| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Dems Say W Must Accept Timetable |
| 2007-03-28 |
| WASHINGTON (AP) - Congressional Democrats are showing no signs of backing down on their rebuke of the Iraq war, insisting President Bush will have to accept some sort of legislative timetable in exchange for the billions of dollars needed to fund the war. "We would hope that the president understands how serious we are," said Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., after the Senate voted to uphold a proposal in a war spending bill calling for the troop withdrawal. As the Senate resumes debate on the $122 billion bill Wednesday, President Bush was expected to address the legislation in a speech at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association meeting in Washington. Deputy press secretary Dana Perino said Bush would use the speech as an opportunity to address the war on terror and the need to let the new Iraq security plan get fully under way. "The president will say it is dangerous to our soldiers on the ground to let Washington politics delay this funding," Perino said. But Reid and other Democrats say they won't back down. "Rather than making all the threats that he has, let's work with him and see if he can give us some ideas how we can satisfy the wishes of a majority of the Senate, the majority of the House and move forward," Reid said. The bill finances operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but requires Bush begin bringing home some combat troops right away with a nonbinding goal of ending combat missions as of March 31, 2008. The House last week passed a similar bill by a 218-212 vote. That bill orders combat troops out by Aug. 31, 2008 _ guaranteeing the final spending measure negotiated with the Senate will include some sort of timetable on the war. Senate Republicans tried Tuesday to strip out the withdrawal language but failed in a 50-48 vote. One Democrat _ Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas _ sided with Republicans in opposition to the public deadline, contending such a measure would broadcast U.S. war plans to the enemies. "Congress should not define how long our enemy has to hang on to win," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. Sen. Chuck Hagel delivered the deciding vote by joining anti-war Republican Gordon Smith of Oregon in breaking ranks and voting with Democrats to put a nonbinding end date on the war. "We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam," Hagel, R-Neb. But there is no way to understand, read, plan or manage this thing except by running away, eh Chuck? Pryor said he supports setting a deadline for U.S. involvement in Iraq, but only so long as such a date remains classified. Pryor compares the 2008 date set by his Democratic colleagues akin to announcing to the Germans plans for the U.S. invasion of France in World War II. But ultimately, Pryor said, he will vote in favor of the bill. "At the end of the day, the end of the process, I'm going to support the troops, "This is not one battle; it's a long-term campaign," Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters. The vote leaves hanging a small group of Republicans frustrated by the war and wanting to go on record as such but opposed to setting a timetable. In recent months, GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, John Warner of Virginia, Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Olympia Snowe of Maine wanted legislation expressing opposition to Bush's war strategy and setting goals for the Iraqi government to meet in exchange for continued U.S. support. But each said they opposed setting a firm timetable on the war and sided with their Republican colleagues. "My vote against this rapid withdrawal does not mean that I support an open-ended commitment of U.S. troops to Iraq," Collins said in a statement issued after the vote. If Bush's strategy in Iraq does not show "significant results" by fall, "then Congress should consider all options including a redefinition of our mission and a gradual but significant withdrawal of our troops next year." They know W will veto, so it's just sending a message to the al Qaeda. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #35 Once again, FREEREPUBLIC Poster/Blogger [paraphrased] > AMER IS MOVING TOWARDS COMMUNISM + SOCIALISM + OWG etc., AND GOD HELP US ALL, THE COMMIES + SOCIALISTS + GLOBALISTS, etc. DON'T KNOW HOW TO STOP IT! Besides, SSSSSSSHHHHHHHH, pretending that they are. *D ***ng it, America is ATTACKATREATING in Iraq, and don't youse all fergit it. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-03-28 21:33 |
| #34 Recent leftwing protests have been fairly small and utterly pathetic. Look at their march on the Vietnam Memorial, when they were outnumbered by the Patriots lining their route and guarding the memorial. Look at the 200 or so that showed up to hear that actor Penn on the subject. (I'd bet hard cash that his next film contract isn't nearly so lucrative, with that kind of draw.) The honourable Nancy Pelosi is being protested at her own house by the Code Pinkers! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-03-28 21:07 |
| #33 I believe the time has come to revive the Sons of Liberty and Committees of Correspondence. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2007-03-28 20:31 |
| #32 Look, folks, it's really easy. Why do you think the leftists get so many protestors out there in the streets whenever they stage an event like San Francisco or Washington, DC or wherever? Those people out there in the streets really believe, for the most part, and they'e there because they're walking the walk as well as talking the talk. They do not like what they see going on and they're not willing to be silent about it. It's basically that simple. We need to become just as vocal, just as active, and just as forceful with the best parts of our message to counter the vileness of the worst parts of their message. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2007-03-28 18:08 |
| #31 Dave D., it's good that you don;t like the way things are headed. Few people do, but those who really don't like it are the ones who're most likely to speak out and do something about it. It is alright not to like the way things are going. It is not alright to not like it and to remain silent about the fact. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2007-03-28 18:03 |
| #30 Well it's certainly a good point, that we haven't run out of ballot box yet. Nor have the bastidges triumphed yet, only won a skirmish. But I sure as hell don't like the way things seem to be headed. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-03-28 17:52 |
| #29 Gort, it is my simple task to serve in the best manner that my example may set. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2007-03-28 17:47 |
| #28 Thanks Greg. As PO'd as I've been, I needed that. |
| Posted by: GORT 2007-03-28 17:29 |
| #27 Ladies & Gentlemen, While I respect most of you for your viewpoints, a lot of you seem to hold the belief that all is lost, that the left has won, and that the only direction is violence and rebellion. Remember, there's another election only about a year and a half away. There's another one 2 years after that - and another and another and another until such point as when the left really does abandon republican government (meant in the manner of a republican democracy). Only then will rebellion and revolution be truly justified. Remember, you still have the right and the duty to act. You still have the right and duty to vote. You still have the right and duty to speak up and speak out against those things you see as wrong via letters to the editor in your local newspapers, to your local town council, to your state assemblies & senates, to your governors, to your congresscritters, to your President. You still have the right and the duty to do what you think is the right thing. It is your responsibility and duty to defend your country however you are possibly able to do so! Remember, "Evil prosopers only when good men fail to act." Edmund Burke Most of you can talk the talk, now you need to walk the walk. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2007-03-28 16:29 |
| #26 It's scary when you know that folks are voting based on listening to the likes of Rosie et all. I wish I were making this up, but it's true! Meanwhile, our brave young men and women are out there protecting us putting their lives on the line. God bless them all. Intrinsicpilot, I agree with you. |
| Posted by: Jan from work 2007-03-28 15:58 |
| #25 They are screwing with my OPS. |
| Posted by: newc 2007-03-28 15:53 |
| #24 It seems to me that the left are no longer American. Be they tranzis or multicults or socialists of just power hungry tyrants. Somewhere during the last 40 years the left stopped being American first and are democrats first. Kinda like being a mooslim before a particula citizenship. Ironic comparison that. I agree the time will come when they finally push too far. What they dont seem to grasp is we have the guns, the military and the majority of the land. They have gay marriage, abortion and a distinct lack of honor. I'll be sorry to see it happen but I wont be on the losing side. |
| Posted by: jds 2007-03-28 15:26 |
| #23 Well, OP I share your frustration but I have a slightly different take. The current crop of radical leftists that populate the MSM and the halls of Congress are part of what I call the "Worst Generation"™. These folks tasted their first bit of power in the sixties when, as students, their abhorrent behavior was successful in undermining our efforts in Vietnam. They went from college campuses to government and media jobs and stayed in the background during the Reagan years, which they despised. This “Worst Generation”™ crowd is the most selfish group of individuals to populate planet earth in modern history. The reason they get the “Worst Generation”™ moniker is because these useless excuses for human beings have gotten to where they are solely by sponging off the hard work of their Greatest Generation parents. But as with so many things in life, things tend to happen in boom and bust cycles. When the likes of the John Kerrys, Nancy Pelosis and Hillarys are finally in diapers, the ruins of their destruction will have to be reassembled by the next generation. And when you meet the fine men and women that populate today’s military along with the growing number of conservative youngsters you have to have some faith things will work out in the end. But it is grim for now. Not only are the “Worsts” trying to destroy us with respect to our foreign enemies, they are going to bring us to our knees from within. Their big government structure will collapse when these people enter their 80’s and burden the next generation with the task of caring for them. If you run the numbers it won’t be possible. Think early 1930’s style living. |
| Posted by: Intrinsicpilot 2007-03-28 14:27 |
| #22 There is nothing wrong in discussing what self-defense and saving the republic may require in the future, or the belief that the need for such action is approaching due to treasonous, tyrannical behaviour on the part of certain political and intellectual circles. That's what the Sons of Liberty did 230+ years ago. Look where pledging their life, fortune, and sacred honor got them. What would be wrong would be blanket calls to murder X, Y or Z (unless they're foreign tyrants who wage war against us). As long as we live under the rule of law, as long as we have free speech and a republican form of government, rebellion is not justified. Being ready for rebellion should it be necessary is a different thing. Discussing why one ought to be ready, and what the decent limits of respect for abusive government are, should be fine among ladies and gentlemen. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2007-03-28 14:09 |
| #21 OK, I'll do my stuff. I agree with every word you've said, OP: I myself have almost completely run out of any hope that the menace posed by the Left-- both directly, through their deliberate ruiniation of our society and indirectly, through their interference in the battle against Islamic totalitarianism-- can be dealt with non-violently. And yes, it has to be discussed. I sure have, probably more than Fred and some of the other mods are comfortable with. But there is a line drawn there, one that we can't cross; not on Fred's website, anyway. And right on the other side of that line is "The time has come!! Let's grab our guns and start killing liberals!!" That's where we can't go. Not on Rantburg. And I'm not saying I like it; I'm saying that's the policy we've been given. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-03-28 14:01 |
| #20 I know I'll get sink-trapped for this, but it HAS to be said. There will come a time in the not too distant future where we will have to start killing those that wish to destroy our country, or perish as a free, independent nation. Many of those who wish to destroy us are elected officials, members of the media, and many of the so-called "nongovernment organizations". NOT discussing that won't change the fact that it WILL happen, and within my lifetime. Ok, Mods, do your stuff. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-03-28 13:46 |
| #19 The argument that the President should give up his veto power and surrender to Congress is a total rejection of the US form of government. The Republic is better off having conflict between the branches of government -- this is what the Founding Fathers understood and gave us. If a scenario of defense starvation does unfold, the responsibility will be squarely on the shoulders of the legislative branch, now dominated by Democrats. The sooner this happens, the better. Let them abuse legislative power and lose their majority. The reason Executive Power is separate from and not subjugate to Legislative Power is that tyranny is the only alternative. Go read John Locke and The Federalist Papers. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2007-03-28 13:43 |
| #18 Bush should escalate. He should suspend habeas corpus (his right under the Constitution), declare the Democrats' behavior as treasonous (attempting to override his Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief), and slap 'em all in jail "for the duration". He won't, but he should. I'd bet there are strong legal grounds for doing so. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-03-28 13:41 |
| #17 The Dems' strategy is clear. They are in the position of defeating the President AND creating defeat in the WoT for the US by their slim majority. They will introduce rat poison pill legislation and the President can only veto, a Hobbessian choice for the President. The dems are willing to undermine the defense of this nation in order to destroy the President. Yes, we are in a Surge, that just may work. But we are in a race against time with the traitors in Capitol Hill. The President MUST veto the legislation, but he needs to do it on Prime time, and explain to the nation what it means and what the dems are trying to do. This is gonna be difficult with the MSM, but the last hope is to communicate with the public. This means that every member of congress that disagrees with the dems traitorous actions must communicate with their districts, and that includes local news, radio, and TV stations. Hell, even the Daily workers rags back home. We are in the beginnings of a civil war in this country. It is being fought right now in the media. In order to save the country, we have to do our best to use the institutions that our Fonders gave us to draw out this sickness,and to rat out and expose the traitors for what they are. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul at Homer, Alaska 2007-03-28 12:43 |
| #16 So, say, Chuck, you will do all you can to recreate Vietnam, ha? |
| Posted by: Captain America 2007-03-28 12:18 |
| #15 Gee, Glenmore, I still remember in the 70s being told not to expect our pay because the Donk controlled Congress couldn't get around to passing the regular bill. Then we went month to month temp funding. Then they just authorized the previous year's spending level. And this was during peacetime. We went without as funding was prioritized to keep everything together. Like I said they need to play as dirty as the Donks. Instead of building a treasury and hording it, maybe all those Trunks should use the electioneering money now and start broadcasting, advertising, and spamming the old fashion mail with stories of how the Donks are killing our troops, how they betray the valiant efforts of the boys at the front. However, the Trunks are so enamored with their gold they won't even make the effort now to hammer back big time, even though it will have far more lasting effect now than 90 days before Nov 08. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-03-28 12:09 |
| #14 Dave D. is correct. DO NOT ADVOCATE MURDER ON THIS WEBSITE. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2007-03-28 11:13 |
| #13 "It is time to turn the TV off, get organized and start hunting these bastards." I'm going to repeat what I told you the other day: DO NOT ADVOCATE MURDER ON THIS WEBSITE. I understand where you're coming from. And I share your views on the destructive effects of Leftism. But once again, DO NOT ADVOCATE MURDER ON THIS WEBSITE. If you're going to do that, go somewhere else. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-03-28 11:09 |
| #12 Guys, we have been down this route before. Essentially what will happen is the recapitalization of the military will be put on hold. Every dollar in the procurement and R&D accounts that is not already on contract will be diverted to the O&M accounts. Every dollar in the O&M accounts that is not actively supporting troops in the field will be diverted to do so. Sucks to be in the defense business right now, but it goes with the territory. The Democratic "majority" is smaller than the one previously held by the Republicans. The Dems know full well how they sabotaged that majority. Look for trench warfare in Congress with all eyes focussed on next February's primaries. Any mandate the Democrats claim to have is nullified by their overweening arrogance and their overarching greed. A naked lust for power and the trappings thereof is not a platform from which to govern a nation of laws. |
| Posted by: RWV 2007-03-28 11:06 |
| #11 Chiper, what you are advocating is legally treason. Starting down that path requires TOTAL commitment, and of a critical mass of the population. Ain't happening without a triggering event. This is not it. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-03-28 11:03 |
| #10 All that is needed is the generous application of non-peaceful means against the Left and their lackeys...the press. I've seen it coming for a long time. The sooner the better. The pace of the slide into Socialism is accelerating, one day it will go over the edge in the blink of an eye, that's how these things happen. Waiting for the "Right Time" is a fools game, there is never a right time. In fact, it may be too late already. I'm in my 50's, and I have watched in horror for the last 35+ years as the Left has relentlessly advanced their agenda. They have very artfully employed gradualism to get the job done while most of the country has watched TV. It is time to turn the TV off, get organized and start hunting these bastards. |
| Posted by: Chiper Threreger8956 2007-03-28 10:38 |
| #9 Gentlemen! Such negativity! The Surge is working, Iran is teetering on the edge of collapse, the EU supports Blair on the British hostage thingy, Castro's as-good-as-dead, and Kimmie's not far behind! A month from now, after the Anna Nicole Smith issue fades away, the public will have a different opinion. Cheer up! [removes rose-colored glasses] |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-03-28 10:22 |
| #8 Normally I’d be content to have simply called Hagel an idiot after casting his vote until I watched him exit the well of the Senate “stage-left” rather then past members of his own party. Seems to me a person voting on principle, contrary to the majority of ones party, would have the courage to hold his head up. His vote for an arbitrary surrender date and his body language afterwards indicates he not just an idiot but also a coward and a whore. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2007-03-28 10:21 |
| #7 1. W will veto the funding bill. 2. The bill will be warmed up again in the House. 3. It will be debated ad nauseum. The Republicans will attempt to attach riders, funding cuts for pet Democrat projects, and other poison pills. This will take time. 4. The Democrats will win. The Senate will have its own bill, to which the Republicans will attempt to attach riders, funding cuts for pet Democrat projects, and other poison pills. This will take time. 5. The Democrats will win, and the House and Senate will go into talks on coordinating their bills. 6. By this time it will be Memorial Day, or even later. DC is hot and sticky in the summer. The smart legislator heads for the beach or the mountains around this time. The Democrats will throw up their hands, say that W is avoiding the willofthepeople, and pass a continuing resolution. 7. The whole circus will begin anew after Labor Day, barring an invasion of Iran, which will reset the game completely. Delay is the Republicans' friend, and if they have any smarts at all they will use for all they're worth. |
| Posted by: Jonathan 2007-03-28 10:20 |
| #6 And remember, ammo keeps real well. In the words of Janis Joplin - 'Get it while you can'. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-03-28 09:53 |
| #5 OK, Procipius, how is Bush going to pay for the soldiers in Iraq? You are correct, it IS all about power for the Dems, but they GOT it last fall. When the Repubs could not even hold their owns Senators from the HEART of the Heartland (Nelson & (spit) Hagel) how can they be said to retain any power at all? The majority of the American people either agree with the Dems or (mostly) just don't care. So the informed, intelligent minority (including you) are stuck without a legal way to do what needs to be done. Is it time to employ the Second Amendment in the way it was intended, and do the Jeffersonian watering of the tree of liberty? No, not yet. There's not a rallying cause. Maybe there never will be, thanks to the wonderful education system to which we have subjected our children for the past 40 years or more. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-03-28 09:42 |
| #4 You are a fool Glenmore. It's never been about honor or right for the Demogogs. It's been about Power. Nothing less will they tolerate. Nothing less will they ever be satisfied with. That's why they're sympathetic to the Islamics and Stalinist, because they truly believe that all others must submit to them to be ruled. If they believed for an instant that they could get away with it, they'd suspend the Republic to establish their rule. They do everything short of outright corrupting the electoral process and undermining the proper rule of government to allow a semblance of legitimacy. In the end you have to play their game as dirty and uncompromising as they do, whether Donks, Islamists, or Stalinists. Nothing is going to satisfy them except your submission which appears they're achieving. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-03-28 09:31 |
| #3 Veto--and start locking Dems up in maximum security prisons. CW-II: it may be closer than we think. |
| Posted by: Mac 2007-03-28 08:41 |
| #2 "We would hope that the president understands how serious we are," said Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., after the Senate voted to uphold a proposal in a war spending bill calling for the troop withdrawal. Well, Harry, if Dubya doesn't understand you you can at least take comfort in the fact that the enemy understands you very, VERY well. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-03-28 08:09 |
| #1 Bush may have to accept the forced withdrawal - if he vetoes the timetable bill he still has to get funding appropriation. They can repeat the cycle of modifications of this bill until there is no more money elsewhere in the Defense budget to re-direct to supporting the war. That would probably fall about the same time as the withdrawal timetable, but at great cost to the rest of our national defense system. If we are going to withdraw, on a schedule rather than a mission, as it seems to me will be the case, then I think that withdrawal should begin today. There is no point sacrificing more good lives when you have already conceded defeat. The American people, through their elected representatives, have effectively told the President to surrender. I don't see how he can, in good conscience, surrender, nor do I see a means by which he can ignore Congress. This bill acts like a Parliamentary 'vote of no confidence' which would trigger formation of a new government. Our system has no such provision, though the resignation of both Bush and Chaney would transfer the Executive branch to Pelosi, which would amount to the same thing. It would be totally without precedent, but I am starting to think it is the most honorable path forward. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-03-28 08:04 |