Politics - 17 July 2007

While Republicans focus on the dangers posed by al Qaeda in Iraq, our long-term national-security interests in the Persian Gulf, and the warnings that the United Nations and the Baker-Hamilton Commission are issuing on the potential consequences of withdrawal, Democrats will spend the next 24 hours acting out what their staffers have referred to as a “publicity stunt.” They are staging a modern-day version of Jimmy Stewart’s round-the-clock filibuster from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington to wear down opponents of a firm deadline for withdrawal. The only problem: They are, in effect, filibustering their own bill.

For people who might be scratching their heads, a little background. Yesterday Republicans asked that a 60-vote threshold be used for a vote on the Levin Amendment to the defense-authorization bill. The Levin Amendment is a controversial proposal calling for withdrawal from Iraq by April, and the standard procedure for amendments like it has always been the 60-vote threshold. As the Democratic majority leader said earlier this year: “In the Senate it’s always been the case you need 60 votes.”

So why the theatrics? Democrats are feeling the heat from the antiwar base that gave them the majority in both Houses of Congress last November.

Meanwhile, President Bush offered his own change of course. He announced a new Iraq strategy in January to deploy several additional brigades to Baghdad and battalions to Anbar province. By securing the capital, he said, American and allied troops would have a good shot at tamping down sectarian violence and creating the conditions for political progress that everyone says are needed to create stability in Iraq. The president chose General David Petraeus to lead the mission, and Senate Democrats confirmed him by a unanimous vote.

The president’s new plan was devised in consultation with America’s top military commanders in Iraq and the Iraqi prime minister. And it had the backing of a co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, James Baker, who told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January that they should give the strategy a shot: “The general that you confirmed the other day, 81 to nothing, this is his idea,” Baker said of General Petraeus. “He’s the supporter of it. He’s now the commander on the ground in Iraq. Give it a chance.”

Yet despite this plea, Senate Democrats declared the surge a failure before it began. Senator Barack Obama spoke for many in his caucus when he said in January, “The president’s strategy will not work.” So it surprised no one that soon after confirming General Petraeus, Democrats repeatedly tried to pass a bill that would have limited the General’s mission. Their only claim to success was a bill that funded the mission they claimed to oppose. And even that took more than three months to pass before being vetoed by the president because of language that set a date for withdrawal.

In response to the veto, Democrats resubmitted the vetoed funding bill without the timeline, infuriating their antiwar base and setting up this week’s debate — and the threat of a bad Jimmy Stewart impersonation. Not coincidentally, today’s stunt was announced in conjunction with an antiwar protest on the Capitol grounds.

The real question, of course, is not who’s in the driver’s seat of the Democratic strategy for Iraq. It’s why Democrats would allow themselves to pull a self-described publicity stunt like this in the first place on an issue as serious as the war. Democrats seem to have forgotten that they voted 80 to 14 to give General Petraeus until September to report on the strategy they sent him to Iraq to complete. That was the framework we agreed to, and signed into law, for the conduct of this debate. But then, they voted to send General Petraeus to Iraq even as they declared his mission a failure.

Our troops and our top military commander deserve better. At the very least they should be able to expect that we will stick with our pledge to give General Petraeus until September to report back on progress and the law which a majority of the Senate voted for in May.

This war, and its potential consequences, are too serious for anything less. Our enemies aren’t threatened by talk-a-thons, and our troops deserve better than publicity stunts.

2007-07-17 13:19:38 · 21 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

I just had to say that.

2007-07-17 13:08:19 · 16 answers · asked by Enigma 6

Iraq would be better but they would keep complaining on how Bush screwed it up... It would make the USA united again both sides would be happy, the America haters would be glad to leave and the rest of us would be glad to see them leave. But then they would start to love America for some reason?

2007-07-17 13:07:13 · 12 answers · asked by JohNy 2

2007-07-17 13:04:41 · 32 answers · asked by The Apostle 2

Democrat Congress Has Failed




San Francisco Chronicle, Edward Epstein writing: "Senate Democrats, increasingly restive over the war in Iraq, plan to force a series of votes starting today aimed at either changing the course of President Bush's policy or embarrassing Republican members over their continued support for a war the public has soured on." They've done this over and over and over again, but, "This time, Reid said, things will be different. 'We want there to be change and it should not be a fig leaf,' he said." These things are going to be different this time. "A draft of the interim report," whether the Iraqi government has reached its benchmarks, "circulated Monday among government agencies, concludes that the government in Iraq has met none of its targets for political, economic and other reform, an official who asked not to be identified told the Associated Press. Another report, this one from Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker on how Bush's troop-increase strategy is working, is due by Sept. 15. But," as I told you yesterday, Dingy Harry "Reid and the Republican Senate defectors said they don't want to wait until then to change Iraq policy." They don't want to wait until General Petreaus reports in September, for all the obvious reasons. "The strategy of the Republican Senate leadership as Democrats seek votes on anti-war amendments is still not clear." Of course it's not clear because they're undecided what their strategy ought to be.

But let me give you a couple realities here, folks, and listen to me on this. Reality number one is that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are running Congress and they have been running Congress twice as long as the General Petraeus plan has been in place. Reality number two is that public support for Congress has collapsed. Have you seen the latest polls? I don't care what the president's numbers are. They are what they are. The congressional numbers are even worse.

Do we not think, ladies and gentlemen, that it may be time for new leadership in Congress? Perhaps maybe Senator Reid should be replaced and Speaker Pelosi should resign. Congress needs a new direction. Take every argument they're using to get us out of Iraq -- ignore Petraeus, deny his plan, the time to work and so forth -- and turn it around against them. The current leadership of Congress has failed. They've failed to deliver on their promises. They failed to set the country on the right course! They've failed to gain the support of the American people. They're a total political failure. As a matter of fact, during their leadership, Reid and Pelosi, the American people have rejected, overwhelmingly rejected their leadership. Anybody who has lost faith with General Petraeus has to be disgusted with Reid and Pelosi. If the Petraeus leadership can be judged in, what is it, two or three months now, the Reid and Pelosi leadership's had two or three times as much time and has clearly accomplished zilch, zero, nada, nothing, except a whole bunch of political stunts: Armani suits, grandchildren on the knee, a big mallet, 100 hours on the road to nowhere, secondhand smoke legislation, secondhand mirrors, minimum wage, a bunch of chicanery supposedly getting rid of earmarks but not really doing it -- and America gets it. Disapproval of the Reid-Pelosi Congress has collapsed, 37% to 24% after only six months. Well, if we're not even going to give Petraeus the full length of time he was promised and assured, and we're going to pronounce it a failure already and "a collapse of leadership" and there's no political will and support, the Iraqi people haven't met their benchmarks, well, neither the hell have Reid or Pelosi. They haven't met one benchmark. They haven't done one thing. The support for the US Congress in this country has not just plummeted. It has totally collapsed. So using their line of reasoning and thinking, we need new leaders in Congress, and we need them now. The Democrats are the ones that need the new plan and they need the new plan now, folks.






http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/10/MNGRJQTJLQ1.DTL

2007-07-17 12:49:05 · 17 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

I am troubled by today's political parties. Most of them are controlled by globalists and corporations and can care less about their country. Years ago, the Democrat Party was a great party and I might have been a Democrat years ago. The party was hijacked by communists in the 50s but did not have a lot of effect on the party and then, recently, it was bailed out by globalist scumbag George Soros who wants to sell America to globalism and the elitist agenda. If I was living in the time of John F. Kennedy or Franklin Delano Roosevelt, I would probably be a Democrat.

2007-07-17 12:44:18 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

My guess is YES.

2007-07-17 12:42:32 · 10 answers · asked by gorgeous george III 3

Nobody believes or trusts Republicans anymore. Is AM Radio and Y! Answers all that conservatives have left to feel they're significant to anyone?

2007-07-17 12:37:47 · 16 answers · asked by Remember the GOP? 2

Does he get any special immunity?

2007-07-17 12:35:33 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous

They are wheeling out portable beds! What can a debate possibly accomplish when the people debating are sleeping or too tired to know what they are hearing? This isn't a rock concert!

2007-07-17 12:29:48 · 19 answers · asked by Chef 6

2007-07-17 12:21:15 · 18 answers · asked by ? 6

Why do all of the democrats think that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. It just pisses me off that they all think that Bush did it. You people make me sick. He murdered thousands of people, hell he was proud of it. Then you people come in and blame everything on George Bush. Really, I'm about to cry aboout the statements of Hillary, and every other person who thinks Bush killed those people.

2007-07-17 12:18:04 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

It seems to me that conservatives do not like Giuliani, Romney, or McCain. They seem to be more enthusiastic about Fred Thompson who isn't even running. Are they prepared to lose the presidency if any of the above runs? That seems to me like cutting of your nose to spite your face.

2007-07-17 12:06:50 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

what a hypocrite!

2007-07-17 11:55:37 · 13 answers · asked by jsda_man 2

I am interested in liberal remarks as well as the sane people.

2007-07-17 11:53:12 · 10 answers · asked by meathead 5

I mean... we've had several intelligence reports over the past week that say "they are planning something"...

Shouldn't we maybe go on the offensive more? What we're doing now doesn't seem to be working...

2007-07-17 11:51:48 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

That is why people dont like government sponsored snooping. Agree?

2007-07-17 11:47:56 · 12 answers · asked by K. Marx iii 5

for president, Barack Obama. If Hillary wins the nomination, do you think she will have the courage to pick a black man as her running mate?
How about that? Hillary/Obama 2008. Democrats, could you win with this ticket?

2007-07-17 11:43:24 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

liberals ask this about Romney because he is a Mormon, so is Harry Reid who is a liberal

2007-07-17 11:43:07 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

And drinking and doing drugs, because it seems that is what we do to the planet with all our chemical plants, oil spills, etc.

2007-07-17 11:41:07 · 16 answers · asked by Tawani 3

most of America is liberal?

2007-07-17 11:36:00 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

U.S. faces a persistent and evolving terrorist threat?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/washington/17cnd-terror.html?hp

What does this mean for us? All Bush said we are safer is lies?? WHAT HAS HE BEEN DOING THE PAST 6 YEARS???

2007-07-17 11:35:36 · 15 answers · asked by labohemianartist 4

First of all, what kind of country has a national school dress code? Shouldn't that be handled at the local level? Secondly, I can't believe hundreds of years after people fled England en masse to escape religious persecution, that the UK would still ban Muslims from wearing veils and Christians from wearing crosses or "purity" rings. How can such a developed nation hate freedom so much?

2007-07-17 11:31:21 · 6 answers · asked by red_necksuck 4

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070713/ap_on_el_pr/buffett_s_backing;_ylt=Avb9jxYOujxTx0T0bQzWL5oGw_IE

2007-07-17 11:29:45 · 25 answers · asked by AB17 4

Are all successful politicians liars?

2007-07-17 11:28:24 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

Seems that the global political situation is in turmoil, that here in the USA there is a pretty good chance that we have been lied to, and that lots of folks cheated, stole, mis-used power, etc....Don't you think under POLITICS & GOVERNMENT that should be a topic?

2007-07-17 11:26:23 · 13 answers · asked by Lavietrop 2

I mean these guys blame Clinton for everything including Vitter

2007-07-17 11:23:18 · 18 answers · asked by Tawani 3

Or does it mean most liberals don't have cars?

2007-07-17 11:22:23 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

besides its free

Ps I don't support it.

2007-07-17 11:19:42 · 17 answers · asked by Jeremy P 2

do u ever think that through this site/tool we as americans can unite not just asking stupid questions, but that beside cussing there ias no censorship, which means we can use it to overthrough the goverment.....jfk that was funny. u think???

2007-07-17 11:15:59 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous