Senate Rejects Iraq Pullout, Dems Simultaneously Lose All Principles
Only SIX Democrats in the Senate voted to withdraw from Iraq? Just SIX?? (Kerry, Feingold, Boxer, Byrd, Harkin, Kennedy).
Senate Rejects US Troop Pullout in Iraq – AP
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.
What about how bad the war is going? What about all the talk of American aggression? What about all of the accusations of Marines murdering and raping Iraqi civilians at will? And what of all of the talk of the fighting in Iraq causing more terrorism? Talk about having it both ways!
Only SIX Democrat Senators actually voted in what they believe — that retreat from Iraq is the most responsible way to proceed in the War on Terror. Well, good for them.
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. (GP Ed. Note: Priceless!)
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, (GP Ed. Note: WHY?? Isn’t this an important issue for Democrats?) and the vote occurred quickly.
But what IS the Democrat plan to fight the War on Terror? Is it retreat ala Kennedy/Kerry/Boxer? What of the majority of Democrats who support staying in Iraq until the job is done? Do they believe that? Or do they also have another plan for fighting the War on Terror? I’m losing track of the Democrat message as quickly as they are losing their principles!
Man, this party of FDR and JFK is quite laughable these days.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
32 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Yet Dems tell you the whole country hates the war and wants out now. Why aren’t the Dems following the will of the country and pulling out immediately. The polls! Read the polls!
Comment by VinceTN — June 15, 2006 @ 8:12 pm - June 15, 2006
Well, I hate war, don’t you?
I’m torn, I really am. In a contest is it moral to give advice to people you really hope will continue their self-defeating behavior?
Comment by Synova — June 15, 2006 @ 9:15 pm - June 15, 2006
“But what IS the Democrat plan to fight the War on Terror?”
Well, I doubt it includes the Republican-approved plan for the Iraqi government to offer amnesty to the insurgents as long as the only people they killed or wounded were Americans not Iraqis.
http://tinyurl.com/h4ar7
And you don’t think the GOP supports this? Think again:
http://tinyurl.com/o87py
Funny, you guys oppose amnesty for some poor illegal who works hard and contributes to this country but support amnesty for foreign terrorists who attack American troops. Remind me again who REALLY supports the troops. It sure isn’t the GOP!
Comment by Ian S — June 15, 2006 @ 9:27 pm - June 15, 2006
What IS it Ian.. not what ISN’T it.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — June 15, 2006 @ 9:31 pm - June 15, 2006
Ian, like the Democrats in today’s debate, is sounding increasingly desperate and bitter.
The fact that Iraq’s elected government really is sovereign and NOT our puppet seems to escape him… oops… there goes another Democrat talking point down the toilet.
Comment by Calarato — June 15, 2006 @ 10:11 pm - June 15, 2006
#5: “The fact that Iraq’s elected government really is sovereign”
Gee, I would have thought a sovereign government would have been informed that AF1 was about to enter its airspace.
But fine, here’s the deal. Just because the Iraqis want to give amnesty to those who killed our soldiers doesn’t mean that Republican Senators have to get up in OUR Senate and PRAISE that plan.
Comment by Ian S — June 16, 2006 @ 12:47 am - June 16, 2006
I wouldn’t oppose a “limited” post war amnesty for some; those who had limited contact with the insurgency, the foot soldiers and the like, if accepted in the insurgent admitting defeat. I would prefer this to the cut and run philosophy currently espoused by the defeatist six, whose policies would doom the current Iraqi Government and ensure al-Qaeda takes over the country because we left before the government, elected by the people, not appointed by us, could stand on it’s own. Why, Oh Why – is the left so determined to make sure Iraq ends just like Vietnam???
Ian, your position is somewhat similar to the Radical Republicans post U S Civil War reconstruction. Lincoln, then Johnson, were pressing for a reconciliation type of reconstruction. Unfortunately, those who favored a more punitive approach won the day. The backlash to those policies set back the prosperity of both white and black southerners for decades. And did we learn anything from Versailles’s. And your attitude is what prevents the peaceful resolution of the Isreali / Palistinian conflict. An eye for an eye for an eye ad nausium.
And what is this amnesty “scandal” anyway. It’s not as if the Iraqi Government has never offered this before. I heard Ed Schultz talking about this on Airhead America today. He is usually better informed than this. Is this the best the Dems can do to try and darken the mood post Al-Zarqawi. Lame!
Better to use the carrot than the stick to win back a defeated population. Not saying that the war is over by any means, but if the low level grunt, who now may be weary of ending up like Al-Zarqawi, wants to lay down arms for amnesty, which BTW, will mean one fewer guy who could kill us or get killed by us, that’s OK by me. It’s a far better solution than anything offered by the Democratic Defeatist Six: Kerry, Feingold, Boxer, Byrd, Harkin, and Kennedy.
Hope this makes sense to someone. It’s very late and I’m typing tired and theres two big spiders chasing each other on the wall. Neat!
Comment by sonicfrog — June 16, 2006 @ 4:25 am - June 16, 2006
Ian S grabs from the DailyKossacks and tries to spread another lie: “…the Republican-approved plan for the Iraqi government to offer amnesty to the insurgents as long as the only people they killed or wounded were Americans not Iraqis.”
As Calarato is brilliant in saying: Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong Ian S on two counts.
First, Bush and the US Govt and military command still oppose any amnesty plan which forgives Iraqi combatants who attacked Coalition forces.
Second, the thrust of the story has been discredited by Iraq’s new ministers as of last night.
Amnesty consideration aren’t new. In July 2004, Allawi suggested amnesty might be needed to heal the new nation but it would NOT extend to those who fought as terrorists, were foreign nationals, or who attacked Iraqi police or military targets.
Nouri al Maliki’s newly appointed ministers as well as his senior adviser, Adnan Ali al-Kadhimi –sort of Karl Rove Jr in Iraq– have been quick to correct the record and note that amnesty does NOT include those who engaged in deliberate actions against Coalition forces, those who targeted Iraqi civilians, those who are foreighn terrorists… etc.
I’ve said it before Ian S, you gotta quit getting all your news from the DailyKos –they are less accurate than even the DailyShow… your other likely source for news.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 16, 2006 @ 8:51 am - June 16, 2006
Not to mention, Ian, that more than a few of the Dems’ pals in the labor movement stand shoulder to shoulder with Tancredo — at least until they get their wall built Meanwhile the libertarian and free market elephants join the President in advocating for an orderly way to deal with the consequences of Mexico’s dysfunctional economy and leadership. Immigration is not a simplistic blue/red issue.
Comment by Brezh — June 16, 2006 @ 9:26 am - June 16, 2006
They’re forcing the hippie Dem hands in the House today.
Comment by rightwingprof — June 16, 2006 @ 10:00 am - June 16, 2006
#3 If this is accurate I think it makes perfect sense.
Clue for you IanS… soldiers don’t hate the soldiers on the other side. In fact, if an “insurgent” fought with honor… I.E. didn’t target civilians but only fought other warriors… the idea of letting that person surrender and recieve amnesty isn’t terrible at all.
Certainly *some* of those fighting in Iraq actually are insurgents, actually are fighting us because they see us as invaders. This is a motivation that I think most people can respect.
Yet Al Qaida and others have overwhelmingly targeted the helpless, killing women and children. Civilians. Targeting civilians is the action of animals who deserve no respect and certainly no amnesty.
I can’t decide if you were just trying to be a poo or if the idea of offering amnesty to those fighters who only attacked Americans and not Iraqi civilians or police stations or mosques (another mosque bombing in the news today) actually offends you.
Do you actually think we should be more upset about when they soldiers than when they attack civilians? And do you truely think that when deciding who to offer amnesty to, that someone who only attacked Americans is a worse choice to leave loose in the community than the person who executed a bus full of police recruits?
Explain your thinking on this.
Comment by Synova — June 16, 2006 @ 11:32 am - June 16, 2006
Huh, so it seems the reports aren’t so accurate.
I still think that if they *were* that it wouldn’t be something to get all bent out of shape about. Some sort of amnesty has to happen in order to convince people to stop fighting. If the only choices they have are to continue to fight or be arrested and either imprisioned or killed… who’s going to stop fighting?
Comment by Synova — June 16, 2006 @ 11:40 am - June 16, 2006
#8: “Bush and the US Govt and military command still oppose any amnesty plan which forgives Iraqi combatants who attacked Coalition forces.”
Then WTF are Republican Senators doing speaking out in favor of this plan? You guys have been insisting for years that the insurgents are NOT regular soldiers fighting against our forces according to the rules of war. Now Synova in #11 accords them a status that would bring them under the rules of the Geneva Conventions! Either these insurgents are freedom fighters engaged in a legitimate struggle against foreign occupiers or they are terrorist rebels attacking coalition forces protecting a constitutional legitimate elected Iraqi government. You Republicans have been insisting all along it’s the latter. Now you suddenly switch to insisting it’s the former. Twist pretzels, twist!
Comment by Ian S — June 16, 2006 @ 11:55 am - June 16, 2006
If the GOP spent half as much of its attention on actually winning the War in Iraq instead of cheap political stunts such as this, the troops might be home by now.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — June 16, 2006 @ 12:02 pm - June 16, 2006
Now Synova in #11 accords them a status that would bring them under the rules of the Geneva Conventions!
Perhaps you could point out for us where in that post Synova makes them regular army troops or in uniform.
Extending mercy is well within our rights to do as we see fit; however, we are not compelled in any shape or form to do it for people who refuse to sign the Geneva accords.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 16, 2006 @ 12:22 pm - June 16, 2006
# 14: If the Democrats put an 8″th of their political energy and effort into supporting and winning the war in the theatre where we are fighting, instead of undercutting the President at every turn by supporting policies and “solutions” that ensure defeat, becoming tools of Al-Zawqari’s bloody media campaign, and capitulating to the enemy and the instinct to run away from anything that is difficult, we would have won the Iraq phase on the WOT and the troops would be home by now!
Comment by sonicfrog — June 16, 2006 @ 12:34 pm - June 16, 2006
The targets one chooses are key to defining whether they are terrorists or legitimate soldiers. If you target civilians or hide amongst them and use them as shields, you’re a terrorist. If you target the “enemy forces” (at least as some may see them) and only the enemy forces, then you can at least argue that the person sees themselves as an insurgent against what they consider an intruding force. One has to follow certain rules of war to be protected by the Geneva convention. If we extend protections regardless, then the rules become meaningless and don’t serve the function they were created for.
Comment by Dale in L.A. — June 16, 2006 @ 12:55 pm - June 16, 2006
Well *I* think that I said that the act of targeting military instead of cilivilans at least *approached* an honorable way to fight.
True, NO ONE there is in uniform, but the outrage at the idea that people who exclusively attacked military targets, ie. Americans, might get off more lightly than those who deliberately murdered civilians seems… manufactured.
So I wanted to know if Ian was arguing to be difficult or if he really thinks that it’s outrageous to treat those who target military differently from those who target civilians. Who cares if they killed Iraqis, they shot at Americans, dammit? (If that’s the attitude, I find it sort of repulsive.)
Simply trying to be difficult seems the most likely. It was just an opportunity to score “see, you don’t support the troops” points or something.
Also an amnesty doesn’t necessarily apply only to those who are fighting *today* but to those who fought at any time since 2003.
There should be some distinction made concerning how and why any of those people fought. What about that is so shocking, Ian? Saying that those who *didn’t* kill other Iraqis might deserve a bit of leniency in no way whatsoever changes the fact that the “insurgents” overwhelmingly prefer soft targets… civilians, women and children, helpless people who can’t fight back.
An amnesty that excluded anyone who’d attacked Iraqi people would excuse very few.
And saying what we all have always known, that the “insurgents” are not and have never been all the same, is a far cry from suddenly deciding that Michael Moore was right and that they are all Minutemen and Freedom Fighters.
Forget trying to be clever and score points, Ian. What do *you* think should be done?
Comment by Synova — June 16, 2006 @ 12:57 pm - June 16, 2006
You guys are right. Ian is merely trying – badly – and failing – to confuse everything.
The Geneva Convention applies to honorable enemy combatants, i.e., they (1) wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians, AND (2) seeks to kill their uniform-wearing enemy.
A terrorist is someone who BOTH (1) wears no identifying uniform to distinguish them from civilians, AND (2) intentionally kills civilians.
Real “irregulars” or “insurgents” are not as bad as terrorists. They are people who (1) wear no identifying uniform to distinguish them from civilians, BUT still, (2) seek to kill their uniform-wearing enemy.
It sounds like the Iraqi government wants to distinguish the real insurgents – there must be a few in there, right? LOL – from all the terrorists. (The latter being the ones who deliberately target civilians, kids, etc., as such.) I have no problem with making that distinction.
Comment by Calarato — June 16, 2006 @ 1:15 pm - June 16, 2006
#19: “I have no problem with making that distinction.”
So, for the record, you support a plan that would not punish insurgents who are currently killing our troops, right?
From the responses, I get the distinct impression that many folks here believe it is OK for insurgents to kill our troops.
Comment by Ian S — June 16, 2006 @ 6:47 pm - June 16, 2006
Well, Ian, I’d still like to know what *you* think about it.
I have no problem making a distinction between those who target civilians and those who do not. Targeting civilians is *obviously* morally reprehensible. How you get from this, and a statement that targeting civilians is different from targeting military and *worse* to pretending that someone claimed it was OK for insurgents to kill our troops is… well, how do you get there Ian?
*Revenge*, Ian, is not a military virtue. It is *not* okay for insurgents to kill our guys and if they try, most likely they will pay with their lives and not a tear shed on this end. But when you’re talking about *ending* hostilities or even the possibility of ending hostilities you have to make it possible for people to lay down arms. This usually involves some sort of an agreement not to prosecute people who had been fighting on the other side.
Obviously people who target civilians or use terrorist tactics, even against military targets deserve to get what they dished out, but there has *got* to be a way to distinguish the fellow who blew up a bunch of kids (and where a lack of justice would lead to civil unrest) from the crusty old date farmer Omar and his sons Muhammed and Muhammed who took pot shots at Coalition forces with some hoarded RPG’s when they drove by in 2003.
Common sense is less fun than offended outrage, but you should try it.
Comment by Synova — June 16, 2006 @ 8:04 pm - June 16, 2006
Ian. Surely you can’t be that big a fool.
War has its own peculiar rules about winners and losers. As a general rule of western combat, after war, the foot soldiers of the loosing side has been allowed to go back into civilization and continue or rebuild their lives. These foot soldiers have killed the troops of the victor, yet western warfare interprets an army’s defeat as its own punishment. The severe punishment is saved for those who lead and commanded the war and those who ordered brutalities beyond the scope of accepted rules of engagement, those such as Milosevic, Nazi henchmen Hermann Göring and Rudolf Hess, and yes Saddam Heusein. Only the winning side gets to offer an amnesty. We win, we go home, which is something we all want. But I will be bold and suggest that your blanket rejection of any kind of amnesty shows that you indeed do not want our side to be victorious in this conflict. You and yours seem hell bent on ensuring we go home in defeat. The fact that you and the the other Dervish Democrats don’t seem to have any command of wartime history beyond Vietnam, the typical ratios of success vs failure of battles during war, and absolutely no concept of patience or perseverance, is the reason that I, an independent, will NEVER vote for your version of a good Democrat while we are at war.
And tell me this. If you are SOOOOOO against some of the insurgents and terrorists getting preverbally off the hook via amnesty, which is granted only by accepting defeat and ceasing combat, then how could you possibly be for immediate withdrawal, which guarrentees that, not only do ALL those same insurgents and terrorists who have killed our troops walk away scott free from any punnishment, but you would gift a tremendous recruiting tool to Al-Qaeda, by handing them victory in a war they are losing.
Comment by sonicfrog — June 16, 2006 @ 8:46 pm - June 16, 2006
Aparently Joe Wilson recently said that we should sit down at the negotiating table with those we are fighting *and* their foreign sponsors. How does that rate on your offended outrage scale, Ian? Not just the posibility of amnesty for some foot-soldiers who refrained from blowing up schools or murdering teachers, but meeting with the leaders and the sponsors of terrorist violence as though they are legitimate actors in this affair?
Comment by Synova — June 16, 2006 @ 9:25 pm - June 16, 2006
Man, this party of FDR and JFK is quite laughable these days.
This “party of FDR and JFK” would have moved to impeach them. They weren’t kooky enough.
In a contest is it moral to give advice to people you really hope will continue their self-defeating behavior?
That’s assuming they would give a damn about what anybody else has to say.
On another note, I find it interesting that Ian is pissing himself over an Iraq notion (not a plan) to offer amnesty to those who have killed U.S. soldiers.
What’s your problem, Ian? You and the other liberal Team Killing Fucktards have been pushing for amnesty and forgiveness of your heroes for a lot longer than the Iraqi government has. After all, don’t we need to be “more sensitive” to the plight of the terrorists than to the Americans who have had their heads sawed off?
As long as the libs piss and moan about the terrorist patrons of Club Gitmo and don’t give a DAMN about their prisoners (whom are very much dead), I can’t see how douchebags like you and other Moron.orgs hava a credible leg to stand on.
“We support the troops!” you whine when challenged, but when you give them the finger, label ALL of them as killers and then piss & moan for the oxygen thieves in Abu Ghraib & Club Gitmo, well you and your buds can drop down, fifth ring and cook.
And your leaders can continue to lose elections.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 17, 2006 @ 7:06 am - June 17, 2006
#22 – sonicfrog, that is a great analysis.
Ian is against Iraq doing one of the essential, universal ingredients of a victorious settlement (namely, an amnesty, NOT for the criminal terrorists, but for those foot soldiers of the other side who may be semi-honorable).
Which functionally means that Ian is against Iraq doing a victorious settlement.
And how do we know he isn’t just sincerely zealous in his patriotism? Because Ian would, apparently, be happy to see Iraq (and the U.S.) lose via immediate U.S. withdrawal. Thus giving both the semi-honorable insurgents and the criminal terrorists a very full amnesty.
Which functionally (or at the end of the day) means Ian must want the U.S. to lose in Iraq. He slams every policy that could lead to any other possibility.
Comment by Calarato — June 17, 2006 @ 7:37 am - June 17, 2006
Ah, but much more telling is the House Resolution.
Comment by rightwingprof — June 17, 2006 @ 11:42 am - June 17, 2006
For years we have been told repeatedly that those attacking our forces are NOT soldiers but instead, terrorists, dead-enders and criminals. Now suddenly they’re honorable soldiers fighting for a such a just cause that it merits supportive talk of amnesty on OUR Senate floor by American Senators. All at a time of peak violence when our soldiers are being killed virtually every day in Iraq. Now the Iraqis may decide at some point to work out some kind of amnesty in some kind of national reconciliation. Fine but make it after we’re out of there when there’ll be no more incentive for insurgents to attack our troops knowing that they’ll end up getting off scott-free.
In the meantime, speeches in the Senate supporting the idea are WRONG and I’m quite certain that the average American would agree once they’ve been told about it. I personally will be writing LTE’s of my local newspaper demanding to know if my two GOP Senators support this amnesty program.
Comment by Ian S — June 17, 2006 @ 6:20 pm - June 17, 2006
You think an amnesty is just fine *after we leave*. Why? The guilty ones are no longer guilty?
Write to your paper. The usual suspects will take the opportunity to be all offended on behalf of our military members. I suggest that Pat Dollard video… “we don’t want your love.” If our helpless military wants to be defended against those who might have engaged or killed coalition forces but haven’t used terror tactics or targeted civilians… they’ll let you know.
Revenge is not a military virtue. (Kick-*ss is, revenge is not.)
Comment by Synova — June 18, 2006 @ 1:26 am - June 18, 2006
Bah humbug… If our helpless military wnat to be defended against those who might *offer amnesty* to those who may have engaged or killed coalition forces but haven’t used terror tactics or targeting civilians…
And again… how many “insurgents” haven’t been targeting civilians?
So the old date farmer Omar and his sons Muhammad and Muhammad aren’t pursued and prosecuted… it’s a *tragedy* I tell you!
Comment by Synova — June 18, 2006 @ 1:30 am - June 18, 2006
#28: “You think an amnesty is just fine *after we leave*. Why?”
Well, it’s not really “fine”; I spat out that word but it doesn’t come across that well electronically. At least after we leave, providing amnesty won’t be an incentive to continue attacks on our troops as it is today.
Comment by Ian S — June 18, 2006 @ 11:59 am - June 18, 2006
#28 Synova — June 18, 2006 @ 1:26 am – June 18, 2006
You think an amnesty is just fine *after we leave*. Why? The guilty ones are no longer guilty?
The guilty are whoever the victors determine are guilty. In the unlikely event that the Axis powers had been victorious, those who might be determined to be guilty at Nuernberg would have likely been far different than the ones who actually were.
BTW, one might say the same with the victory of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick following its assault on the US.
It’s called “victors justice.” And it isn’t going to go away.
Revenge is not a military virtue.
Maybe not, but it is a human emotion. I recognize that acting out on one’s emotions can sometimes get one killed, but it is a human emotion.
I have trouble believing that the Americans’ enamour with the death penalty is anything other than revenge. And it would be nice if those who are in favor of it would recognize it for what it is.
Comment by raj — June 19, 2006 @ 7:44 am - June 19, 2006
Ian, your abuse of straw man tactics is so overt, it’s laughable. The idea of offering amnesty is not saying everything they’re doing is OK. It’s saying that to give up and stop fighting now is BETTER than continuing to kill our troops. It’s a concession made in a time of war in exchange for something that we want- an end to the fighting. It’s the most basic ingrediant in a peace agreement. If YOU care about our troops, you’d not be so averse to something that saves the lives of American troops while at the same time helping us tremendously to achieve our objective there.
Typical moral relativist liberal- unable to distinguish between a terrorist and an enemy combatant and unable to distinguish between war and a police action. I think that’s why some of the really left-wing liberals think world government is the solution to war. Scary stuph!
Comment by Dale in L.A. — June 20, 2006 @ 8:35 pm - June 20, 2006