| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Home Front: Politix | |||
| More on the Senate Vote on the War | |||
| 2007-03-16 | |||
Senate Democrats promptly said they would try again to force a change in Bush's policy beginning next week when they begin work on legislation providing money for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It took weeks for the Senate to agree to hold a formal debate on Democratic calls for a change in war policy, and by the time it occurred, the result was utterly predictable. So much so that Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who is running for the White House in 2008, skipped the vote to campaign in Iowa.
Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada disputed that. ``Five years of war, the president's current approach in Iraq is not working. The country is closer to chaos than stability. U.S. troops are policing a civil war, not hunting and killing the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11.'' Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon was the only Republican to support the measure. Democrats Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska opposed it, as did Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent Democrat. For their part, Republicans sought to create a political dilemma for Democrats, countering with an alternative measure that said ``no funds should be cut off or reduced for American troops in the field'' that would undermine their safety. GOP leaders hoped the proposal, advanced by Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, would prove difficult for Democrats to oppose and complicate any future effort to reduce funds for the war. Gregg's amendment passed 82-16. Democrats tried still another proposal, this one saying that Congress would provide ``necessary funds for training equipment and other support for troops in the field.'' It passed easily, 96-2.
| |||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #22 *urp* - I think I just threw up a little bit in my throat there....thx |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-03-16 20:13 |
| #21 Donna Shalala? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-03-16 20:05 |
| #20 I hear 'ya VC5758, you do realize that Hillary is but a prisoner of love. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-03-16 19:14 |
| #19 hes allegedlly flipped on abortion, fundies, etc. I dont think theres any question of his flipping on the war. Your point is unclear. Is he a defender of the war or a slimey flip-flopper. While we expect politicians to be slimey, McCain was previously a POW who understands the meaning of support the troops. If he can't find his convictions on this issue, then he is no different than Hillary; The only thing important to either of them is their own personal ambition. Everything and anything else can be damned. A see a jock pilot out of control. |
| Posted by: Vespasian Chanter5758 2007-03-16 16:27 |
| #18 Joe Wrote IOW, IRAN GETS ITS WAY OR ITS WAR. How about this, Iran Doesn't get it's way, and there's still war, short, nasty and final, after it's over if Iran Dares to even Squeak, there's another short, nasty war, repeat until Iran Doesn't dare squeak, or preferably is unable to Squeak, |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-03-16 16:20 |
| #17 "The vote was 50-48 against the measure, 12 short of the 60 needed for passage." Gosh, golly gee Harry…not even a majority. But I did find your “A vote for the ‘Gregg Amendment’ is vote not change conditions at Walter Reed” statement humorous. (The same way I’m always ammused when little kids eat worms) |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2007-03-16 14:11 |
| #16 13 hes allegedlly flipped on abortion, fundies, etc. I dont think theres any question of his flipping on the war. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-03-16 13:01 |
| #15 There is something wrong with that man's wiring. Jeeez, 'moosey, when you're right, you're right. Imathinkmccainiscrazy |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-03-16 12:37 |
| #14 I must respectfully disagree with LH: yes, it was a symbolic measure. That's exactly why you show up. The other side is trying to send a message, so you send one in return. Yes, the Senator has stood for the war and does stand for the troops. But he has to do that in the big ways, on the Senate floor, as well as at the firefighters union hall. This was a vote for 'all hands'. The Senator needed to be there. That's my opinion, anyways. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-03-16 11:28 |
| #13 Why should McCain show up for a symbolic measure, with no legal meaning? Perhaps to show he has convictions or principles that he is willing to stand behind. |
| Posted by: Vespasian Chanter5758 2007-03-16 11:10 |
| #12 I'm with Liberalhawk on this one. I'm not a huge fan of McCain, but nobody in the Senate has been better about what's at stake in this war (except, perhaps, Lieberman). |
| Posted by: Tibor 2007-03-16 10:23 |
| #11 McCain wants to run as a republican, but be elected by democrats. PoliSci 101. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-03-16 09:55 |
| #10 McCain wants to run as a republican, but be elected by democrats. There is something wrong with that man's wiring. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-03-16 09:53 |
| #9 Why should McCain show up for a symbolic measure, with no legal meaning? Besides hes pals with Lieberman, he probably knew how the vote was going to go. I mean cmon, at the firefighters union meeting the other day, McCain walked in and talked about the war, why we had to win, etc, etc, despite his audience silence. I dont think any other candidate, Dem OR Repub, was as forthright. McCain has gambled his future on the war, in a way no one else, not Romney or Giuliani or Gingrich, let alone Hilary, has. To knock him for being soft cause he didnt show up for this vote, is well ...... |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-03-16 09:08 |
| #8 The interesting thing to me is that this is intentional ankle biting. NPR reported several days ago that the House Democrats knew this bill wouldn't get through, but they put it to a vote anyway "to send a message." The message I'm getting is that they can't pass the legislation they really, really want... but possibly I'm not reading deeply enough. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-03-16 08:55 |
| #7 Senate Democrats promptly said they would try again to force a change in Bush's policy beginning next week when they begin work on legislation providing money for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The usual suspects? Or new traitors? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-03-16 08:30 |
| #6 McCain didnt even bother to show up. Wants it both ways -- doesn't want the funds cut off, wants to preserve his attractiveness to the "independents" and "centrists". |
| Posted by: occasional observer 2007-03-16 06:35 |
| #5 As an Oregonian who actualy voted for Smith I can only hang my head in shame, what a complete jackass, to put it mildly. I would vote for the local dog catcher to replace him if possible! |
| Posted by: DaveS 2007-03-16 02:27 |
| #4 There's also LUCIANNE > NYT article > NEW FACE OF JIHAD > fatah AL-Islam vows attacks on USA. Group claims Amers won't leave unless know lives + Amer economy is directly threatened. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-03-16 02:25 |
| #3 Example No. 1,231 of Idiotic Memes The Administration Hasn't Lifted a Pinky to Debunk: "policing a civil war". Any war, or tussle, or rumble, or rowdy frat party, that we deem in our interests to police, suppress, settle, squash, tilt, or otherwise resolve, WE SHOULD DO SO. Duh. Our enemies now wear western civilian clothes and go to strip clubs and take flying lessons and are polite to airline ground staff - they don't wear uniforms and attack us in armored vehicles or fly flags over fixed defensive positions. So our actions and interventions won't look like WWII, either. WTF was Kosovo? Civil war. Bosnia? What did the idiot Dems say - back when such incredibly stupid things still took one's breath away - just after months of the most preposterous hand-wringing and alarmism about how we dare not take on Saddam in Kuwait, as our offensive operations had just ground to a halt? OH! Rush in, save the Shi'a and Kurds, STOP THE CIVIL WAR! Admit I don't have the stomach to peruse the Record, but is there a single senator with the brains and presence of mind to jump on this "civil war" nonsense (not that there are elements of such in Iraq, but that it's in any way pertinent) and talk sense? |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-03-16 02:09 |
| #2 McCain didnt even bother to show up. McCain, get that fork outta your mouth and stick it - you're DONE. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-03-16 01:28 |
| #1 NEWSMAX > Iran's FM Lanjani > IRAN WILL STRIKE BACK MILITARILY - any way, any body, any where, + of course everywhere, etc. - iff US attacks it to stop its uranium enrichment program. IOW, IRAN GETS ITS WAY OR ITS WAR. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-03-16 00:42 |