There Will Be No Withdrawal: Calls For Such Fail 93-6
(Hat-Tip: Captain Ed Morrissey)
Yahoo News has the story.
The Senate rejected a call for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by year's end on Thursday as Congress erupted in impassioned, election-year debate over a conflict that now has claimed the lives of 2,500 American troops.
The vote was 93-6 to shelve the proposal, which would have allowed "only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces" to remain in 2007. ...
The Senate voted unfolded unexpectedly as the second-ranking leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., introduced legislation he said was taken from a proposal by Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and war critic. It called for Bush to agree with the Iraqi government on a schedule for withdrawal of combat troops by Dec. 31, 2006.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said if the United States withdrew, "I am absolutely convinced the terrorists would see this as vindication." He predicted terrorism would spread around the world, and eventually reach the United States.
Democrats sought to curtail floor debate on the proposal, and the vote occurred quickly.
Kerry and other Democrats accused Republicans of political gamesmanship, and promised an authentic debate next week. He and five other Democrats were in the minority on the vote — Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Barbara Boxer of California, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tom Harkin of Iowa, and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.
We knew the Left would hype up the announcement that we have passed 2500 lives lost in Iraq, and of course their classless masses decided to tie this into the vote on withdrawal. But I am not surprised that the usual suspects were the ones that voted in favor of withdrawal. And let us take a look at those people. The only one confirmed to be seeking the Democrat nomination for 2008 is John Kerry. Russ Feingold is still investigating whether or not he has a snowball's chance in Hell of succeeding.
The other Democrats KNEW that a vote in favor of this measure would be political suicide. And it also shows that they, too, do not buy the polls regarding the support, or lack thereof, for the war. This nation stands behind her fighting men and women. And instead of taking the hint via the other Democrats, the classless masses decided to accuse the other side of playing games with the war.
A memo to the six morons who do not get this: WE ARE NOT PLAYING GAMES HERE! There, I even said it from the cheap seats. Unlike the Democrats of the past (LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton) we do not play games with the military. We were attacked, and we have tracked our enemy down. They are in other nations, and their ties to Saddam Hussein made that nation a threat. We went in and removed the leadership, then we began the painstaking process of taking al-Qaeda apart in that nation.
The Senate killed the Kerry Amendment, as it should have. That was a move that would have translated into defeat for our troops, and abandonment of an ally in their greatest hour of need. Yes, I said their hour of need, which is support for their efforts. That was part of the president's visit on Tuesday with Prime Minister al-Maliki. You have our support, now do something for yourselves. Al-Maliki executed the president's orders when 75,000 troops descended on Baghdad to rid that city of the terrorist element hiding within it. That is a positive move, and it is one that has been long in coming.
And for the Left, do not blame us for looking at the Democrats and saying "Put up or shut up." If they want anyone to blame they might want to try refocusing that anger towards the leaders in their party that keep pulling these sorts of stunts. We are simply trying to movce these issues forward. They wanted to force, again, the president to adhere to a cut-and-run strategy. It failed. And rightly so.
Our troops will come home when the job is done. Period. Someone stick that memo in an envelope and send it to the screwy, schizophrenic six.
Marcie
ADDENDUM: 5:44 p.m. Arizona Time
Our e-mails have shown that people are not getting the story about today's vote. It is not bad enough that John Kerry compared this vote to "gamesmanship," but here are two examples of what we are talking about when it comes to the Democrats, and why the answer to the problems in the nation--the war specifically--is not to elect more Democrats:
Representative Lloyd Doggett (TX):
Mr. Speaker this war was launched without an imminent threat to our families. It endangers them more every day, creating new generations of terrorists. Radical know-it-all ideologues here bent facts, destroyed intelligence, distorted intelligence, and perpetrated lies designed to mislead the American people into believing that a third rate thug had a hand in 9/11 and was soon to unleash a mushroom cloud.
From the start House Democrats overwhelmingly voted against this war but radical ideologues rushed headlong anyway, ignoing professional military advice about the number of troops and equipment needed. One general after another has indicted this Adminsitration for its misjudgment and mismanagement. But almost three thousand Americans lie dead. Another 20,000 have been seriously injured. Every day, every single day American taxpayers are forced to spend 229 million dollars in Iraq and they pay again every time they go to the gas pump.
All that is in sight is a civil war quagmire. Today's resolution pins Adminstration's failures on the coattails of our courageous servicmen and women. Administration ineptness is falsely attached to a resolution honoring our troops. Well you know Americans are increasingly realizing there's a better way to honor our troops than sending more of them off to be killed. Would that there were more than a little of our troops' courage right here in Washington, from those who refuse to challenge this Adminsitration's myth-based policies and who choose to cut-and-run from their responsibilities.
Instead of staying the course, we need to chart a smarter course. It's not weakness or retreat to recognize the Administration offers us only an endless spend-and-bleed policy. When this talkathon ends, reject this fraudulent resolution which cannot be amended or changed to alter this Adminsitration's deadly pursuit of a desert mirage. Neither paper resolutions nor more Adminsitration arrogance weill defeat terrorism.
Representative Jane Harman (CA):
We were all wrong. Overriding the advice of intelligence professionals, Adminsitration officials put stock in bogus sources like "Curveball" and self-promoters like Ahmed Chalabi. But simply calling Iraq an intelligence failure ignores the larger policy failures that created the false momentum towards war. The Adminsitration cherry-picked intelligence, and hyped the threat. They talked in ominous tones about mushroom clouds even though many questioned evidence suggesting Saddam had nuclear weapons capability. They made a mantra of the claim that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi agents in Prague, a claim that has been thoroughly discredited.
Just a note here: Rep. Doggett sits on the Ways and Means committee, while Rep. Harman sits on the House Intelligence committee.
Now, to quickly address the concerns emphasized above so e-mailers will get this. (Dinner is almost done, and despite whatthomas may think, I do not like burning dinner.)
To Mr. Doggett: We "know-it-alls" (read: Republicans) know the intelligence that we had in hand--that Saddam Hussein had relations with al-Qaeda members, that he was still working on WMDs, and that he was continuing a war he lost in 1991 by flouting seventeen UN resolutions--was right on the money. To engage in a solid, honest debate of facts, people like Mr. Doggett will lose everytime. I will not cite past entries we have done regarding these issues. Dig through our archives. We have discussed these issues, including the foremost one which is that Saddam Hussein did have ties to al-Qaeda, and that al-Qaeda was in his nation, operating under his "sanctuary" up until 2002. And to my knowledge, the president NEVER stated that Saddam would attack us via nuclear weapons.
Speculation existed as to how far along he was in that regard, but President Bush did not personally state to the nation that Saddam was going to nuke us.
The generals that have laid an indictment against this administration are not the ones running the war. Those generals that have been thoroughly involved, such as retired General Tommy Franks, is on the record as believing in this mission, and touting the fact that it will be successful. Mr. Doggett can keep the clown cavalcade that supported John Kerry, and supports the cut-and-run crowd. I will stand by Tommy Franks, and the commanders int he field now, such as General Caldwell, when they say we are winning, and they are proving it. (For Mr. Doggett, he might want to refer to this post regarding the definition of "success.")
And was it "spend-and-bleed" to continue funneling money into the efforts to defeat Adolf Hitler, and Emperor Hirohito/Tojo in World War II? What of the money spent to "contain" Soviet expansionism (no easy task with a party that seems to embrace those ideological enemies so willingly. For evidence of that, refer to their still-maintained defense of Alger Hiss)? We are fighting a war. The money we spend now prevents an even greater expenditure later down the road if we were to embrace such an "over the horizon" sort of attitude that Senator Kerry and Representative Murtha would have us take. Or has the esteemed representative from Texas forgotten the costs over 9/11 that was paid out, and we are still continuing to pay out, especially in blood.
To Rep. Harman: I feel ashamed that someone sitting on the Intelligence committee who nary uttered a peep regarding the intelligence in the run-up to war. Now, all of a sudden, it is solely the administration's fault. You saw the same intelligence they did, and agreed with them! They will not bear the brunt of this blame. If one had felt as strongly as she seems to that the intelligence was questionable, why did she not stand by theat conviction then? I can find no record of her stating this intelligence was bogus, or even suspect. Furthermore, she has decided to attack the intelligence from one of our allies that was used in the march towards war. No one ever stated that this meeting in Prague--a meeting the Czechs still maintained occurred--meant that al-Qaeda was working with Iraq, directly. We knew back then that Iraq had intelligence officers abroad. Spies, simply put, work with other spies. That is the trade, or so Thomas explained to me regarding that episode. Especially like-minded ones.
The Democrats would best be served looking for ways to convince America that they are right for the job instead of debating, arguing, and denying the reasons we went to war, and denying their involvement in that decision. As Senator Clinton found out recently at the Kos Kids Konvention (just kidding; it was the "Take Back America Conference") the wacky Left do not like the fact that she is so two-faced. (Do not be fooled for they will be on her coattails come 2008, if she survives the primaries, and they will deny they ever doubted her; Hey! One more denial, and they are elevated to Biblical status).
But to those who think we are being unfair, take a look at your leaders, and ask them where they left their brain. It is clearly not in their head.
Marcie
(Hat-Tip: Captain Ed Morrissey)
Yahoo News has the story.
The Senate rejected a call for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by year's end on Thursday as Congress erupted in impassioned, election-year debate over a conflict that now has claimed the lives of 2,500 American troops.
The vote was 93-6 to shelve the proposal, which would have allowed "only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces" to remain in 2007. ...
The Senate voted unfolded unexpectedly as the second-ranking leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., introduced legislation he said was taken from a proposal by Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and war critic. It called for Bush to agree with the Iraqi government on a schedule for withdrawal of combat troops by Dec. 31, 2006.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said if the United States withdrew, "I am absolutely convinced the terrorists would see this as vindication." He predicted terrorism would spread around the world, and eventually reach the United States.
Democrats sought to curtail floor debate on the proposal, and the vote occurred quickly.
Kerry and other Democrats accused Republicans of political gamesmanship, and promised an authentic debate next week. He and five other Democrats were in the minority on the vote — Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Barbara Boxer of California, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tom Harkin of Iowa, and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.
We knew the Left would hype up the announcement that we have passed 2500 lives lost in Iraq, and of course their classless masses decided to tie this into the vote on withdrawal. But I am not surprised that the usual suspects were the ones that voted in favor of withdrawal. And let us take a look at those people. The only one confirmed to be seeking the Democrat nomination for 2008 is John Kerry. Russ Feingold is still investigating whether or not he has a snowball's chance in Hell of succeeding.
The other Democrats KNEW that a vote in favor of this measure would be political suicide. And it also shows that they, too, do not buy the polls regarding the support, or lack thereof, for the war. This nation stands behind her fighting men and women. And instead of taking the hint via the other Democrats, the classless masses decided to accuse the other side of playing games with the war.
A memo to the six morons who do not get this: WE ARE NOT PLAYING GAMES HERE! There, I even said it from the cheap seats. Unlike the Democrats of the past (LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton) we do not play games with the military. We were attacked, and we have tracked our enemy down. They are in other nations, and their ties to Saddam Hussein made that nation a threat. We went in and removed the leadership, then we began the painstaking process of taking al-Qaeda apart in that nation.
The Senate killed the Kerry Amendment, as it should have. That was a move that would have translated into defeat for our troops, and abandonment of an ally in their greatest hour of need. Yes, I said their hour of need, which is support for their efforts. That was part of the president's visit on Tuesday with Prime Minister al-Maliki. You have our support, now do something for yourselves. Al-Maliki executed the president's orders when 75,000 troops descended on Baghdad to rid that city of the terrorist element hiding within it. That is a positive move, and it is one that has been long in coming.
And for the Left, do not blame us for looking at the Democrats and saying "Put up or shut up." If they want anyone to blame they might want to try refocusing that anger towards the leaders in their party that keep pulling these sorts of stunts. We are simply trying to movce these issues forward. They wanted to force, again, the president to adhere to a cut-and-run strategy. It failed. And rightly so.
Our troops will come home when the job is done. Period. Someone stick that memo in an envelope and send it to the screwy, schizophrenic six.
Marcie
ADDENDUM: 5:44 p.m. Arizona Time
Our e-mails have shown that people are not getting the story about today's vote. It is not bad enough that John Kerry compared this vote to "gamesmanship," but here are two examples of what we are talking about when it comes to the Democrats, and why the answer to the problems in the nation--the war specifically--is not to elect more Democrats:
Representative Lloyd Doggett (TX):
Mr. Speaker this war was launched without an imminent threat to our families. It endangers them more every day, creating new generations of terrorists. Radical know-it-all ideologues here bent facts, destroyed intelligence, distorted intelligence, and perpetrated lies designed to mislead the American people into believing that a third rate thug had a hand in 9/11 and was soon to unleash a mushroom cloud.
From the start House Democrats overwhelmingly voted against this war but radical ideologues rushed headlong anyway, ignoing professional military advice about the number of troops and equipment needed. One general after another has indicted this Adminsitration for its misjudgment and mismanagement. But almost three thousand Americans lie dead. Another 20,000 have been seriously injured. Every day, every single day American taxpayers are forced to spend 229 million dollars in Iraq and they pay again every time they go to the gas pump.
All that is in sight is a civil war quagmire. Today's resolution pins Adminstration's failures on the coattails of our courageous servicmen and women. Administration ineptness is falsely attached to a resolution honoring our troops. Well you know Americans are increasingly realizing there's a better way to honor our troops than sending more of them off to be killed. Would that there were more than a little of our troops' courage right here in Washington, from those who refuse to challenge this Adminsitration's myth-based policies and who choose to cut-and-run from their responsibilities.
Instead of staying the course, we need to chart a smarter course. It's not weakness or retreat to recognize the Administration offers us only an endless spend-and-bleed policy. When this talkathon ends, reject this fraudulent resolution which cannot be amended or changed to alter this Adminsitration's deadly pursuit of a desert mirage. Neither paper resolutions nor more Adminsitration arrogance weill defeat terrorism.
Representative Jane Harman (CA):
We were all wrong. Overriding the advice of intelligence professionals, Adminsitration officials put stock in bogus sources like "Curveball" and self-promoters like Ahmed Chalabi. But simply calling Iraq an intelligence failure ignores the larger policy failures that created the false momentum towards war. The Adminsitration cherry-picked intelligence, and hyped the threat. They talked in ominous tones about mushroom clouds even though many questioned evidence suggesting Saddam had nuclear weapons capability. They made a mantra of the claim that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi agents in Prague, a claim that has been thoroughly discredited.
Just a note here: Rep. Doggett sits on the Ways and Means committee, while Rep. Harman sits on the House Intelligence committee.
Now, to quickly address the concerns emphasized above so e-mailers will get this. (Dinner is almost done, and despite whatthomas may think, I do not like burning dinner.)
To Mr. Doggett: We "know-it-alls" (read: Republicans) know the intelligence that we had in hand--that Saddam Hussein had relations with al-Qaeda members, that he was still working on WMDs, and that he was continuing a war he lost in 1991 by flouting seventeen UN resolutions--was right on the money. To engage in a solid, honest debate of facts, people like Mr. Doggett will lose everytime. I will not cite past entries we have done regarding these issues. Dig through our archives. We have discussed these issues, including the foremost one which is that Saddam Hussein did have ties to al-Qaeda, and that al-Qaeda was in his nation, operating under his "sanctuary" up until 2002. And to my knowledge, the president NEVER stated that Saddam would attack us via nuclear weapons.
Speculation existed as to how far along he was in that regard, but President Bush did not personally state to the nation that Saddam was going to nuke us.
The generals that have laid an indictment against this administration are not the ones running the war. Those generals that have been thoroughly involved, such as retired General Tommy Franks, is on the record as believing in this mission, and touting the fact that it will be successful. Mr. Doggett can keep the clown cavalcade that supported John Kerry, and supports the cut-and-run crowd. I will stand by Tommy Franks, and the commanders int he field now, such as General Caldwell, when they say we are winning, and they are proving it. (For Mr. Doggett, he might want to refer to this post regarding the definition of "success.")
And was it "spend-and-bleed" to continue funneling money into the efforts to defeat Adolf Hitler, and Emperor Hirohito/Tojo in World War II? What of the money spent to "contain" Soviet expansionism (no easy task with a party that seems to embrace those ideological enemies so willingly. For evidence of that, refer to their still-maintained defense of Alger Hiss)? We are fighting a war. The money we spend now prevents an even greater expenditure later down the road if we were to embrace such an "over the horizon" sort of attitude that Senator Kerry and Representative Murtha would have us take. Or has the esteemed representative from Texas forgotten the costs over 9/11 that was paid out, and we are still continuing to pay out, especially in blood.
To Rep. Harman: I feel ashamed that someone sitting on the Intelligence committee who nary uttered a peep regarding the intelligence in the run-up to war. Now, all of a sudden, it is solely the administration's fault. You saw the same intelligence they did, and agreed with them! They will not bear the brunt of this blame. If one had felt as strongly as she seems to that the intelligence was questionable, why did she not stand by theat conviction then? I can find no record of her stating this intelligence was bogus, or even suspect. Furthermore, she has decided to attack the intelligence from one of our allies that was used in the march towards war. No one ever stated that this meeting in Prague--a meeting the Czechs still maintained occurred--meant that al-Qaeda was working with Iraq, directly. We knew back then that Iraq had intelligence officers abroad. Spies, simply put, work with other spies. That is the trade, or so Thomas explained to me regarding that episode. Especially like-minded ones.
The Democrats would best be served looking for ways to convince America that they are right for the job instead of debating, arguing, and denying the reasons we went to war, and denying their involvement in that decision. As Senator Clinton found out recently at the Kos Kids Konvention (just kidding; it was the "Take Back America Conference") the wacky Left do not like the fact that she is so two-faced. (Do not be fooled for they will be on her coattails come 2008, if she survives the primaries, and they will deny they ever doubted her; Hey! One more denial, and they are elevated to Biblical status).
But to those who think we are being unfair, take a look at your leaders, and ask them where they left their brain. It is clearly not in their head.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:19 PM
1 Comments:
Kerry learned he's not the president and he cannot dictate to him what to do. His Amendment is rightly where it belongs, in the trash. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home