Republicans to Troops: DROP DEAD

[JayHawk]

The mange was supposed to involve hair loss not insanity.

How many of those Democrats served in the Military to be able to make judgements?

 

[JayHawk]

WHy dont they join up and go serve? SO that way they can tell first hand if it is bad.

 

[RandomAccess]

WHy dont they join up and go serve? SO that way they can tell first hand if it is bad.

The Republicans are the ones who won't give the GI's a realistic time-off. If they feel we're hurtin' for troops that bad, they should be over there covering for the troops.

 

[letme]

^^ Same reason G.A. won't go and take pictures to share with us first hand ?

 

[RandomAccess]

^^ Same reason G.A. won't go and take pictures to share with us first hand ?

When are you heading over there to give one of our soldiers a day off, Letme?

 

[letme]

I have served my time in the Army,and now draw my military disability. And You ?

 

[RandomAccess]

I have served my time in the Army,and now draw my military disability. And You ?

Thanks for asking, but I don't feel obliged to brag about my record.

Anyway, what's with these Republican pukes who won't give our troops the time off they richly deserve??? Can we say "obstructionist?" Why don't our right-leaning friends understand that the reason Congress is having trouble getting things done is because the Republicans have dug-in their spike heals to prevent legislation like this from seeing the light of day.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Well, speaking as a Veteran of our Armed Services (USCG), I hope that there's as much vim and vigger in the discussion about taking care of our troops, if and when they return home, as there is in the debate/argument about their rotations.

Cuz they / we all seem to forget WHEN AND AFTER that time comes.

AND on behalf of our troops in Iraq, LET 'EM WIN!

You never, NEVER, remove a man from his post until his mission is complete.

Fuck the politics, this is why I served, and this is WHY they serve.

Sorry, my friend who Love's Cute Dogs, this is much ado about nothing ATM. IMHO.

Sadly, I have to go with McCain on this one.

In regard to the troops, not the President. Fuck Bush. There will be, God Willing, MORE Commander in Cheifs, but not so many of our volunteers to step forward as pawns in some neo-cons fucked up idea of what's in the best interest of Corporate America.

Once again, our troops, become "political footballs."

 

[letme]

Last time, letme:

Just answered a question asked by one of your's,so I would not be blamed of posting & running. Thank You

 

[letme]

R.A.
G.A.

Could it be that the DoD and the Chief of Staff set policy ? As does the head of any other Department of the Gov ?

 

[Sausy]

The Republicans are always presenting themselves as the patriotic party and the one that gives a damn about the troops.Yet they always seem to let them down when push comes to shove.I applaud those that did vote with the Democrats on timely rotation of troops.At the very least,don't strain them more than they have been pushed already.Another appalling disservice to give a fig leaf to an Administration that has done little but been one great big disservice to our troops,our people,the Iraqi people,and the world.

 

[letme]

This vote/bill was just another blatten act by the Dims to try to undermind the POTUS.

Once again they failed,thanks. Now back to letting military be warhorses and politicizations kissing babies.

 

[SantaCBear]

These Dems never get anything passed... Wonder why?

In the old days the maj leaders didnt put a bill to a vote unless they knew they had the numbers, the floor vote was for show only.

.

 

[SantaCBear]

WASHINGTON -- Democratic Sen. Jim Webb lost important support today for his controversial troop-rotation amendment when fellow Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia changed positions and said he would not side with Webb.

Because Warner is a highly respected Republican voice on defense and a former Armed Services Committee chairman, his voice carries a great deal of influence in the Senate.

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-09-19-0212.html

 

[lancelva]

WHy dont they join up and go serve? SO that way they can tell first hand if it is bad.

I'm sure you are aware that Senator Webb (who proposed the amendment) is a decorated Vietnam War veteran and that his son is a veteran of the current war in Iraq.

As to the actual topic of the thread, it's a Tale of Two Senators--both from my home state. I am very disappointed in John Warner, whom I have always respected. He can do better than this.

 

[ryankeith]

Well, speaking as a Veteran of our Armed Services (USCG), I hope that there's as much vim and vigger in the discussion about taking care of our troops, if and when they return home, as there is in the debate/argument about their rotations.

Cuz they / we all seem to forget WHEN AND AFTER that time comes.

AND on behalf of our troops in Iraq, LET 'EM WIN!

You never, NEVER, remove a man from his post until his mission is complete.

Fuck the politics, this is why I served, and this is WHY they serve.

Sorry, my friend who Love's Cute Dogs, this is much ado about nothing ATM. IMHO.

Sadly, I have to go with McCain on this one.

In regard to the troops, not the President. Fuck Bush. There will be, God Willing, MORE Commander in Cheifs, but not so many of our volunteers to step forward as pawns in some neo-cons fucked up idea of what's in the best interest of Corporate America.

Once again, our troops, become "political footballs."

With all due respect Centex and respect your service to the country....the Missions that the United States Coast Guard performs and what our soldiers in Iraq are doing cannot fairly be compared.

The USCG is more of a rescue/law enforcement operation, which yes, is very dangerous and many have died in the line of duty, however, the soldiers in Iraq are in a very different WAR situation. They are in a completely different country as well and totally environment. This is not to diminish the value of the Coast Guard by any means, but the situations are very different. Both are very dangerous, and ideals similar...but situations very different.

Sometimes you need to make a soldier stay out of the game for awhile, whether he wants to or not. A soldier is useless if he is not taken care of...including himself. Sometimes a soldier on the ground doesn't see the big picture or does not see what can be seen from the outside. So sometimes a soldier doesn't know when its time to take a break or get out. Much like when in a fire situation and I am in position ready to work and I am told to get out...the situation looks decent enough to fight it and maybe get the fire out to me, but on the outside the roof is sagging and fire is blowing out the eves of the building and the roof just self vented...something I can't even see on the floor I am on...yet seconds after I get out, still bitching, the roof collapses, right where I was.

If you want soldiers in good enough shape to work you must take care of them...and that doesn't mean letting them do what they want...like continue to fight...or as you say "never leave their post until their mission is complete". Once again, I am forced to take a long break after working a fire, instead of getting a new air tank and going back in...why? Because I am tired and don't even know it...and I would probably be sloppy and put others at risk and myself. I have seen it happen before...but sometimes you have no choice.

Proper Rotation is as important to our troops as taking care of them when and if they return. Its a part of taking care of the troops...you have to take care of them while they fight as well as after they fight.

 

[SantaCBear]

Largely because sixty votes is the "new" 51: Republicans changed the rules back in the 1990s, making cloture votes a way of strengthening their minority status. Cloture, as you know, requires 60 votes, and the Dems have only 50 (or 51).

I've been busy today, but the way I understand it Warner backed out BEFORE the vote. They knew they didnt have the numbers to win. So why bring it up for a vote? Real leaders would 'table' the bill and do more behind the scene work. At least that is the way it used to be not that many yrs ago.

 

[ComNavFdgPk]

Trying to give the benefit of the doubt here...I can't believe that every Republican is a complete coward and hates the American military but how in the name of all that's right can any reasonable person feel that giving the troops adequate rest between deployments is a bad thing?

 

[iman]

I was watching Chris Matthews show today and after he got done his daily slandering of Hillary Clinton there was a discussion about the vote today. I don't know who he was talking to, I wasn't paying much attention, but it was suggested that the Republicans will hang tough on the war until after their primaries to please their base and then turn dovish for the general election.


That scenario sounds about right to me. It is Vietnam and Nixon redux - blood for votes. However, the Republicans are expected to take a tough stand on Larry Craig, after all, they are the party of "Moral Values".

 

[lancelva]

Hey lance, do you recall when the Senate changed its rules to this 60 vote thingamabob? I recall the "liberal media" dissing Dems when they used cloture and the press called it "filibustering," now it's "The Dems Lost the Vote."

I remember the "nuclear option" fiasco all too well--I was an intern on Capitol Hill at the time. And the rhetoric was Democrats were "obstructing" because they blocked four (4)--yes, four--of Bush's judicial nominees. We almost had a Senatorial meltdown (no pun intended) over that and Robert C. Byrd was among those that stopped it dead in its tracks. But the point is that the Republicans were trying to do away with the filibuster because the Democrats blocked just 4 judicial nominees. And that's when Republicans had a 55-45 majority.

Obviously there's a double standard. The Republican Congress held up over 60 Clinton nominees in committee--denying the vote a chance to even come to the floor.

But it's so easy for the media to do this because the average person get's turned off by the complex rules of the Senate and doesn't even sit down to think them through. McConnell has used the fillibuster on every major peace of legislation Democrats have proposed before the Senate. He even uses on non-binding resolutions. That's the height of obstruction.

Of course, McConnell was opposed to filibusters, before he was for them (I love the Congressional Record):

I have been around here long enough, in both the majority and the minority, to understand that a Senator may from time to time use a vote on a judicial nomination to protest the nomination or a particular course of action. But what we saw in the 108th Congress was a wholesale departure from the norms and the traditions of the Senate, whereby the use of the judicial filibuster became a commonplace device to stop the President's circuit court nominees.

For the first time in history, a minority of Senators, on a repeated, partisan, and systematic basis, has prevented the Senate as a whole from discharging its constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent on judicial nominations

This level of obstructionism is truly unprecedented.

[...]

Even if one strongly disagrees with the nomination, the proper course of action under Senate norms and traditions, as they have consistently been understood and applied, is not to filibuster the nominee but to vote against him or her...My Republican colleagues and I honored Senate tradition. We followed the constitutional directive set forth in article II, section 12, that the Senate as an institution as reflected by the will of the majority of its Members, render its advice and consent on the President's nominees. We put propriety over partisanship.

But that precedent has now been changed. Those norms and traditions have been upset.

Therefore, I ask my colleagues to consider the ramifications of continuing down this path of institutionalizing this use of the judicial filibuster as a tool of obstruction. For more than 200 years we have recognized the careful balance our Founding Fathers struck among our three branches of Government. Judicial filibusters pose a danger to this constitutionally required separation of powers.

I believe it is not too late to turn back. It is in the best interests of both great parties and the Senate itself that we restore the norms, traditions, and precedents of the past 200 years that have served this country so well. It is extraordinarily shortsighted. Our friends on the other side of the aisle will have the White House again one day, and the shoe will be on the other foot. They will rue the day, if this precedent is allowed to prevail, that they set this precedent. I think it is time we stood back, took a breath and thought about this institution and respected its norms and traditions.

No link available. (Source: Cong. Rec. 9 Mar. 2005: S2303-04.)

Yes, I think it is time to restore the "norms, traditions, and precedents of the past 200 years" and for McConnell to stop the obstruction--it's not too late to turn back .