Do you understand now?

Question

I do not want to read ONE MORE POST about how "unpopular" this Congress is, or how the "Democratically controlled Congress" is not "doing anything."

The Republicans in Congress ARE BLOCKING legislation designed to give troops more leave time.

Are you getting that? THE REPUBLICANS ARE BLOCKING.
*****************************************

Senate Republicans block Iraq bill
By Susan Cornwell Wed Sep 19, 7:59 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Republicans blocked a plan on Wednesday to give U.S. troops in Iraq more home leave, defeating a proposal widely seen as the Democrats' best near-term chance to change President George W. Bush's Iraq strategy.

The measure to give troops as much rest time at home as they spent on their most recent tour overseas needed 60 votes to pass in the Democratic-controlled Senate; it received just 56 votes, with 44 against.

It had been offered by Sen. Jim Webb, a decorated Vietnam veteran and former Navy secretary. The Democrat said U.S. troops are being "burned out" by repeated redeployments to Iraq, with tours of up to 15 months and less than a year off in between.
The plan was strongly opposed by the Bush administration -- Pentagon Secretary Robert Gates called it a backdoor attempt to pull troops off the battlefield in the unpopular Iraq war, and said he would recommend Bush veto it if it passed. A similar bill has passed the House.
Democrats have struggled all year to pass legislation winding down the Iraq war, and they have other proposals waiting in the wings, including some that explicitly require combat troop pullouts. But these are considered even less likely than Webb's to get any time soon the 60 votes often required to advance under Senate rules.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, vowed not to give up.

"We on this side of the aisle are not going to stop waging the hard but necessary fight to responsibly end this war," he said before the vote, adding that Republicans were "more interested in protecting their president than protecting the troops."
After the Webb measure failed, Republicans proposed a non-binding "sense of the Senate" supporting the goal of the Webb plan if operational conditions permit. But it also failed to get the 60 votes required, after Webb announced he opposed it and asked others to vote against it.
After appearing to gain momentum in recent days, Webb's proposal won the votes of just six of Bush's fellow Republicans on Wednesday. That was one Republican less than Webb's plan persuaded in a previous vote in July.
The senator who switched was Webb's fellow Virginian John Warner, also a former Navy secretary and an influential Republican voice on military matters.

He announced on Wednesday he could not support the Webb plan again because it could extend tours of duty for units already in the war zone.
"I agree with the principles that you have laid down in your amendment," the 80-year-old Warner said during debate.
"But I regret to say that I've been convinced by those in the professional uniform that they cannot do it, and do it in a way that wouldn't invoke further unfairness to other soldiers now serving in Iraq."
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, a presidential contender, said the rejection of the plan was related to U.S. Iraq commander General David Petraeus' and Ambassador Ryan Crocker's testimony to Congress last week and their "sound argument that we are succeeding" in Iraq.
McCain argued that Webb's plan was unconstitutional. "We have one commander in chief and one only."

McCain argued that Webb's plan was unconstitutional. "We have one commander in chief and one only."
Fellow Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a co-sponsor of Webb's plan, said Republican senators were heavily lobbied by the administration against the measure.
"The White House has been very effective of making this a loyalty test for the party," Hagel said after the vote.
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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070919/pl_nm/iraq_usa1_dc

Congress does not "run the country?"

Sweetie, you can word it any way you like. Congress is there to convey the will of the people.

The will of the people is that we want our troops to be treated in a sane and humane way.

Are you aware that troop suicides are higher than at any other time in History, in any other War?

And the post wasn't even about the merits of the bill, it was about clearing up precisely WHY Congress isn't "doing anything.:"

Because the REPUBLICANS are not ALLOWING anything to be done.

To ndgbill: Uh.....er, um....I actually do agree with everything you said, I just don't know if I would have said it so...vehemently. I agree about the Democrats NOT standing their ground, though. Everybody everywhere knows what the 2006 elections signified, and the Democrats didn't take the bull by the horns and do what the people voted them in to do.

And thanks for your response to a couple of the posters, too. I just didn't have the energy to answer them. I'm beginning to find it pointless.

Answer 1

The current situation is merely but another manifestation of the Democracts profound dysfunctionality in the past 30 years.Even in the lean years,the Republicans stood firm on their beliefs and never apologized for them .

What do I mean ? Although I find the conservative idealogy/philosophically offensive on many levels including the moral level,I give them my complete respect for standing FIRM and RESOLUTE on their principles even in the face of monumental hypocricy.

Voters KNOW clearly what conservatives stand for while in respect to liberals /Democrats we,they,have failed utterly to stand up and be firm on what they stand for and believe in.
The result is simply that the Republicans/conservatives RULE and CONTROL the agenda and Democrats are running around all over the board playing bloody catch-up CONSTANTLY.

The wishy-washy poll chasing Democrats instead of standing up proud and tall for the enormous historical benefits/programs/paradigm shifts that the liberal ideology has created and made possible seem literally ashamed of the word "liberal" and as a result many have come to view liberalism as one would the ebola virus.

So voters in the past few decades have had really only one ideology to vote for.You either voted for the REAL THING in the form of a Republican or you voted for a Republican CLONE in Democratic clothing.

Currently again it is the Republicans that are controlling the agenda even with a Democratic Congress soley because they have yet to create their own agenda from liberalism.In effect,the democrats are always playing the sams conservative Republican game and have NO GUTS to stand proudly on their own liberalism base and offer voters a REAL MEANINGFUL CHOICE.

Voters give Congress such a low rating because Democrats are too afraid to really GOVERN and be seen as a truly seperate choice but instead ludicrously try and fight on the Republican turf instead on their own.Republicans by their sheer nerve/gall/steadfastness force Democrats to PLAY THEIR GAME knowing full well the gutless Democrats will come fight on Republican ground which voters then see as the ONLY ground.

In effect,voters to a large degree think of Congress only in Republican terms and the polling reflects that reality.

I also must comment on the inane replies posted here.

We have REREUGGED telling us that Congress does NOT RUN THE COUNTRY.

IF the elected Legislative Branch of Government does not run the country WHO THE HELL DOES ??? BUSH THE EVIL DICTATOR ?? THE lobbyists who with their QUID PRO QUO CORRUPTION WITH CONGRESS ??

With responders like this it is no wonder the US is in the mess it is.

Then we have GRIPS ranting bon about Congress not micro-managing the war .What the hell does this mean?

CONGRESS IS THE ONLY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT WHO UNDER THE CONSTITUTION HAS THE POWER TO DECLARE WAR.THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH (I.E.The President) has the authority to MANAGE THE WAR.

In the past few months Congress has NOT been trying to micro-manage the war .What Congress has been doing is trying to change the RULES OF ENGAGEMENT of the war and the DIRECTION of the war which are EXACTLY WHAT THE CONSTITUTION MANDATES THE CONGRESS TO DO.


Sadly many friggin YAHOOS have picked up the President's Rovian spin about "micro-manage the war" when this charge is pure CRAP but the intellectual cripples lap this crap up because it SOUNDS IMPRESSIVE sort of like what the Bard referred to as " A tale told by an idiot,full of sound and fury signifying nothing "

Then we have MOUNTAIN MAN spewing on about elected majorities and democracy.

Listen up old MOUNTAINMAN, the US Senate IS NOT a "democratic" institution in the traditional sense of all other DEMOCRACIES in the world.

The US Senate is NOT a proportionately elected body (2 Senators per state irregardless of that state's population)and DE FACTO is NOT REPRESEN TATIVE OF THE PEOPLE PERIOD. In absolutely no other democratic legislative body in the world is such a profoundly un-democratic situation found.REmember MOUNTAINMAN,many aver that the US
is NOT a democracy at all but a Republic .Go educate yourself on the difference.

So Mountainman ,stop your inane silliness about the Senate being democratic.

And BTW,there are 100 Senators (two/state X 50 states which even you Mountainman can understand) so a majority would be 51 not the 60 you spewed out .

Answer 2

"John Warner, also a former Navy secretary and an influential Republican voice on military matters. He announced on Wednesday he could not support the Webb plan again because it could extend tours of duty for units already in the war zone."

And that pretty much sums it up. Whats the point of bringing one troop home for 15 months off if it extends the time of another unit in the field by 3 months? Someone will get screwed in the end either way, but under the current system atleast everyone gets the same.

Answer 3

Bob, you're wrong. With the exception of maybe one or two times where the minority Democrats threatened to fillibuster certain bills (which, btw, was quickly countered by threats of the 'nuclear option'), the Republican Congress, with help from a willing White House, got their legislation passed. This is the difference between Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats were willing to work with the majority for the benefit of the constituants. The Republicans simply block anything they don't like or approve of, and then come back and jeer the Democrats because Congress polls so low. It's dirty politics, but par for the course when it comes to Republican ethics.

Answer 4

Time to go old school, and when someone states that they are going to filibuster, instead of the gentleman rules we have now, make them actually filibuster. Break out the pails and the hoses so they can pee while on the floor, Mike Gravel did it to end the draft and Strom Thurmon was legendary in his filibusters. Maybe just maybe we can either see some new legends OR we can atleast have people explain themselves and their positions so that their constituents back home can see and hear what they say.

Answer 5

I understand and get it. We are losing our government if we have not already lost it, if we ever had it. The government can do anything it wants and as long as it uses the excuse "for national security". People will believe it. They won't question it. The President said it so it must be true. Blah. Blah. Does anyone get how dangerous that is?? Talk about setting up for a major power and ego trip. I can say and do whatever I want because the American people will not question it as long as I say with conviction that it is in our best interest. They are so trusting and naive. I'd pity them but I'm not here for them. Hahaha A lot of american companies are profiting at our expense in Iraq and causing a lot of damage. They are putting us all at risk with their action. Look at Blackwater. I think it is just the tip of the iceberg. Time will tell.

Answer 6

Yes i understand the thing which you are trying to make me understand in an understandable way which is quite un understandable but still understandable which makes me to say UNDERSTOOD..

Answer 7

Sweety,hate to tell you,but obviously it is NOT "the will of the people"They needed 60 votes from ELECTED officials.They didn't get them.WHO is it that wants to throw out the Constitution again?So,basically,you are saying that YOUR will MUST be imposed,or come up with another way of enacting legislation that doesn't take into account any ones"will" except yours.It DIDN'T get the votes.What don't YOU understand?The democratic process?How is it democratic if we say,"Hey,we didn't get the votes,screw it,lets do it anyway"Do YOU understand how absurd and foolish and definitely anti-constitution you are?

Answer 8

I believe the low approval rating has more to do with people fed up with government in general, whether it be democrat or republican does not matter

Answer 9

Just the latest thing they have blocked or Bush has vetoed. That's fine. The American public is not stupid. I guess the azz whoopin the Republicans got the last time around wasn't enough.

Answer 10

First off, it's not up to you what people post.

Secondly, people aren't in the military to be on leave. They're in the military to fight a war.

A little history lesson. In World War II, people weren't in the military for 2, 3, or 4 years. They were in "until the duration of hostilities plus one year." Most of the people in the military at that time were in from 1942 until 1946-----5 years. The one's oversea's never got to come home----for 5 years!!! A lot of the combat troops were in combat-----for 3 to 4 years. If they were lucky they got to go back to a rest area for a couple of weeks.

I don't like the idea that our men and women are in combat-----but they are.

And before you say, "If you feel so strongly about it, why don't you go?" I did my time in Vietnam.

This is just another case of politicians wanting to micro-manage a war instead of letting the professionials soldiers do their job and fight it.