Breaking: Webb amendment fails.
By on Sep 19th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Breaking: Webb amendment fails.
The Senate just voted 56 to 44 on Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) amendment “requiring that active-duty troops and units have at least equal time at home as the length of their previous tour overseas.” The bill failed to garner the 60 votes needed to move forward.
When the legislation was considered in July, the vote was 56 to 41. Sens. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and David Vitter (R-LA), who didn’t vote in July, today voted against the legislation. Sen. John Warner (R-VA) switched his July vote, also voting against the bill today. Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) voted “yea.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Graham
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Sen. Warner, you're as big a phony as there is in Congress. Foghorn Leghorn personified.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:03 pmYeah this is how republicans support our troops ,by sending them into harms way ,away from their families extending their tours of duty ad infinitum and denying them the rest they need to function properly ,even if it kills them !
September 19th, 2007 at 6:04 pmNo rest for the weary .
Let's see.... what was that saying again..... Oh yes.
SUPPORT THE TROOPS. Hard to do though when the real war is between politicians.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:05 pmA real man (Johnson) , rises out of his sick-bed after facing death and votes properly ; while a douchebag coward that enjoys prostitutes and wearing adult diapers votes against our troops........
Which party supports the troops again ?
What a joke ; the GOP is a bunch of slimy little vermin..........
September 19th, 2007 at 6:07 pm22 gop seats up in 2008 and 19 are up in 2010. Had enough?
September 19th, 2007 at 6:09 pmThis may be one of the fatal blows to the military. Driving enlistments even further down, more Academy grads leaving, senior generals retiring at a rapid pace.
Guess it will be up to the US Foreign Legion, er, I mean Blackwater to protect and defend us now. Is this a great country or what?
September 19th, 2007 at 6:12 pmThe war on the American people, the war on the Military and the war on the people of Iraq to steal Iraqi oil continues unabated. This Democrat/Republican drama is staged for our benefit while the owners of this country continue to do what they've always done.
As long as we continue to vote for the "lesser of the two evils", we will continue to get exactly what we deserve.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:13 pmA call to all you Repug supporters here! Give us your reasons you agree with the Repugs that voted against the troops. We all want to hear your logic.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:15 pmThat was 56 in favor of the Webb amendment and 44 against. Does anybody remember the repugs whining about the minority party using the filibuster to circumvent the will of the people? My, how things change!
September 19th, 2007 at 6:15 pmThis makes all the testimony of Petraeus' gains seem moot.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:16 pmin the republican mind, when dems filibuster, they are preventing the work of government. When republicans filibuster, they are doing the work of the American people. Pretty sick when you think about it.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:22 pmThis'll do wonders for the morale. I'm sure the troops love serving in a combat zone SO much, that they'd rather not come home at all. When the hell is it going to be 2009? I can't believe we have another full year of this.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:23 pmI can say that this policy is one of the reasons that the Army is breaking. The soldiers do not want to reenlist because they can not be with their families. The suicide rate is climbing from multiple deployments. Cases of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder are increasing, with a marked increase after multiple deployments. The Army is not composed of war robots, they are humans, people. They need time to be out of a stressful environment and regroup. The units need time to train together. It is so sad to see so many congressmen interpret this as a limit to the war in Iraq. Such displays of callousness are breaking my heart.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:25 pmI see my challenge in #8 has gone unheeded. The trolls must have done a drive-by and realized they had nothing. No talking points from the rover on this one. It is just blind obedience and further proof that they all care nothing for the troops, since none of their families are involved..
September 19th, 2007 at 6:28 pmSupport the troops
September 19th, 2007 at 6:29 pmSupport the Constitution
Yeah, that's the ticket! NOT!
Repugniscum are partisans rotten to the core as they trash the soldiers and the nations ideals under their march in lockstep for Bush.
Warner is a turncoat. He didn't even have the balls to tell Webb that he was planning a betrayal from his earlier support.
Anyone who thought he'd be different once he decided not to run, or who thought he was a tough questioner of Petraeus learned that leopards do not change their spots.
THIS is a perfect example of why we call them "Republi-SCUM", and 'CONTURD".
September 19th, 2007 at 6:32 pmI'm sick of hearing that a vote "lacked the necessary 60 votes to move forward." Make the Republicans actually filibuster every single one of these votes! Make sure the American people see who are the real obstructionists in our government.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:33 pm#16
The commander of the military is a politician in DC.
Soldiers and commanders don't make policy, the politicians in DC do.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:35 pm#16, Tracy1, no - it is precisely Congress that the Constitution empowers to decide what the soldiers need.
And your phraseology is disingenuous to start with - the troops don't decide what their deployments are, their commanders do - including their commander-in-chief, who is - as you put it, a politician in Washington D.C.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:35 pm#13
Comment by TrickyNik — September 19, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
Shouldn’t the soldiers and their commanders decide for themselves what they need….not politician’s in Washington D.C.?
Comment by Tracy1 — September 19, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
How , when the worst president in US history , our Chimperor-In-Chief , has decreed that 'victory' must be achieved in Iraq (whatever the hell that means)...............
September 19th, 2007 at 6:36 pmYou believe El-Chimpador gives a crap what anyone else thinks or believes ? You under the impression the Pentagon wants or recommended this 15-month long tour of duty ?
BTW
If politicians in Washington should decide nothing in regards to the troops, how come their commander is the highest ranking politician in the land ?
Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:37 pmSorry Tracy, check your Constitution. It is the Congress empowered to determine the needs of the military.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:38 pmI see this has been said by several before me, so add me to the list of those who passed along the correct information.
Where is the nuclear option that Frist threatened to use when the Dems were in the minority and wanted to filibuster?
September 19th, 2007 at 6:43 pmtest
September 19th, 2007 at 7:06 pmOh, look! Fifty-six votes! Exactly the same number as the cloture vote on the habeas corpus bill! Curious and curiouser...
Tell us again, Joe: how "independent" are you?
September 19th, 2007 at 7:09 pmCraig and Vitter voted to send our soldiers back to Iraq without proper rest or training? That's really rich. No wonder the US is the laughing stock of the world.
Heckuva Job, Neo-Cons.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:09 pmAnyone have a link to today's roll-call vote?
Would like to know how Gordon Smith voted.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:13 pmShouldn’t the soldiers and their commanders decide for themselves what they need….not politician’s in Washington D.C.?
Comment by Tracy1 — September 19, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
Congress has that authority, according to the piece of paper you cons hate, the Constitution.
It was politicians ( Bush and Baker ) who decided to extend deployments.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:20 pmRead up on what the Soldiers Really think about it before making such silly statements.
Tracy, who do you think wrote and passed the UCMJ? It is precisely the Congress that decides standards for the military, beginning with the Continental Congress back in 1775. It reflects the doctrine that leadership of the military is vested in a civilian authority, the President.
The founding fathers did this purposely and codified it in the Constitution.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power "to raise and support Armies …" and "to provide and maintain a Navy." In addition, Congress must provide for the state militias when they are called to federal service.
Article II, Section 2 states, "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual Service of the United States."
Congress has the power to declare war and to make the rules for governing the military.
So the framers spread responsibilities for the military around. The president and Congress had to work together to use the military.
It keeps us from becoming a "banana republic," and is necessary to the good order of democratic society.
It's too bad the Senators who objected to the Webb Amendment, citing "politicians can't decide for the military," can't take the time to read the governing documents of our nation.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:48 pmAnyone have a link to today’s roll-call vote?
Would like to know how Gordon Smith voted.
Add Karma Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by wiseass.org — September 19, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00341
September 19th, 2007 at 7:55 pm...
AP radio news, on AirAmericaRadio, just announced,
"the democrats failed again, to blah blah blah..."
...
nothing in the story about republiSCUM obstruction...
September 19th, 2007 at 8:03 pm...
Back in the days before Democrats regained control of the Senate, "up or down vote" was a favorite GOP talking point. Now twice in a single day, Senate Republicans resorted to the filibuster to the thwart the will of the American people.
For more, see:
September 19th, 2007 at 8:04 pm"GOP: No Up or Down Vote on Iraq, Torture."
Here's an easier link to the voting details:
September 19th, 2007 at 8:15 pmhttp://tinyurl.com/2bqh24
Of the 41 against, how many up for election in 08?
ALL will lose.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:22 pmNo shame in the GOP, especially Mel Martinez!
September 19th, 2007 at 8:31 pmBut why does the Constitution hate our troops, and hate our freedoms?
/snark
September 19th, 2007 at 8:41 pmThe elected officials and the American people have just show what they really mean by support our troops. Just lip service and no concern of how many die based on lies and greed. I notice how the public is so concerned about OJ Simpson yet turn a blind eye to the deaths and bad treatment of our troops. If only our leaders and the American people cared things would be different maybe more soldier could be alive. FYI 3 soldiers died today if anyone is interesting.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:46 pmGod damn it Democrats, make them filibuster. Stop allowing them to get away with just voting and then you say "ok too bad so sad". Make them get up there and talk until they are blue in the face. That will bring attention to what they are doing. By rolling over when they vote against cloture, you are making fools out of yourself.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:57 pmin the republican mind, when dems filibuster, they are preventing the work of government. When republicans filibuster, they are doing the work of the American people. Pretty sick when you think about it.
Especially when the "American people" they think they are doing the work for are only 29% of the population of this country.
This makes me so mad I want to kick something.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:00 pmThanks for the roll-call link upthread.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:00 pm#40 & #41.. can't disagree with your take on it in either post.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:02 pmWe need to bookmark this article and cram it down every rightie's throat that claims to support the troops.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:08 pm35 - drz
September 19th, 2007 at 10:19 pmThanks for the link.... it is bookmarked ... this is absolute proof the neocons do not support the troops. Pay attention red states... many of you are with the military in some way and YOUR SENATOR has voted to continue the abuse to your loved ones.
To Think Progress: please make it very clear that the Republicans FILIBUSTERED this amendment (like they have at least 85 other pieces of legislation). This is not a Democratic loss--56 Senators voted for this amendment. But still not enough to overcome the anti-military, anti-constitutional Bushies holding us all hostage. Many of them have to run next year. I am taking names.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:34 pmThank You Republican Obstructionists! Its all on record who voted for the troops and who voted against the troops.... Guess what? Those troops who come back with their minds all scrambled are gonna want to know EXACTLY who was acting as the enemy..... their own GODDAMN countrymen. I am so ashamed of those who repeatedly vote against our troops. So why thank you? Because your party is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD next election.... especially with paper trailed ballots, no more electronic bullsh*t. Dick Cheney had it right, the terrorists are in their last throes, only if he knew they would have an (R) by their name..... A big FU*K YOU ALL from me.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:37 pmThis is a sad day for the US. When "conservatives" don't want to conserve their own Constitution, they have gone on record by defining themselves as profiteers. Since this is a war only about oil, and since they secretly define "success" as an oil deal with the "government", the long-term occupation will be to protect the corporations as they plunder this poor country. Meanwhile, middle- and lower-class Americans suffer by an increased tax burden, a loss of family members, and a sense of frustration that the rule of law no longer applies to them. Will somebody please develop a backbone and save us?
September 19th, 2007 at 10:57 pmFor everyone’s information I was asking what SHOULD be in regards to the commanders in the field deciding what is best for the soldiers in this particular case, i.e. length of deployment. Commanders as in the COs, NOT the president of the U.S. which is a politician AND members of Congress which are also nothing but politicians. Someone please tell me where I said something to the effect that Congress has no constitutional authority to decide on what is best for the military considering everyone of you misread what I wrote.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 19, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
As if there's any difference between a douchebag like Vitter , and a Shrub ass-kissing stooge like Betrayus ?
September 19th, 2007 at 11:02 pmAnyone that would stupidly back our imbecilic CIC like Betrayus has , isn't fit to be a janitor , much less determine proper troop deployment length......
Look, when is Congress going to STOP trying to usurp the Executive Branch's Constitutional power to command the troops in a time of war? You are nothing but a bunch of back seat drivers and Monday morning quarterbacks - just let the real men do the fighting while you hide behind each other's skirts.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:35 pmMore of the same. The republicans are going to screw the Military that is giving, and will continue to give, their all. Even worse, they will turn around and somehow say that they are "supporting the troops".
Let's not even forget that this isn't same time "vacationing" as they spend in INTENSE combat. This is simply time at home. Most of that time is spent doing grueling training for their next deployment. The least we can do is allow them equal time with their families while they do it.
As for you Tracy1, you are completely wrong, not to mention I can't believe you are trying to shirk the responsibility on the military. Besides, even if you want to start passing the buck, the military commander ARE saying they are too stretched. They ARE saying that they need more training and rest time. They ARE saying that they need time with their families. But they also say that they will continue fighting because that is their duty!
Jason M. Hendler - comments are ignorant of the what it means to command troops. Congress is the one who decides how many divisions each armed service will have. That has nothing to do with "commanding the troops in a time of war". It has to do with resource allocation and oversight. Just like the Military can't just come up to you in the street and say you are drafted. If they could, the military would already have the draft going.
By the way, where were you fighting? Just curious if you are one of the "real men" that was fighting or one that was "hiding behind each other's skirts".
September 19th, 2007 at 11:59 pmLook, when is Congress going to STOP trying to usurp the Executive Branch’s Constitutional power to command the troops in a time of war? You are nothing but a bunch of back seat drivers and Monday morning quarterbacks - just let the real men do the fighting while you hide behind each other’s skirts.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — September 19, 2007 @ 11:35 pm
Can you kindly post the document and number that states we're at "war" , Jason BallHandler ?
As much as your stupid , moronic ass wants it , our imbecilic and useless CIC cannot declare war on anyone ; that is the duty of the Congress , and rightfully so.........
BTW How does it feel to be one of those that make up the most stupid part of the US population , skid mark ?
September 20th, 2007 at 12:11 amLook, when is Congress going to STOP trying to usurp the Executive Branch’s Constitutional power to command the troops in a time of war? You are nothing but a bunch of back seat drivers and Monday morning quarterbacks - just let the real men do the fighting while you hide behind each other’s skirts.
Sorry, no declared war.
Just CRIMINAL ACTS OF AGGRESSION and LIES and MURDER.
And Osama's buddy TRAITOR Bush is the BIGGEST WAR CRIMINAL.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:11 amLet the count begin for those who refused to support our troops and their families on this day when they voted to refuse appropriate R&R for our hard fighting troops (essentially committing them to careers of war). Remember these names come next November, vote them out, and let the war crimes trials begin and not stop till the last dog is hung. We are no longer recognizable as the United States of America. In God We Trust (because these bozos are insane, and sadistic).
September 20th, 2007 at 2:07 amFor those of you keeping track of who's up for re-election in 2008 and how they voted, I have a list.
Summary -- All Democrats up for re-election in 2008 voted for the Webb amendment. All Republicans up in 2008 voted against it, EXCEPT Coleman (R-MN), Collins (R-ME), Hagel (R-NE), Smith (R-OR), and Sununu (R-NH). Those five Republicans voted for it.
In this list, parentheses around a Senator's name indicates he/she will not be running for re-election.
REPUBLICANS UP IN 2008
Alexander, R-TN - Nay
(Allard), R-CO - Nay
Barrasso, R-WY - Nay
Chambliss, R-GA - Nay
Cochran, R-MS - Nay
Coleman, R-MN - Yea
Collins, R-ME - Yea
Cornyn, R-TX - Nay
(Craig), R-ID - Nay
Dole, R-NC - Nay
Domenici, R-NM - Nay
Enzi, R-WY - Nay
Graham, R-SC - Nay
(Hagel), R-NE - Yea
Inhofe, R-OK - Nay
McConnell, R-KY - Nay
Roberts, R-KS - Nay
Sessions, R-AL - Nay
Smith, R-OR - Yea
Stevens, R-AK - Nay
Sununu, R-NH - Yea
(Warner), R-VA - Nay
DEMOCRATS UP IN 2008
September 20th, 2007 at 9:13 amBaucus, D-MT - Yea
Biden, D-DE - Yea
Durbin, D-IL - Yea
Harkin, D-IA - Yea
Johnson, D-SD - Yea
Kerry, D-MA - Yea
Landrieu, D-LA - Yea
Lautenberg, D-NJ - Yea
Levin, D-MI - Yea
Pryor, D-AR - Yea
Reed, D-RI - Yea
Rockefeller, D-WV - Yea
I am very glad that we are taking a second look at this war. People are finally realizing not only that it we can win, but they are realizing how vital it is that we don't retreat from AQ.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:59 amI am doing my best not to explode. What does this have to do with giving the troops the rest they need? You disgust me. What does the Webb amendment have to do with your comment? Are you saying that we should continue to lengthen deployments and decrease rest, refit, and training time?
Good use of smoke and mirrors without being relevant to the issues.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:04 amI am very glad that we are taking a second look at this war. People are finally realizing not only that it we can win, but they are realizing how vital it is that we don’t retreat from AQ.
Comment by Roger_Roger — September 20, 2007 @ 10:59 am
Who is this "we" and these "people" you're brainlessly mentioning ?
The same stupid 3rd of the country that consists of the horseshit GOP's base ?
When is the time going to come to pass when you morons realize there is nothing to "win" , and that bringing our troops home isn't "retreating' , it is a sign that we are returning what doesn't belong to us ; Iraq to the Iraqi people .....................
September 20th, 2007 at 11:28 am#50
Comment by MCMetal — September 19, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
“Anyone that would stupidly back our imbecilic CIC like Betrayus has , isn’t fit to be a janitor , much less determine proper troop deployment length……â€
Including someone like Webb who isn’t half the soldier that Petraeus is or was.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 11:55 am
How "accomplished" is Betrayus compared to Colin Powell , nitwit ?
September 20th, 2007 at 12:01 pmGet a clue and stop worshipping at the feet of the worst president and administration in US history , you Chimpy tool...........
#52
Comment by DanCaveman — September 19, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
“As for you Tracy1, you are completely wrong, not to mention I can’t believe you are trying to shirk the responsibility on the military.â€
Putting the responsibility on the military to decide what they need to win a war is putting too much “pressure†on them? No you are wrong to think that it’s better that a bunch of politicians decided critical issues that effect how effectively they can perform their jobs.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
The Bill was written by a former military man that has seen combat ; the same troops are under the supreme command of a military deserting moronic pansy , yet there isn't a peep from you about the ridiculous nature of that ................
September 20th, 2007 at 12:08 pm#63
Comment by MCMetal — September 20, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Has Powell expressed his approval of the Webb amendment?
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
Has Powell expressed his approval of staying in Iraq and/or 15 month-long combat deployment of our troops , half-wit ?
September 20th, 2007 at 12:17 pmThis has nothing to do with micromanaging a war. The commanders are free to conduct operations as they see fit. They are mandating that troops get the necessary rest and refit that ALL THE COMMANDERS AGREE IS NEEDED!!! Even though they know this is needed, the military is obligated to work with what they have. If this occupation is so necessary, why haven't the Republicans or the President called for a draft. That would make this amendment easy to abide by. I guarantee that Democrats would pass it. Besides, you are very ignorant of what the commanders want. You ONLY listen and cite Petraeus, but you ignore General Abizaid, General Casey, General Newbold, General Batiste, General Zinni, General Shinseki. For some sick reason, you seem to be supporting an operation that does nothing but harm the United States and are even unwilling to make the needed sacrifices to execute it.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:41 pmI forgot to mention all the actual commanders on the ground... the Lieutenants, the Captains, the Majors, and the Lt. Colonels - I guarantee they would have no problem with the amendment. But I am sure Petraeus outweighs all them too!
September 20th, 2007 at 12:43 pm#65
Comment by MCMetal — September 20, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
Kinda like that pansy BJ Clinton. BTW Webb has never commanded any greater that a platoon size and has never devised war plans or large scale strategic operations. Again if Webb didn’t consult with the current commanders in Iraq about his amendment proposal then he had no business proposing the amendment.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
The "pansy" Clinton was never a male cheerleader , either .........
September 20th, 2007 at 1:03 pmBTW How many 'current commanders' did the Chimpster and Co consult , before stupidly and illegally invading Iraq , skid mark ?
PS
How many in the Pentagon/military do not deem specific time at home as a necessity after seeing combat , GI Joke ?
You are attempting to argue with nothing more than empty partisan GOP talking points as your 'facts' or 'proof' ; you are nothing but a GOP/Chimpy backing stooge.........And it shows.
#67
Comment by MCMetal — September 20, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
Answer you own question? Powell isn’t in charge of the troops though so why are you mentioning someone who is irrelevant to the decision making in Washington D.C.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
Hey Nitwit
In case you haven't noticed , and judging by your ignorant and stupid comments , you haven't ; everyone is irrelevant when it comes to decision-making in DC when in opposition to this garbage administration and the worst president in US history.
Betrayus has forfeited all his years as a solid soldier and stained his entire reputation by going along with this PROVEN , USELESS "STAY THE COURSE" PLAN that is simply dubbed under a different name........"The Surge".
September 20th, 2007 at 1:25 pm#75
I knew a few of those “male cheerleaders†in college that could bench press you with one arm not to mention twist you into a little pretzel.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:41 pm===============================================
Based upon what ?
A comparison of them to yourself ?
Do not speak of those you have absolutely zero knowledge of , stupid ass. You know nothing about me ; or anything else for that matter , obviously.
BTW
Can you cite any of the commanders in Iraq that are in complete opposition to Webb's amendment ?
PS
A Chimpy rim licking stooge's opinion on the outcome of a brawl between Clinton and the Chimperor is about as relevant as asking Shrub to judge an oratorical contest.............
#74
Comment by MCMetal — September 20, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
“In case you haven’t noticed , and judging by your ignorant and stupid comments…â€
You haven’t cited yet where Webb has consulted with the military commanders in Iraq about his amendment yet you still cite someone who as a matter of fact hasn’t said ANYTHING about the Webb amendment or it not passing. You are attempting to fool everyone here that you know what Powell does or doesn’t think about Webb’s amendment. Talk about stupid arguments…you take the cake.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
I've never claimed to know Powell's personal take on Webb's amendment , you typical GOP bullshitter ; I merely (and accurately) stated that Colin Powell is against our continued presence in Iraq , along with being in opposition to 15 month long tours of duty.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:47 pmBTW
How many current Democratic Senators served in the military voted against Webb's amendment ?
None ?
How many current horseshit GOP Senators served at all ?
Frankenstein McLame ?
Wow, what an all-star roster............
Well Tracy1,
General Zinni (former head of CENTCOM) said:"couldn't believe what I was hearing about the benefits of this strategic move." As well as outlined 10 key mistakes in the rationale and execution of the "war".
General Shinseki (Chief of staff of the US Army at the time) when asked how many troops would be needed said: "something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems." He also had many conflicts with Rumsfeld and was marginalized and undermined by him.
General Newbold resigned in protest. Wrote a Time Article on "why Iraq was a Mistake"
General Batiste also resigned in protest. He wrote an Op-Ed that the WSJ wouldn't print, and had it posted on ThinkProgress.org. He is a longtime Republican by the way.
General Clark (retired in 2000) wrote a book and is very critical of this administration (citation needed).
General Casey (senior coalition commander 2004 - 2007) "In January 2007, General Casey implied his opposition to a troop surge." - wikipedia
“Sometimes, the More Force Is Used, the Less Effective It Is,†-- “Tactical Success Guarantees Nothing.†These little tidbits are from your wonderful General Petraeus' counterinsurgency manual. He also (although I don't have the cite) suggested that much greater numbers at the beginning were necessary - also ignored.
Tracy--
It doesn't seem to bother when the military is "micromanaged" as long as it is in areas that really matter to the war....like initial troop levels, how to fight, why not to disband the Iraqi military.... but you are sooooo outraged with the "micromanaging" actually does nothing to interfere with "commanders on the ground" except ensure they are well rested and trained after YEARS OF INTENSE COMBAT -- I know...combat doesn't seem so bad from the comfort of your home, but it really is no picnic.
The congress is not mandating how, where, when, and what kind of troops to use - that is hardly micromanaging. If they need more troops to maintain these levels, the Bush administration (commander in chief) should be calling for a draft - it is his job to let congress know when he needs policy like that.
Yes, I want us out of Iraq; however, while we are there, we should be giving the troops the necessary rest they need. You and the Republicans are the only ones that don't see that. If you are worried a draft would turn even more support for the peace movement, then maybe this "war" is not worth fighting. But I am sure you will go on only listening to those that tell you what you want to hear.
I listened to Petraeus, but his arguments do not come EVEN CLOSE to outweighing all of the OTHER EXPERTS and information that I have gained.
Maybe you should try thinking.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:23 pmTracy–
Maybe you should try thinking.
Comment by DanCaveman — September 20, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
That appears to be a physical and scientific impossibility.............
September 20th, 2007 at 2:32 pm#69
Comment by DanCaveman — September 20, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
“I guarantee they would have no problem with the amendment.â€
Of course they would want to have more leave time, but that is why there is a chain of command where those above them know what it takes to win wars. What you would like to have and what you know it takes to win are many times at odds with each other. BTW I know a captain in the 1st Cav, 3rd Brigade combat team who is Iraq right now that would love to have longer leave time, but he says that his COs above him make those decisions.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
That "chain of command" you speak so fondly (and ignorantly) of , leads all the way to a military deserting chickenshit who knows absolutely nothing about speaking correctly in public ; let alone anything about fighting or winning a "war" , stupid ass...........
September 20th, 2007 at 2:41 pmKnock off trying to claim that any type of policy that is implemented , has anything to do with anyone or anything other than Chimpy and his whole godawful administration ; that's where every disaster begins and ends.
BTW Tracy1
Chimpy's Idiotic Iraq Adventure is not a "war" ; it is an (illegal) invasion and occupation ........................Nothing more.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:42 pmYOU DON'T GET IT!! This isn't about LEAVE! They are not trying to give the Military more VACATION TIME. They are trying to make sure they have some time at home -- CONTINUING THEIR JOBS AND TRAINING TO GO BACK!.
Way to ignore everything I wrote. I even specifically mentioned it is NOT Leave. Your support for the troops is so evident. Military service isn't a cakewalk at home in the US, let alone in combat. What will it take for you to stop supporting the President and start supporting the country?
Just keep screwing the only people that are sacrificing for this occupation that YOU seem to support.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:53 pmTracy1,
It sounds like you didn't even read any of the articles I linked to (namely Time article and OP-Ed from General Batiste.)
I forgot to mention General Hagee's criticisms, but you would have come across them if you read the information you are too lazy to read.
Ok, so you don't think this amendment is congress' decision - how about you? Do you agree with the premise? Do you agree with the occupation? WHY? Give me a good argument that says this is worth all the lives, all the blood, all the sweat, all the tears, not to mention the economic future of our country. Convince me!
September 20th, 2007 at 3:12 pmTracy1,
Oh yea - a couple questions - are you eligible to serve in the military? If so, why haven't you signed up to fight against this horrible threat to our existence? Or is it only worth OTHER peoples blood and lives?
September 20th, 2007 at 3:15 pm#74
Comment by MCMetal — September 20, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
“Based upon what ?
A comparison of them to yourself ?â€
Well unless you are over 6′-2″ and 220 lbs….well maybe both arms. 440 lbs is quite a bit. BTW don’t try to speak about things you don’t know, i.e. trying to equate male chearleaders as “pansys†or somehow that they are weak.
“Can you cite any of the commanders in Iraq that are in complete opposition to Webb’s amendment ?â€
Well I haven’t heard any of them speak out in favor of it including those former commanders that DanCaveman mentioned. That should answer your question.
“A Chimpy rim licking stooge’s opinion on the outcome of a brawl between Clinton and the Chimperor is about as relevant as asking Shrub to judge an oratorical contest…â€
I agree my opinion about Clinton vs. Bush is irrelevant….but the again so is yours about this whole Iraq war.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Hey dumbass ..........
September 20th, 2007 at 3:23 pmI was an NCAA DivI football player ; are you trying to tell me I don't know who and what male cheerleaders are , am not qualified to speak about them , or the era that Chimpy was a male cheerleader is somehow 'beyond my scope' ?
And BTW Why do I need to be bigger than you to knock anyone and everyone on their ass ; you believe you need be 6'8" to kick everyone's ass , especially yours and/or male cheerleaders ?
No wonder you're a Chimpy leg humping stooge; you're moronic on every topic and in every aspect........
As for your ridiculously stupid assertion that commanders are not in favor of Webb's amendment ; since when has any active military person spoken up about anything that goes against Chimpy and Co in any way until they are ousted ?
In ending ; my opinion does matter on Iraq , skid mark.......I'm an American taxpaying , voting citizen ; your imbecilic hero in the Oval Office works for me , not the other way around.
But you're right about your dopey opinion not mattering in relation to a supposed brawl between Clinton and Shrub ; you're one of the losers that laughably tries to claim that Shrub is a great president.......BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
How does it feel to possess the IQ of a potted plant ?
That is your OPINION based your political views. BTW those other “experts†aren’t as quailified to speak about how to defeat an insurgensy than Petraeus. He wrote the book adopted by the the entire U.S. military.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/263154.ctl
“Maybe you should try thinking.â€
Maybe you should read his manual he co-authored.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Maybe you should realize we're in the wrong country before spewing more stupid shit about fighting a "counter-insurgency" , jackass...........
September 20th, 2007 at 3:26 pmI support what my brother and my friend’s in Iraq say….LET THE COMMANDERS MAKE THE DECISIONS and tell the politicians to butt out.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
So that means that Chimpy should shut his stupid pie hole and his "Stay The Course/Surge" imbecilic plan should be removed and Betrayus' own plan should be implemented , correct ?
September 20th, 2007 at 3:37 pm#82
Comment by MCMetal — September 20, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
I am referring to Petraeus who know more about winning wars than ANY on the idiots you support in congress including Webb.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
You are referring to something that simply doesn't exist ........
September 20th, 2007 at 3:41 pmBetrayus is merely the facilitator of Chimpy's idiotic and stupid plan(s) ; any claim you make to the contrary , is bullshit ...........
Hey Tracy1 , you stupid ass............
WASHINGTON: In another sign of U.S. struggles in Iraq, the target date for putting Iraqi authorities in charge of security in all 18 provinces has slipped yet again, to at least next July.
The delay, noted in a Pentagon report to Congress on progress and problems in Iraq, highlights the difficulties in developing Iraqi police forces and the slow pace of economic and political progress in some areas.
It is the second time this year the target date for completing what is known as "Provincial Iraqi Control" has been pushed back. The Pentagon report submitted to Congress on Monday hinted at the possibility of further delays.
The intent is to give the provincial governments control over security in their area as a step toward lessening, and eventually ending, the U.S. security role.
Thus far seven of the 18 provinces have reverted to Iraqi control.
The above more of the purported "progress" you claim is being made , jerkoff ?
You're a disgrace as an American , you douchebag.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:44 pmTracy1,
"You are not a miltary commander and have no military experience so don’t attempt to speak about things you don’t have personal knowledge about."
I have fought there, so I DO HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of the military as well as the Iraq battlefield.
"I am still waiting for you to cite a former commander, in the ones you cited no less, that have expressed their support for Webb’s amendment."
I have not had a chance to discuss it with them. I am inferring from their views on the STRAIN ON THE MILITARY.
BTW those other “experts†aren’t as quailified to speak about how to defeat an insurgensy than Petraeus.
They were in the positions well before Petraeus...Oh yea, and everything they predicted from 2002 until NOW has been RIGHT. Maybe you ought to read.
Petraeus DID write a counter insurgency manual , but he is not following his own recommendations on troops strength - foot prints - operations etc...
You are going to believe what you want to believe. That is obvious. You don't want congress to "micromanage", but the military can continue their operations however, they want IF they have enough troops. Since this bill will decrease the number of troops, it will be impossible to continue WITHOUT THE DRAFT. That is the point. IF THIS IS SOOOOOOOOOOO IMPORTANT, THEN INSTITUTE THE DRAFT AND GIVE THE TROOPS THE NECESSARY REST AND REFIT!!
If the troops levels need to be raised or the military can't continue without giving necessary rest, then the ONLY OTHER OPTION IS A DRAFT!
What you don't get is that Iraq is making us less secure. It is not giving Iraqis freedom. They want us out....then we should leave.
I am tired of fighting...I am tired of an incompetent administration, but I am most tired of the 30%ers that insist that things are nice and rosy by believing the same people that said Iraq had WMD, and Iraq was working with Al Qaeda, and Iraq was seeking yellow cake from Niger, insurgency is in its last throws, and we know where the WMDs are....I could go on and on, yet we let him continue to decide the fate, and we carry the burden and the caskets.
I would gladly give my life for this Country and its ideals - not for the President that trashes what they mean.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:52 pmNecessary political change in the Middle East that will stop the spread of Islamic fundmentalism from taking over a part of the world that will cause global economic ruin. If you think this could have been accomplished by negotiations first then you are about as gullible as Clinton was when he got smoke blown up his butt by the terrorist Arafat.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
Since when has anyone with any working brain inside their head ever considered Christian fundamentalism as inherently "better" than the Islamic version ?????????????
If you believe that you're going to win over the majority of Islamicists by illegally invading Islamic worshipping countries on a whim , you're a lot more stupid than I originally believed you to be ; and that's a pretty astounding statement , seeing as how I view you Chimpy adorers as being fundamentally retarded to begin with..........
September 20th, 2007 at 3:56 pmNecessary political change in the Middle East that will stop the spread of Islamic fundmentalism from taking over a part of the world that will cause global economic ruin.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
Ummm...if the current strategy is working so well, why do ALL 16 of our intelligence agencies say that Iraq has LESSENED OUR SECURITY? Why as Al Qaeda strengthened? Why has the Taliban come back from extinction? Well into our FIFTH year of combat, don't you think there should be VERY DEFINITE progress?
September 20th, 2007 at 3:57 pm#89
Comment by MCMetal — September 20, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
I get the feeling that you want the same opportunity I gave BARTLEBEE a couple of times here. BTW your opinion about this war is STILL irrelevant considering you can’t seem to do much other than talk and pop off with insults. I thought that TP would enforce the “Terms of Useâ€â€¦I guess not.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
The only thing I "want" , is for Chimpy leg humpers like yourself to post FACT ; not White House fantasy and GOP rhetorical bullshit.
The only things I have seen you post , is opinion ; something that is meaningless when you consider the source is emanating from those that have been monumentally incorrect about EVERYTHING having to do with Iraq these past 5 years.
TP should be more focused on not allowing repeated drivel and fairy-tales to be posted on a constant basis ; especially when it is spewed by someone that is part of the group that makes up the most stupid part of the American population ........You 25%'ers.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:00 pm#92
Comment by MCMetal — September 20, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
What makes you think that Petraeus doesn’t support the surge?
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
I didn't claim that ; I merely correctly stated that the "Surge" isn't Betrayus' idea nor his plan.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:02 pmIt is Chimpy's ; you know it , I know it, everyone knows it...........
When your wonderful ONLY SOURCE General Petraeus was asked whether "if we do everything you outlined...would that make the US safer?" He DID NOT KNOW.
The same 16 intelligence agencies agree that the likely hood of the "terrorists" following us home OR even taking over Iraq is "unlikely". They put these out in the NIEs (I think I a quarterly basis).
This is pointless. You keep spouting the same drivel from the same people that have been wrong for the last 6 1/2 years. You continue to ignore the advice from ALL the people that have been consistently right. In Bush's words "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again".
September 20th, 2007 at 4:10 pmBTW Tracy1
Your claim that Betrayus knows more about winning wars than any of the "idiots" I supposedly support in DC has a minor caveat to it ; Chimpy , the horseshit GOP , and you imbeciles that still support both , have been MONUMENTALLY WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING IN RELATION TO IRAQ.
Why do you believe you should be given an unlimited supply of time and chances/theories/plans/ideas ?
This is not an indictment of Betrayus ; no matter how hard and desperate you and the rest of the losers that still support our idiotic president and his imbecilic Iraq Adventure want to claim it is.......
You've proven you don't deserve it on any level; end of story........Now stop posting your Chimpy Adoration Syndrome-driven nonsensical responses.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:11 pmWhen has I ever said that things in Iraq are “nice and rosyâ€. When has Petraeus said such a thing? During a war do you really expect the president to say “we are losing†considering everyone around the world, including our enemies will hear it? Even during WW2 Roosevelt would have never said such a thing and their were many times that we were actually “losingâ€.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
The big differences ?
Roosevelt never claimed we were "winning" when we weren't ; and Roosevelt didn't invade a sovereign nation without provocation nor illegally.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:18 pmChimpy has ...........He's a lying sack of shit , and you're a disgace and no American ; you're as phony as a $3 bill.
Oh , and BTW Tracy1
Roosevelt insisted on viewing ALL THE ACCOUNTS/NEWS on the daily occurrences of every battle everywhere ; Chimpy insists on only seeing positive news , and positive news alone.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:21 pm"War president" my ass ; he's a delusional moron , and you insist on apologizing for the jerkoff.
You're an ass.......
#99
Comment by MCMetal — September 20, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
“If you believe that you’re going to win over the majority of Islamicists by illegally invading Islamic worshipping countries on a whim…â€
The Iraqis didn’t have much of a problem with the U.S. removing Saddam and neither did his neighbors. It’s what we did AND didn’t do after the invasion that has the Iraqis in such an uproar. Again the plan to win the peace sucked and Rumsfeld was the one who devised it. Bush was dumb to go along with it.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
Do you laughably (and stupidly) believe there was any "plan" to begin with , outside of occupation ?
I don't recall the majority of Iraqis calling for our help ; and please , do not try to use human rights violations or any other bullshit excuse as some type of 'reason'.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:24 pmAre you going to claim that Iraq comes anywhere near the type abuses that happen in Saudi Arabia or China daily ?
Yes one would expect a lot of progress, but even after 30+ years of trying to bring peace to the Middle East through political negotiations NOTHING has been accomplished even before 9/11.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
And a lying unintelligible moron's imbecilic plans/ideas are the solution ??????????????????????
Boy , that's just brilliant............
September 20th, 2007 at 4:32 pm#102
“TP should be more focused on not allowing repeated drivel and fairy-tales to be posted on a constant basisâ€
That would go against something you don’t care about….free speech.
“….by someone that is part of the group that makes up the most stupid part of the American population ……..You 25%’ers.â€
That 25% includes the vast majority of the soldiers in Iraq who you the opportunity to say what you want. I guess they won’t hold it against you. I see you are just like Kerry.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Funny how "free speech" wasn't your major concern when attempting to cite TP's Terms of Use earlier , eh hypocrite ?
September 20th, 2007 at 4:48 pmBTW
You don't speak for anyone except your own useless self ; much less THE VAST MAJORITY you stupidly claim believe as you do and are soldiers fighting in Iraq.
A claim by your Chimpy/GOP backing stupid ass is about as believable as White House statements on the current state of Iraq.
PS
Do not ever again insinuate that the troops in Iraq are there to fight for me or any of my or any American's FREEDOMS ; that is the biggest bunch of bullshit your side has ever conjured up , and you should be slapped for even attempting to claim that.
You're a real piece of crap.
103
Comment by MCMetal — September 20, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Well if he is in support of the surge then what’s your point?
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
Do you believe he has any choice if he intends to be in charge , you delusional and ignorant fool ?
September 20th, 2007 at 4:49 pmWhat planet are you from , and why have you come to mine ?
I see you are just like Kerry.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
And I see you're just like Chimpy ; stupid and a chickenhawk...........
September 20th, 2007 at 4:50 pmHow the hell do you know what Bush sees on a daily basis?
Again why are your a constant liar when you agreed to TPs “Terms of Use?â€
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
How many reports have been given claiming that ?
How many reports have been written that claimed Chimpy insists on VIEWING EVERYTHING ?
And whom are we to believe ?
The same jackass that claimed they didn't know the extent or the ferociousness of the coming Katrina hurricane , when there is VIDEOTAPE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY ????
Why are you an apologist and constantly trying to deflect criticism from a documented liar and moron ?
This site more important than the US itself to you ?
You're a crybaby and a joke.............
September 20th, 2007 at 4:58 pm#112
Comment by MCMetal — September 20, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
I guess you will have to wait and see.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
Yeah , until Jan 2009 , anyway.
BTW
September 20th, 2007 at 5:01 pmYou're as pathetically stupid as all Chimpy adorers are ; trying to invoke the memory of Truman and Churchill as a comparison to George W Bushelofcocaine is hysterically insane..............
If you aren’t going to abide by something you agreed to they why are you here? Free speech here is allowed with certain restrictions i.e. people like you who are obviously not smart enough to debate without spouting off personal insults.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHHH, but you claiming I'm "just like John Kerry" is really a term of endearment ?
Do you actually read your own idiotic posts before hitting the "Post-I agree" with your clicker ?
=============================================
“You don’t speak for anyone except your own useless self ; much less THE VAST MAJORITY you stupidly claim believe as you do and are soldiers fighting in Iraq.â€
I have two friends in Iraq and one in Afghanistan and one brother who just returned from Qatar which is far more than you can speak for. They aren’t on your side…by a long shot. Do you honsetly think that the majority of the soldiers in Iraq are on the anti-war side?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 PEOPLE OUT OF A CURRENT 160,00 IS A MAJORITY ??????????(Not to mention the 1 million or so US soldiers that have served in Iraq)
Since when ?
As I stated to you before , and in your own inimitably stupid way , you ignored it ; you DON'T KNOW ME , NOR WHO AND WHAT I AM OR WHOM I KNOW.
You're just talking as if you're some type of an authority , to coincide with your idiotic attempts to defend the indefensible moron in the Oval Office.
Post fact , not your clueless assessments of others.............
==============================================
“Do not ever again insinuate that the troops in Iraq are there to fight for me or any of my or any American’s FREEDOMS ; that is the biggest bunch of bullshit your side has ever conjured up , and you should be slapped for even attempting to claim that.â€
As long as you don’t ever insinuate that majority of the troops don’t agree with why we are in Iraq. That an even bigger bunch of crap that your side has conjured up.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
Point out where I claimed that I speak for the entire US military , or their beliefs on Iraq , and I will finally grant you credit for something......
September 20th, 2007 at 5:19 pmIf you can't , you better apologize to me , and admit you are as full of shit as our Chimperor in Chief , and a colossal hypocrite for claiming I'm in breach of TP's Terms of Use while you're similarly guilty of the same.......
#117
Comment by MCMetal — September 20, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
You actually think Petraeus doesn’t believe anything he is saying while testifying before Congress? You actually think that he would be put into command of all of the troops in Iraq if he didn’t believe in the mission? Who is the fool?
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
Arrogance isn't restricted to the delusional moron in the Oval Office ; while Betrayus may have a high opinion of himself , do you believe that those that preceeded him were any less capable and/or less confident in their own abilities ?
BTW
Would Betrayus or anyone be put in charge by this stupid president of ours if they spouted 1 tiny iota of dissension or disagreed with anything in relation to Chimpy's worthless plan ?
You are obviously a tremendous fool
September 20th, 2007 at 5:24 pm#121
Comment by MCMetal — September 20, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
“How many reports have been given claiming that ?â€
Couldn’t tell you. You don’t know either.
Againm how the hell do you know what Bush sees on a daily basis?
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
I've read numerous reports , including the new biography on Chimpy , that states exactly that.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:33 pmPlus , his own statements , incompetence and behavior lead to that being the only conclusion ; a well-informed individual would not constantly make the laughably stupid pronouncement his dopey ass does daily......
122
Comment by MCMetal — September 20, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
“You’re as pathetically stupid as all Chimpy adorers are ; trying to invoke the memory of Truman and Churchill as a comparison to George W Bushelofcocaine is hysterically insane…………..â€
Just stating the facts about both of them getting dogged for their positions and policies while they were in office. You need to read some presidential history books.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 20, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
You need to cease and desist with invoking the names of others and circumstances and situations that are completely different and unconnected with Chimpy and his actions and uselessness.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:39 pmBTW
You may claim that I need to "read some presidential history books" ; funny how you do not find it odd that the moron you blindly and stupidly support knew absolutely nothing about the country he illegally invaded and has now occupied.
He didn't even know that there is Shia , Sunni , and Kurds that all live in Iraq ; I guess you find it more of a concern to try and chastise those that are infintely more intelligent and perceptive on a blog site than yourself , than the 'fearless leader' you blindly worship to have the slightest inkling on what is going on ......Way to go.
Tracy1,
You want to question my service, fine - I was with 2nd BTN 24th Marines 4th Mar Div. I served in the Sunni Triangle (you know, the "Triangle of Death"). I am an 0331 (machine gunner) by trade, I did a lot of work in the company COC. I was an enlisted Sgt. I was a Cpl that was out for 3 years and re-enlisted in 2004 to fight with my fellow Marines and picked up Sgt in 2005. I didn't agree with invading Iraq, but I thought I could help my country when my country needed me and be part of the solution. We provided the security, but the reconstruction never came - now the Iraqis want us OUT! I don't think I need to give you any more than that. Let me know if you still want to question my service. Maybe you want me to describe what it is like to load casualties on a evac helicopter...let me know what other gory details you would like.
As for my comment about the Generals - I was being facetious...LIKE I SAID IN MY PREVIOUS POST, I inferred their support for the Webb amendment by their statements regarding the military being stretched too thin, as well as their views on Iraq etc... do some research on your own.
You talk about "losing" and "winning" in black and white terms. We have not lost a single battle. The military is doing its job (fantastically). The problem is that you can't force the Iraqis to agree with us (much less like us), just like I can't convince you.
You still have not given me one good reason for staying. Your reasons are all based on what your crystal ball is telling you about apocalypse when we leave. I am telling you, that trends in the numbers are working against us. The things we are trying to accomplish are worse since we invaded (security, freedom, terrorism). Also, occupations do not tend to work out very well for the occupier - check your history books.
Security IS WORSE - not debateable. The CIA, FBI, NSA and 13 other intelligence agencies that put out the National Intelligence Estimates are coming up with this - you know more than them? They say the same about the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The Taliban was almost exterminated in 2003 before we started diverting troops to Iraq. Now they are stronger than ever and have the most productive opium crops EVER.
"BTW why has NATO not taken up the slack in Afghanistan and given our soldiers a break from the majority of the operations there?"
Make excuses all you want and blame whoever you want. That doesn't stop the fact that we are being counter productive in Iraq and would have plenty of troops for Afghanistan if we weren't stuck in the Quagmire of Iraq.
You can slam John Kerry all you want, but he earned his right to criticize the Vietnam War. His opinion seems to be pretty much in line with MOST of the Vietnam vets I have talked to (as well as most historians).
All I ask is just read the Op-Ed from the 82nd Airborne with an open mind. Read the Op-Ed from General Batiste with an Open mind. Read General Newbold's article in Time with and open mind - at least acknowledge their good points and expertise. Weigh it against what the President and others (who have been consistently WRONG) are saying. That is all I can ask.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:46 pmTracy1--
By the way, check out President Eisenhower's farewell address. It is funny he warned IN DETAIL about exactly what has happened to the United States.
Oh yeah, remember Bush and Condi stating that no one could have foreseen the situation in Iraq? Check out what Cheney (secretary of defense at the time) said. He made similar statements in 1992 and 1996. Still think these guys are telling the truth.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:51 pmI know some people serving there!
September 20th, 2007 at 6:24 pmHow do you know this? A military time poll in 12/06 seems to disagree. Every heard of stop loss or fighting for your fellow Marines or Soldiers?
He didn't have a choice in the plan. He was put in charge after it was implemented. The previous people in charge voiced disagreements, but were overridden by Rumsfeld and Bush.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:32 pmTracy1--
Let me start out by saying, although I am getting frustrated by your views and feel that you are not examining all the information equally, I appreciate the civil discourse – even though it got heated at times. This will be my last response since I don’t seem to be getting anywhere, all I can ask, as I did before, is that you look at the well written articles I mentioned as well as many other experts with an open mind.
Now to answer you questions,
I did not know that it would not change. First of all, the elections were in November of 2004. I was already in Iraq and voted by absentee ballot. Most of the lies and deceit did not come out until 2005 (maybe late 2004 when I didn’t have a lot of media access).
I would argue that it is already in an all out civil war – as Ret. General Clark said “under the veneer of the US militaryâ€. We are just muddying the waters and confusing the real issues, actually preventing the resolution of their differences (whether that be segregation or some sort of compromise). In addition, I truly believe that the violence would decrease quicker and the total death count (both Iraqi and obviously US would be lower) if we pull out. That is not to say that we couldn’t leave troops in allied nations (don’t think we can really say friendly anymore) to help contain any actual threats. Even so, do you remember that Ahmed Aminejad (sp?) Was not very popular and only got power because of our interference in Iraq – Tehran and parts of Iran were becoming much more open to western ideas. It seemed that leading by example worked better than by force.
This argument is not valid and I am not sure where to start. First off, almost 4000 brave Americans have been killed and more than 30,000 severely injured (not including mental disorders). That is a much larger price than all terrorist attacks in history combined. Second, I would disagree – the sniper shooting in VA in 2002 could be considered a terrorist attack and others, but that is irrelevant. The sun has not exploded either, that does not mean that the Patriot Act is protecting us from the sun exploding. As you can see, the lack of an attack does not mean it was related to the Patriot Act. If you remember, there was not a terrorist attack for EIGHT years prior to the USS Cole (think it was eight years). No patriot act then. Terrorism around the world as increased and the sophistication has increased. (this is only the first article I came across - there are many more). Anyway, who needs terrorists when our own government is trying to keep everyone scared of the boogey man so that they act out of fear, not with rational thought?
Don’t forget The WORST terrorist attack on US soil happened on George Bush’s watch. Plenty of warnings and intelligence was given and warnings that indicated this attack without any Patriot Act. George Tenet had repeatedly tried to get the administration to take OBL seriously (in his book as well as other aides corroborate – I am too tired to find references, sorry). Condi Rice had said that OBL was not a threat as late as 08/2001.
The Taliban, Regrouped And Rearmed
Google search of Taliban + Resurgence (too tired to read all the articles and pick the best ones)
Well, as much as I would like world support, and agree that would be great, we are really not in a position to request help when we started basically told the UN to screw off. We squandered all the good will other countries (even hostile nations) felt towards the USA after 9/11. The point is, with or without their support, (and we probably would have had it before invading Iraq and exhausting foreign troops and good will), we were doing a great job in Afghanistan.
To be honest, I have not seen all of his quotes, nor where he directly accuses specific troops I will concede that I am not informed enough to make an intelligent statement. I do know that there were atrocities on both sides. From what I read, he was trying to say that if Lt. Calley was culpable in the My Lai massacre, so was the chain of command all the way UP. I don’t agree with generalizing atrocities to all the troops; however, there is NO EXCUSE for any sort of torture, rape, and other atrocities committed, even by our own troops. I guess I don’t have enough information to defend or condemn Kerry. I was referring to being my belief he was against the Vietnam War and blaming the administration and government in charge for putting the military in that horrible position (not necessarily the military – but I could be wrong). I need to do more research.
That is very interesting, because I talked to a Marine that was with me that went back in 2005 -2006 and he said it was much worse (and it was pretty bad where we were). I talked to another Marine friend of mine that is a company grade officer that works only with Iraqi forces out in the open (he and I have differing opinions on how to handle Iraq), but he said it is worse. I talked to him a couple of months ago – he is finishing up his 15 months there (was back a couple months ago for a couple weeks before returning to Iraq). Another friend of mine (another Marine company grade officer) is going back for his 3rd tour, and I will ask him how it is when he gets there. All of these Marines are Infantry and don’t spend much (if any) time in the Green Zone or other large insulated bases.
It WAS a poll of the subscribers; however, you are right, the article points out the respondents are more educated, experience, and higher level that the average military personnel. It DOES show a trend though. These are the more experienced military that can make more informed decisions. In addition, the trend is still undisputable, you can, at least, expect a similar trend in the rest of the military. (Obviously it is not full proof – but there are many more polls – again, I am too lazy to find).
That is my point; they found the General to agree to get credibility for their plan. They sifted through many other (unprecedented) number of Generals before settling (recently) on Petraeus. I am not judging his service (or even that he believes what he says) but, many others, just as qualified have disagreed and felt it necessary to speak up (also unprecedented).
As for Rumsfel’s support of the “Surgeâ€, that was not my point. My point is that Rumsfeld (as a tool of the Bush administration for 6 years) ignored Military leaders almost the entire tenure as Secretary of Defense.
I am not sure if anyone will read this, but I hope so (I spend too much time on it to be discarded).
September 20th, 2007 at 10:15 pm