Democrats Unparralled in surrender

[dude1394]

Only the french could do it better. Please accept my apologies any french folks reading this, being compared to democrats is a horrible insult.

They won't vote to defund it, but they'll have a slumber party to talk about it.

WASHINGTON - Democrats steered the Senate into an attention-grabbing, all-night session to dramatize opposition to the Iraq war but conceded they were unlikely to gain the votes needed to advance troop withdrawal legislation blocked by Republicans.
ADVERTISEMENT

"Our enemies aren't threatened by talk-a-thons, and our troops deserve better than publicity stunts," said Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader.

McConnell and many other Republicans favor waiting until September before considering any changes to the Bush administration's current policy. They have vowed to block a final vote on the Democrats' attempt to require a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days.

"We have no alternative except to keep them in session to explain their obstruction," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

[dude1394]

But in some bizzarro world they pass this. And how are they going to do this, by running like a scalded ape.
No wonder the congress has the lowest poll numbers in history.

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro...n=1&vote=00248

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2100 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 )

Statement of Purpose: 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.

Vote Counts: YEAs 94
NAYs 3
Not Voting 3

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by dude1394

But in some bizzarro world they pass this. And how are they going to do this, by running like a scalded ape.
No wonder the congress has the lowest poll numbers in history.

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro...n=1&vote=00248

NAYs ---3
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)

Not Voting - 3
Biden (D-DE)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)

[Usually Lurkin]

even if you don't want our troops over there, if you think something miraculous might come about by economic negotiations, or even if you think that the Iraqis in a failed national state would somehow turn out to be all rainbows and love-ins, you gotta think that a failed Iraq as a safe-haven for terrorists is a security interest of the United States.

To vote that any safe haven full of terrorists is not a national interest of ours, or to refuse to vote an endorsement is just to show the world that you are an idiot.

[dude1394]

UL...Actually the NAY's voting sort of have more integrity than the rest of the democrats. They rest of the democrats KNOW what is going to happen if we abandon the iraqis but just don't care because they think it will gain them some more political power.

At least Byrd knows that you can't vote for this resolution and then turn around and vote to leave iraq to al queda.

[dude1394]

Heh...

http://www.julescrittenden.com/2007/...rit/#more-1575

Indomitable Spirit

The dogged determination of the Democratic leadership in Congress to prevail against all odds is truly inspiring.* Imagine the possibilities if they actually turned that fire against the enemy.

[chumdawg]

What's the big deal? Let them become a failed state and safe haven for terrorists, and then bring in the heavy artillery. This is what I would call a win-win.

[dude1394]

Right, right...

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by dude1394

They rest of the democrats KNOW what is going to happen if we abandon the iraqis but just don't care because they think it will gain them some more political power..

I know. All this bitching about having no plan to follow initial action in Iraq, and we haven't heard one thing about how to deal with the killing and political fallout that would follow troop withdrawal.

[dude1394]

Funny..

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey: Republicans call Reid's bluff. Most amusing bit -- Reid skipped his own all-nighter: "Reid didn't even bother to attend his own No Snooze Until We Lose party after the first instruction motion, choosing to hit the sack instead while Republicans took the podium all night long."

[George Gervin]

How does anyone know for sure that there will be a bloodshed if we leave? You people talk of it as 100% fact. Please save me the historical references because this situation in Iraq has never happened before..so please fill me in on how you can tell what will happen for certain?

Now it may happen but I could easily say that there will be no bloodshed and the iraqis will defend their country with the same amount of certainty. In the end no on really knows.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

How does anyone know for sure that there will be a bloodshed if we leave? You people talk of it as 100% fact. Please save me the historical references because this situation in Iraq has never happened before..so please fill me in on how you can tell what will happen for certain?

Now it may happen but I could easily say that there will be no bloodshed and the iraqis will defend their country with the same amount of certainty. In the end no on really knows.

Well...this guy does but he votes it out anyway
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nat...0,791353.story

"I wouldn't be surprised if it's horrendous," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat who has helped lead the drive against the war. "The only hope for the Iraqis is their own damned government, and there's slim hope for that."

"It will grow," predicted Oregon Sen. Gordon H. Smith, one of three Senate Republicans backing the Democratic withdrawal plan. "But it will burn itself out. That's how civil wars are fought. That's just the brutal truth."

You are just being argumentative here. It's obvious that the surge itself has stemmed much violence. Put your head back in the sand, grown-ups will take care of you.

[dude1394]

Funny. No need for the golden child to be tired when he talks. Pure politics baby.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and his leadership team circulated sign-up sheets for speakers. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), one of the front-runners for the 2008 Democratic nomination, was scheduled to take the floor between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m., just as the television networks' morning news programs start their broadcasts. Senators were warned that votes could occur anytime throughout the night.

[dude1394]

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

How does anyone know for sure that there will be a bloodshed if we leave? You people talk of it as 100% fact.

uh, because we can't predict the future with 100% certainty, you think it's not important to have a plan?

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well...this guy does but he votes it out anyway
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nat...0,791353.story




You are just being argumentative here. It's obvious that the surge itself has stemmed much violence. Put your head back in the sand, grown-ups will take care of you.

The same grown ups who started this mess? real encouraging..

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

What's the big deal? Let them become a failed state and safe haven for terrorists, and then bring in the heavy artillery. This is what I would call a win-win.

Sometimes I think this way, as well. It's like, as it stands, we're not really fighting anyone, we're not really accomplishing anything, but we're expending resources doing it.

And the Iraqi people clearly don't want their country all that badly. Except for the Kurds in the north, they haven't stood up.

The time to do all of this would've been 2004, in my opinion it was clear even then that the Iraqi people couldn't stand themselves up. The US is good at winning fights, not building nations.

Form Kurdistan, fortify the hell out of that border to reward those people for actually having brains, and let the rest go.

[Henry_VIII]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

Sometimes I think this way, as well. It's like, as it stands, we're not really fighting anyone, we're not really accomplishing anything, but we're expending resources doing it.

And the Iraqi people clearly don't want their country all that badly. Except for the Kurds in the north, they haven't stood up.

The time to do all of this would've been 2004, in my opinion it was clear even then that the Iraqi people couldn't stand themselves up. The US is good at winning fights, not building nations.

Form Kurdistan, fortify the hell out of that border to reward those people for actually having brains, and let the rest go.

I sometimes feel the same way and wish the Iraqis would step up, but then I try to see it from their point-of-view. They have survived for decades by not resisting the group in power or the group rising to power. The majority of Iraqis are not resisting the US, but they are also not resisting the terrorist groups either. From their perspective, how can they know who will be in power in 3 months, a year, or 5 years down the road. These seeds of doubt have been caused by our (the US) lack of public commitment to the effort to rebuild. Apart from the President, very few have steadfastly declared their commitment to Iraq. With the lack of confidence in the US by the Iraqi populous, the situation becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. I realize that there is a lot of room for debate on how to best achieve success (which is fine), but unless we portray a unified front to the world, the best laid plans will fail miserably.

[dalmations202]

Watch civil war happen there, because it could be happening here in the US in less than 20 years.

The US is too complacent and won't see things through. The American people have become sheeple who are totally influenced by the media. For the most part, the American people are becoming lazy, selfish, and totally worried about themselves and the "standard of living". What's worse is the cowardis of the media and many people here is amazing to me.

Before too many years, this country will no longer be a world power.

Unfortunately it is destined.

[purplefrog]

Important aspects of leadership include:
1) Having an understanding of what your followers will and will not do
2) Making decisions that will instill confidence and loyalty with your followers

[Mavdog]

so dude you want the dems to stop funding the war? instead of saying hurrah! the opposition isn't handcuffing the pres or shortchanging our forces, you want to castigate them for NOT voting to stop the money?

so in essence, you believe the troops should suffer for opposing bush?

maybe you should rethink your stance.

where we are today shouldn't surprise anyone. there were voices saying that in an occupied iraq there'd be days like this.

so now bush has what he wanted, a direct military challenge from the radical islamists. I recall when bush said the battle would be at a place and time of our choosing, and iraq wasn't necessarily what I believe he had in mind.

or, maybe he did. if he did, it's even worse of a failure of his administration.

it's ironic when you think about iraq compared with pakistan. here's pakistan, a country with strong connections with al queda (perhaps sheltered him?), who has a military strongman and validated wmd, and we give them $billions/yr. then there's hussein, a country that until we invaded had limited if any connections with al queda, with a military strongman who made us believe he had wmd. maybe if we had told saddam and his stooges that we'd give them $200 B we could have saved a lot of lives, a lot of infrastructure and alot of money as well. the moral is don't be too much of an egotistical idiot, take the money.

the sacrifices of the iraqis are really impossible for us to grasp, and they're only partly, if any, responsible.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

Sometimes I think this way, as well. It's like, as it stands, we're not really fighting anyone, we're not really accomplishing anything, but we're expending resources doing it.

And the Iraqi people clearly don't want their country all that badly. Except for the Kurds in the north, they haven't stood up.

The time to do all of this would've been 2004, in my opinion it was clear even then that the Iraqi people couldn't stand themselves up. The US is good at winning fights, not building nations.

Form Kurdistan, fortify the hell out of that border to reward those people for actually having brains, and let the rest go.

I think this is way off-base Rhylan and Henry_VIII. The Iraqi people are dying everyday to try and have a country. Military/Police recruits, judges, governement officials are being targeted and their families are being targeted. They are truely heroic.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so dude you want the dems to stop funding the war? instead of saying hurrah! the opposition isn't handcuffing the pres or shortchanging our forces, you want to castigate them for NOT voting to stop the money?

It's a valid point mavie. I don't want them to defund the war, however that would be a much more honorable position than what they are doing now which is nothing but political theatre. I would never trust a democrat with national security no matter, they aren't proving me different.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the sacrifices of the iraqis are really impossible for us to grasp, and they're only partly, if any, responsible.

Couldn't agree more.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

How does anyone know for sure that there will be a bloodshed if we leave? You people talk of it as 100% fact. Please save me the historical references because this situation in Iraq has never happened before..so please fill me in on how you can tell what will happen for certain?

Now it may happen but I could easily say that there will be no bloodshed and the iraqis will defend their country with the same amount of certainty. In the end no on really knows.

Yea you could say it, but it wouldn't be based in reality. Another person who's opinion I respect (NYTimes no less) on what is happening and WILL happen in Iraq if we leave.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...ves/010562.php

JOHN BURNS: Well, I think, quite simply that the United States armed forces here -- and I find this to be very widely agreed amongst Iraqis that I know, of all ethnic and sectarian backgrounds -- the United States armed forces are a very important inhibitor against violence. I know it`s argued by some people that they provoke the violence. I simply don`t believe that to be in the main true. I think it`s a much larger truth that where American forces are present, they are inhibiting sectarian violence, and they are going after the people, particularly al-Qaeda and the Shiite death squads, who are provoking that violence. Remove them or at least remove them quickly, and it seems to me -- controversial as this may seem to be saying in the present circumstances, while I know there`s this agonizing debate going on in the United States about this -- that you have to weigh the price. And the price would very likely be very, very high levels of violence, at least in the short run and perhaps, perhaps - perhaps for quite a considerable period of time.

CHARLIE ROSE: This is what you said to me in January 2007. "Friends of mine who are Iraqis, Sunni, Shiite, Kurd -- all foresee a civil war on the scale with bloodshed that will absolutely dwarf what we`re seeing now. It`s really difficult to imagine that that would happen, considering we`re talking about the fallout between the Sunnis and Shiite worlds, without Iran becoming involved from the east, without the Saudis who have already said in that situation they would move in to help protect the Sunnis majority in Iraq."

Has anything changed in the six months since you said that? Five months?

JOHN BURNS: I don`t believe it has, no. I honestly don`t believe it has. You know, I don`t want to wade into the debate that`s going on in Washington because I understand that - that a very important element of that debate is weighing as everybody on both sides I think understands, the price of staying against the price of going. And there`s no doubt that the price of staying is very, very high in American blood, to begin with, and American treasure too.

But it seems to me incontrovertible that the most likely outcome of an American withdrawal any time soon would be cataclysmic violence. And I find that to be widely agreed amongst Iraqis, including Iraqis who strongly opposed the invasion. And especially amongst Sunnis, a minority who ruled here, whose power was usurped by the invasion and who now find themselves facing Shiite militias and 350,000 man and woman Shiite-led Iraqi security force, that`s to say army and police, which is overwhelmingly Shiite and would be likely, first of all, to disintegrate in the face of a civil war, but with its principal units falling on the Shiite, not the Sunni side of that war.

John Burns ended the segment with this disturbing anecdote:

And I`ll give you just one taste of that. A senior American official told me just the other night that he had been to see Tariq Al Hashimi, who - the Sunni vice president, a former Saddam army officer who never joined the Baath Party and left Iraq in the early `90s. In other words, a Sunni who - who has genuine credentials as a moderate.

Tariq Al Hashimi asked this senior American official, "is your Congress really serious about withdrawing troops?" And the American official said to him, "you`d better believe that it may be. This is a serious debate and it`s very finely balanced, and it could - it could fall in favor of withdrawing those troops and withdrawing them on a fairly rigorous, tight schedule." Tariq Al Hashimi responded to that by saying "then we will all be slaughtered," then we will all be slaughtered.

The American official who told me this, told the story in evidence of a sobering up, a beginning of a realization amongst the Iraqi leaders of just how serious is the predicament in which they find themselves. Too late? Possibly.

[Henry_VIII]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I think this is way off-base Rhylan and Henry_VIII. The Iraqi people are dying everyday to try and have a country. Military/Police recruits, judges, governement officials are being targeted and their families are being targeted. They are truely heroic.

I agree that they are many trying, but until the general population backs those who are stepping out to lead, they will not succeed. Compare the Kurdish response to the others. They have taken control of their region, kicked out those who don't belong there and maintained a certain level of vigilance. That is not happing just because of leadership but because of the support of the leadership.
Most of the problems are foreign influenced. The Iranian ties are not in the interest of a rebuilt Iraq and must be broken. Until the Iraqi population is willing to put their national identity above their political identity they will continue to undermine themselves.
The same can be said of Americans. We need to put our national identity ahead of our party or we will defeat ourselves as well.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Henry_VIII

I agree that they are many trying, but until the general population backs those who are stepping out to lead, they will not succeed. Compare the Kurdish response to the others. They have taken control of their region, kicked out those who don't belong there and maintained a certain level of vigilance. That is not happing just because of leadership but because of the support of the leadership.
Most of the problems are foreign influenced. The Iranian ties are not in the interest of a rebuilt Iraq and must be broken. Until the Iraqi population is willing to put their national identity above their political identity they will continue to undermine themselves.
The same can be said of Americans. We need to put our national identity ahead of our party or we will defeat ourselves as well.

However the kurdish folks had the us protecting them for 10 years. No saddam at all. I think it's quite a different story. Normal folks need to know they won't be harmed in their homes by roving gangs, it's the same with americas blighted areas.

Here is General Petraeus on what has been going on with the Iraqi's military. He doesn't even touch on the dangers of just going to work if you aren't aligned with someone (much like a prison yard I would expect).

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Trans...4-9e270a9ef0f2

occupation, General Petraeus. What are their, what’s their effectiveness now?

DP: Well, frankly, it is uneven. There are some exceedingly good units. The Iraqi special operations force brigade, a commando battalion, a counterterrorist unit, some other elements, national emergency response unit, the intelligence special tactics unit, SWAT teams in just about each of the provinces, and a variety of other sort of high end units that we have helped develop, each of these is really quite impressive, and almost at the level, certainly in regional terms, of the special operations forces of our own country, again, in relative terms, speaking in regional comparisons. On the other hand, at the other end of the spectrum, there are still some units that have a degree of sectarian influence exercised within them, and some that are still being cleaned up after having suffered from sectarian pressures, and given into sectarian pressures during the height of the sectarian violence in 2006, and into 2007. There’s also, there’s a vast number of units, frankly, out there just doing what I would call a solid job, manning checkpoints, going on patrols, in some cases in the lead, in some cases alongside our forces, in some cases, following. But I can assure you that the Iraqi forces are out there very much fighting and dying for their country, They, in fact, their losses typically are some three or more times the losses that we suffer.

[dude1394]

[Henry_VIII]

An excerpt from Michael Yon.

Originally Posted by Michael Yon

We live far better on base here in Baqubah than many people who are living downtown (though there are some very nice homes), and it’s not all about money. Not at all and not in the least. When Americans move into Iraqi buildings, the buildings start improving from the first day. And then, the buildings near the buildings start to improve. It’s not about the money, but the mindset. The Greatest Generation called it “the can-do mentality.” It’s a wealth measured not only in dollars, but also in knowledge. The burning curiosity that launched the Hubble, flows from that mentality, and so does the revenue stream of taxpayer dollars that funded it. Iraq is very rich in resources, but philosophically it is impoverished. The truest separation between cultures is in the collective dreams of their people.

This mentality difference must be addressed. The Kurds have the "can-do" attitude. I'm sure many of the other Iraqis do too, but collectively it must be fostered even more so. I am disappointed that we are not further in helping them along. However, I must remain optimistic that it can be done, because so much depends upon the Iraqis winning their part of the war.