woe is me!
I like "Bungle". But then again I like "Breck Girl". Life is too short to get one's shorts in a twist over the many *nicknames* folks out there come up with ;-)
You don';t seem to muster up any data on your claim, just throwing unsubstantiated claims rather than adopting the Media Matters for America system of actually posting supporting statements liked to their authors, and valid transcripts. Creating an opinion based on made up facts makes great conversation in a bar.
Thats ludicrous and you pulled the assertion directly out of your ASS. Cough up all these filibusters on LEGISLATION not judges. Yes the filibuster has been around a long time but it is still obstructionist. You can argue that it obstructs in a good way but its dumb to argue that it isnt an obstruction
Just thinking about these clowns that we call congressmen and the following amendment that just passed the senate 94-3:
- To express the sense of the Senate that it is in the national security interest of the United States that Iraq not become a failed state and a safe haven for terrorists. -
mmfa constantly trumpets the validity of the NIE and the Iraq Study Group. Well, here's what they say about the aftermath of leaving Iraq:
- Massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable - NIE
- ..a premature withdrawal would lead to "greater human suffering, regional destabilization and a threat to the global economy - Iraq Study Group.
And finally, a few comments from those that want to pull out of Iraq...in the face of the dire warnings of the NIE and ISG.
- It's very difficult to predict what will happen - Durbin
- It will grow...But it will burn itself out. That's how civil wars are fought. That's just the brutal truth. - Gordon Smith
- I am convinced based on everything I have read it won't be a hell of a lot worse than it is now - Murtha
- You don't want to plan for failure - Skelton
Tryin' to make some sense of it all... But I can see there makes no sense at all... Is it cool to go to sleep on the floor... I don't think that I can take any more... Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right... Here I am stuck in the middle with you
All the aftermath will be Bush's fault too, so no biggie.
...and, behind closed doors...within the pantheon of right-wing zealots...he'll be hailed as a hero... So, no biggy.
Finally, something we can agree about.
It will be, because he brought us there.
Whose fault would be if it were not Bush's? He started this fiasco, and he's responsible for it, lock, stock, and barrel. He keeps talking about how let "history" judge him, not what has happened in recent memories (in other words, the last 6 years).
History shall judge him, harshly.
The thing that these Republican Senators (and these quick mischaracterizations in the "media") smell of, is fear.
They know full well, these Republican Senators do, what are the majority of the American People's thoughts about Iraq, and about the "Reduction and Transition of U.S. Forces in Iraq" (the Levin-Reed Amendment, S.Amdt.2087 of the Defense Authorization)...
...and they're afraid (very afraid!) of where the Public Discourse on this matter will go to, should their 'filibuster' of the Levin-Reed Amendment stall the Defense Authorization in the Senate.
The mere possibility of it, caused them (the Republican Senators who 'filibustered' the Amendment) to send an immediate message out to any and all hacks, political or "media"...
It's pure fear.
Actually, the American people want to begin withdrawing from Iraq, but not until after the September progress report comes out.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/51_say_wait_till_september_for_iraq_policy_change
How nice for the families of the 100 or so who will die while we wait for the Iraqi and US congresses to return from vacation.
Its not just the MSM that is reporting this, it is being perputuated by so-called level headed Republicans like John McCain. Look at the way McCain paints the situation on MSNBC yesterday - its unbelievable
VIDEO
http://beta.redlasso.com/Community/ClipPlayer.aspx?i=14cc52a5-0c50-4684-9856-f58daad388e3
Actually, the American people want to begin withdrawing from Iraq, but not until after the September progress report comes out...rino hunter
====================================================
Right. And what's the new excuse going to be when the progress report comes back and the glass is only 1/10th full?
I'm sure you guys will have come up with some new artificial deadline by then. Moving the goalposts is your specialty.
I'm willing to give it until September. But that's it. These people need to decide if they want to take charge of their country or not. Almost 4,000 of our brave men and women have given their lives to give them a chance.
And how do they pay us back? Their parliament decides to take off the entire month of August?
WTF?
I agree. The Iraqi government needs to get their act together and be responsible for their own security, or else we should pull out. We can't fight this battle on our own. If the Iraqi government doesn't step up and take responsibility for their country, we should inform them that we'll leave if they don't get their act together. It's ridiculous that they're actually taking a vacation. We should only stay and help the Iraqis if they're actually willing to fight for their freedom.
But according to you, and people of your ilk, we can't leave because then the terrorists will take over the whole country of Iraq, and the middle east. Just because the Iraq government is having some "growing pains" doesn't mean we should pull out. Well, that's your side of the argument at least.
So let me get this straight. It's not OK to pull out of Iraq if the democrats want to do it, but if the republicans (ie Bush) say you're not pulling your weight Iraq, we're outta here; that's OK?
Truly dizzying intellect and turn about you guys have going on there.
"Truly dizzying intellect and turn about you guys have going on there"
I wouldn't say "you guys" if I were you. I don't speak for anybody but myself. My point is that if the Iraqi government doesn't step up and become responsible for their own security, then we should at least get out of the civil war that's going on in Baghdad. We could still focus on fighting Al-Quaeda outside Baghdad and training the Iraqi troops, but there simply isn't any point of trying to stabablize Baghdad if the Iraqi government won't step it up. And again, I'm speaking independently here. I'm don't think that the RNC or President Bush would agree.
But, wouldn't that also result in massive bloodshed?
Only if they keep killing one another - and you know Bungle ain't gonna take the fall for that!
My point is that if the Iraqi government doesn't step up and become responsible for their own security,
Seems to me they had things under control until, you know, they were invaded, toppled, and occupied for totally unjustifiable reasons.
"I'm speaking independently here. I'm don't think that the RNC or President Bush would agree."
Really? the hunter will become the hunted.
How long are you willing to give them?
Until September when the report comes out. They'll have to see where we should go from there by looking at the report.
If they do not meet the standards (hopefully we will have some clear ones), do you favor immediate withdrawal?
Also, what did you think of the poll of soldiers I put on my post on the previous page?
I wouldn't favor an immediate withdrawal. I would favor getting out of the heart of Baghdad where there's pretty much a civil war going on. I would focus more on fighting Al-Quaeda outside Baghdad and training the Iraqi troops. I would favor an overall phased redeployment over about two to three years, meaning that we wouldn't have any soldiers in Iraq after that time.
If there is a phased withdrawal without a "plan for victory," doesn't that give "aid and comfort" to the enemy?
With the amount of troops we have over there, immediate withdrawal is not an option anyway. Look how long it took for all of the extra troops to get there for the "surge."
The biggest problem with all of this is that there is no way to figure out who the enemy truly is. The Al-Qaeda in Iraq people aren't wearing one color and our allies another. It has got to be damn near impossible to distinguish friend from foe in any part of Iraq right now.
"If there is a phased withdrawal without a "plan for victory," doesn't that give "aid and comfort" to the enemy"
The "plan for victory" would be to get the Iraqi troops and security forces trained well enough that they can secure their country themselves, fight Al-Quaeda, and become an ally in the War in Terror.
So, hypothetically, why doesn't "the enemy" wait until we have trained the Iraqis sufficiently and then attack? Isn't having a definite goal like that similar for setting a date certain to withdrawal? Obviously, we won't know the exact date, but if getting the Iraqis trained is victory, it seems to be something the enemy can gauge just like setting a withdrawal date, right?
The enemy isn't waiting to attack. They're attacking in full force now. And as you admitted, they wouldn't know for sure when the Iraqi troops would be fully trained and we would start slowly withdrawing. For the record, I don't have a problem with a PRIVATE timetable for withdrawel that's discussed between the U.S. and the Iraqi government. I just don't think it's smart to let the terrorists know exactly when we're leaving.
So, if the army continues to deplete and the time between tours continues to decrease, would you be in favor of a draft? We owe our troops more off time between tours, do we not? Someone has to stand up for them!
No. I'm libertarian leaning in my views. I don't think there should be a draft. But I don't think that we'll need any more troops over there, and I think that we will have to start pulling at least some troops out of there fairly soon, because the American people will simply demand it.
That whole "can't let the terrorists know when we're leaving" meme is a little silly, don't ya think? Everyone agrees that we can't just pull out tomorrow. Redployment will takes months if not more than a year. You don't think that maybe ONE terrorist in Iraq will go, "Hey, ya know, I haven't seen as many American infidels around lately. And Ahmed said he saw them loading a lot of trucks onto some of those big container ships down there in Bahrain. You think something is going on?"
"Everyone agrees that we can't just pull out tomorrow"
Solon doesn't agree. He told me that we should just pull all of our troops out tomorrow.
your plan sounds eerily similar to that of the "surrender monkeys".
Also, the poll that you linked to was very surprising. I really have a hard time believing it, but then again it is a scientific poll, and I don't have any reason to believe that the results aren't accurate. It just seemed surprising since they all volunteered to enlist and most of them are also conservative/Republican politically.
They may have volunteered...they may be Republican...but they recognize a clusterf*ck when they see one. They aren't stupid, you know. It's unfortunate that such a high number still believe that the Iraq War is revenge for 9/11. It would appear that their commanders have been lying to them.
So, since the majority of them want to be home within a year (I realize the poll was over a year old), shouldn't we be fighting for them to get home? Their deployments have been extended over and over and over. This is not what they volunteered for.
Also, what do you make of them thinking they are fighting over there to avenge Saddam's role in 9/11? To me, that is the scariest part of it.
What I would like to know is we have this list of 18 success points. For Bush to say 8 out of 18 is proof of success is really about as assanine as Democrats saying less than 50% is failure because nobody knows how each point stacks up against the others. Surely some are more important than others? Anybody know what the proposed ranking and rating of those 18 points is?
Yep, same as our lame congress and their scheduled August vacation.
Instead of patriotism...maybe those purple Iraqi fingers and little American "I voted" stickers should symbolize "I'm a dumbass...look who I elected to run my country".
Why are you blaming the Iraqis? Anyone with a brain could have predicted what was going to happen. The fact of the matter is that Bush should not have invaded the country.
Who elected the Iraqi parliament?
It doesn't matter who elected who. The consequences of invading Iraq were examined during the Gulf War in 1991 and Bush's father wasn't stupid enough to invade. The fact of the matter is that this current Bush should not have invaded the country period.
Beautiful. Invade, occupy, and royally hose their country, then blame them when things are a mess afterward.
Compassionate conservatives... feh.
The only dumbass in this mix is President Numbnuts Bush.
Yep, same as our lame congress and their scheduled August vacation...Wesley
===========================================
Uh, not exactly, Wesley.
Our country isn't embroiled in a civil war with a 1,000,000-plus occupying force waiting for us to get our act together so they can go home.
It's pretty obvious that the Iraqi lawmakers don't give a hoot about the sacrifice given by our troops ... both those who have paid the ultimate price and those who have been wounded.
As long as we are there holding their hand, there is no incentive for them to step up to the plate.
First, I don't necessarily agree that Iraq is in a civil war.
Second, I agree that the Iraqi parliament has not done its job.
Third, I think that the elected officials in both countries are lame...and I'm not interested in the discussion that tries to decide who is worse.
Fourth, I agree with the sources that mmfa espouses as irrefutable...the NIE and ISG...who both state that a withdrawal will cause massive deaths and human suffering and threaten our national security and economy.
Where in the NIE do they say that withdrawing from Iraq will threaten our national security?
Feel free to educate us.
How would you rate the deaths that are now taking place in Iraq? Not massive, but________. It certainly seems massive to me.
Said best:
"I wouldn't be surprised if it's horrendous," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.)
Wesley,
I think you misunderstood me. What adjective would you use to describe the current bloodshed; not what is going to happen if/when we leave.
With some 600,000 civilian causualties, I'd guess there is some concern in Iraq. The man, or woman on the street is probably feeling both angry and helpless. Helpful suggestions for them would be?
"As for our soldiers, the signed up to serve" My sister has this on the tip of her toungue, and I can't slap her up the side of the head as, well, she is much stronger than I am and would own me. I don't know but a handfull of military service people, but they all are disilusioned with the "mission". Like myself, they rushed to the recruiting office after 9-11-2001 to sign up to protect the USA. (At 45, artificial hip, overall lack of cartilage, they would not even let me join up to peel potatoes). As Luke told me last Christmas, "they hate us, we can't tell who the bad guys are, and it's scary hot" Remember that when you hear about re-enlistment rates, the reason they are re-enlisting. The neo-cons have self deluded themselves into believing that the re-enlisters "believe in the mission". Nyet. Like all soldiers of the last 12k years , they are devoted to their unit, not to some chickenhawks ideology.