Senate Republicans defeat Iraq withdrawal bill

[grandpa]

GOP defeats Iraq withdrawal bill - Politics - MSNBC.com

WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans scuttled a Democratic proposal ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq in a showdown Wednesday that capped an all-night debate on the war. The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate under Senate rules. It was a sound defeat for Democrats who say the U.S. military campaign, in its fifth year and requiring 158,000 troops, cannot tame the sectarian violence in Iraq.

Given the sheer mess that is the Iraq war, how can war-advocates not be too embarrassed to show their sorry faces in public debate, let alone support a disgusting development like this?

I am not a happy camper.

Grandpa h.

[PatrickHenry]

Heh. How long before cynicism sets in, grandpa? I was an unhappy camper in March of 2003. Now I'm either resigned or ready to see some politicians floating face down in the Potomac...

[Disinterested]

Quote by: grandpa GOP defeats Iraq withdrawal bill - Politics - MSNBC.com Given the sheer mess that is the Iraq war, how can war-advocates not be too embarrassed to show their sorry faces in public debate, let alone support a disgusting development like this? I am not a happy camper. Grandpa h.

Last time I checked the U.S. Constitution, it's not under the powers of Congress to issue orders to the U.S. Armed Forces. It's under the powers of the Executive. I'm not sure it's even Constitutionally legal for Congress to pass leglislation that is, in effect, the issuance of an order to the U.S. Armed Forces.

This entire obsession that the Democrat led Senate and House of Representatives has with attempting to pass legislation that is, in effect, orders to the military is political grandstanding and a waste of time. I'd prefer they be spending their time crafting legislation to fix the mess that is health care, social security, and immigration policy in the United States.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Disinterested ...political grandstanding and a waste of time. I'd prefer they be spending their time crafting legislation to fix the mess...

Their job is spending money. They need to call the IRAQ spending to a halt...

[Disinterested]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Their job is spending money. They need to call the IRAQ spending to a halt...

All Pelosi has to do is not allow a vote on spending in Iraq. Yet, she won't do it. That's why all this other malarkey they're attempting is grandstanding. If they really wanted to withdraw troops, they'd simply not authorize spending.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Disinterested All Pelosi has to do is not allow a vote on spending in Iraq. Yet, she won't do it. That's why all this other malarkey they're attempting is grandstanding. If they really wanted to withdraw troops, they'd simply not authorize spending.

Yes, and it may yet come to that--a vote to defund the war in September or soon thereafter. The Democratic base, and many non-Democratic average Americans, want concrete action to end Republican obstructionism. Then the Republicans will shift their rhetoric from the "do nothing" Congress to the "anti-military" traitors. You can't ever please those neo-cons or underestimate their below-the-belt tactics.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: The Decider Yes, and it may yet come to that--a vote to defund the war in September or soon thereafter. The Democratic base, and many non-Democratic average Americans, want concrete action to end Republican obstructionism. Then the Republicans will shift their rhetoric from the "do nothing" Congress to the "anti-military" traitors. You can't ever please those neo-cons or underestimate their below-the-belt tactics.

The issue is that if Pelosi wanted to end the war, she could by not allowing a vote on any Iraq spending bills. Yet, she doesn't. Thus, one can only conclude that Pelosi doesn't want to end the war.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Disinterested The issue is that if Pelosi wanted to end the war, she could by not allowing a vote on any Iraq spending bills. Yet, she doesn't. Thus, one can only conclude that Pelosi doesn't want to end the war.

Yes, and Republicans would love another excuse to call Pelosi and the Democrats anti-military traitors. Perhaps you might even join in. I can see, even if you can't, a political downside to defunding the war.

But, as time goes on, Pelosi will have little choice. Democrats (and alot of non-Democrats) want action and if it takes pulling the funding plug on Bush's little overseas catastrophe, then she will have to bite the political bullet and take the inevitable heat that such a move will generate.

It's politically easier to start a war than to end one, especially when the president has a veto-proof and obstructionist minority in Congress.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Disinterested The issue is that if Pelosi wanted to end the war, she could by not allowing a vote on any Iraq spending bills. Yet, she doesn't. Thus, one can only conclude that Pelosi doesn't want to end the war.

It's nice that somebody noticed that this all is all a show for our benefit. The endless time-wasting to let us think they are at least TRYING to get something done when it's more likely they BOTH either don't want this to end or are afraid of being blamed when something goes wrong.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Scribbler1 It's nice that somebody noticed that this all is all a show for our benefit. The endless time-wasting to let us think they are at least TRYING to get something done when it's more likely they BOTH either don't want this to end or are afraid of being blamed when something goes wrong.

The Harry Reid all night pajama party this week was another stunt. These things actually harm the democrats alleged claim that they want to end the war because it simply gives Bush more time to increase troop levels and further the war cause.

If the democrats were genuine in their desire to end the war, they'd simply not provide funding. The reason they don't is because their primary goal is to make Bush and the GOP look bad in the hopes that the democrats will pick up more seats and the White House in 2008.

Ethics aside, I believe it's a failed strategy that will backfire for the democrats. To wit, while Bush's approval ratings are in the 20s, Pelosi's congress is at 14%.

[sevendogs]

Everything is far more complex in politics. Democrats will keep trying and they will win. I wish Bush and some others in his administration would be tried as war criminals.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Disinterested The Harry Reid all night pajama party this week was another stunt. These things actually harm the democrats alleged claim that they want to end the war because it simply gives Bush more time to increase troop levels and further the war cause.

The Senate Democrats merely followed the Republican "pajama party" example in 2005. In case you don't remember (or want to forget), that all-night Republican sleepover was relatively successful in breaking the Democratic filibuster against Bush's judicial nominees. It was helpful for Republicans, so it must be a legitimate tactic. Right, disinterested?

Chances dim of averting Senate filibuster showdown - Tom Curry - MSNBC.com

Quote by: Disinterested If the democrats were genuine in their desire to end the war, they'd simply not provide funding. The reason they don't is because their primary goal is to make Bush and the GOP look bad in the hopes that the democrats will pick up more seats and the White House in 2008.

Or perhaps the reason they have chosen not to cut off funds right now is because most Americans would oppose "hurting the troops," as Republicans (and I'd wager, yourself) would lose no time in chanting 24/7. Just because Congress CAN do something doesn't mean that its always wise or effective. As the Iraq War worsens, Bush's intransigence will make a fund cut-off more likely--and that day is one you will not enjoy. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking for the Republicans in Congress who continue to "stay the course" against the wishes of the American people.

Quote by: Disinterested Ethics aside, I believe it's a failed strategy that will backfire for the democrats. To wit, while Bush's approval ratings are in the 20s, Pelosi's congress is at 14%.

What ethics rules have been violated? Be specific please.

As for Congress's low poll ratings, they matter little in the long run. Americans don't vote for "Congress," they vote for individuals---and many of those individuals are Republicans in danger of defeat next year. Look at it this way--the Republicans not only have to defend their membership in Congress, but also their membership in the Republican Party and relationship with George W. Bush, the most unpopular sitting president since at least Richard Nixon. The Democrats aren't the ones sweating the poll numbers, Disinterested.