Why did they block this bill!?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070919/pl_nm/iraq_usa1_dc
2007-09-19 15:09:16 · 19 answers · asked by aspiring_paranormal_journalist 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Senator Webb did try to make it acceptable to the Pentagon.
"Webb had tried to make the proposal acceptable to the Bush administration, including a presidential waiver in operational emergencies and a 120-day enactment period so the Pentagon could make needed adjustments."
2007-09-19 15:22:04 · update #1
I don't know.. That's pretty f'ing sad though.. They supposedly support the troops soo much yet can't even throw em a bone. Ridiculous...
2007-09-19 15:13:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 9⤋
This is the third time in the past hour this question has been asked. The bill as it was drafted was not implementable. The Pentagon planners asked for more time to arrange the rotations to fit the bill but the sponsor (Sen Webb D-VA) refused to budge and demanded an immediate impementation. This lost him some critical votes and as a result the bill was not passed with the ability to withstand a veto.
Based on the current rotations there would have to be an immediate reduction in force in Iraq that would undermine the surge. If you assume a nastiness to the debate, this was a back door attempt to change the strategy in Iraq. I tend to believe that Sen. Webb is emotionally involved in the issue and was unwilling to wait one minute for this policy change and that the back door change in strategy was not in his mind when he refused to delay the implementation. I am not certain that that is the case with other members of the affirmative group.
Both parties attempt to embarrass the opponents with this kind of gambit. In this case the Democrats can make the Republicans look bad. It has gone the other way on some other bills. Sadly these are wasted efforts.
My heart goes out to Sen Webb who clearly felt that this was a good thing. I agree with him and wish that he had made the change in implementation date which would have permitted the policy to change.
2007-09-19 15:18:04 · answer #2 · answered by Matt W 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Because it was a back door attempt to pull troops from the Iraq war. I agree with giving troops more time off, but, from reading that article it seemed the Dems had an alterior motive for trying to pass it. I don't know. I haven't seen the actual proposed bill, but that's what I took from the article.
2007-09-19 15:15:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Because the President doesn't want to withdraw any troops, leaving this mess for the next Administration, and the Republican Senators do whatever they are told by the White House.
Honestly, the Republican representatives and senators, with rare exception, move in lockstep with President Bush. There doesn't seem to be much they won't do - so called conservatives tossing away 800-year-old legal precendents, such as habeas corpus.
2007-09-19 15:14:52 · answer #4 · answered by John T 6 · 4⤊ 6⤋
Because they DO support the troops. Unlike the Democrats who put crap like this out to pretend that the they do, while at the same time undermining everything the troops are doing. Playing politics with soldiers' lives while they are deployed is really sick.
2007-09-19 15:14:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
Only the stupid troop hating republicans blocked the bill. There were a couple non-trooping hating republicans voting for the bill - it's a shame there aren't less troop hating republicans but, that's the USA we live in.
2007-09-19 15:15:31 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
A person such as yourself, doesn't even understand the very nature of warfare, so an explanation would do no good. This is just another example of a liberal spewing grabage, with sponsors like webb and murtha it was never going to pass.
2007-09-19 15:13:38 · answer #7 · answered by Army Retired Guy 5 · 6⤊ 5⤋
coming from a military family. it is important to relize that this is there job. they get paid to defend this country and other countries. my brother has been to iraq for the 5th time and we support him and other troops for what they are doing. and out of that 5, 4 times for this time and 1 time in desert storm! we wouldnt have this problem today if congress didnt pull us out of iraq the first time!!
2007-09-19 15:16:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
If you would take the time to actually read the article, the answer to your question (and more) is in there.
Good luck with that reading thing. Remember: focus!
2007-09-19 15:14:53 · answer #9 · answered by My Evil Twin 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Because it violates the separation of powers. It is the commander in chief's job to dictate what goes on with troops. This act was designed to tie his hands.
2007-09-19 15:13:42 · answer #10 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 5⤊ 4⤋
Once we start letting the Congress run any war we are doomed.
2007-09-19 15:14:01 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋