Democrats Back Republican Resolution on U.S. Troops (Update3)

[babylonsister]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=auZxfFGT3rr0&refer=

Democrats Back Republican Resolution on U.S. Troops (Update3)

By Nicholas Johnston

Feb. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Senate Democrats pledged support for a resolution drafted by Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia that opposes President George W. Bush's Iraq strategy, adding momentum to the proposal that may be voted on next week.

snip//

Warner's provision opposing cuts in funding for U.S. troops earned the ire of Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who has introduced a separate measure that would end funding for forces deployed in Iraq after six months, forcing their withdrawal. He has called passage of a nonbinding resolution ``a sideshow.''

``The American people have rejected the president's Iraq strategy, and it's time for Congress to end our military involvement in this war,'' Feingold said in a statement yesterday. ``We must redeploy our troops from Iraq so that we can focus on the global threats that face us.''

Other proposals from both Democrats and Republicans are likely to be considered during debate of the Warner resolution. Democrats, including Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, may push for measures capping the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.

Republicans, including John McCain of Arizona, are likely to propose a resolution endorsing the president's plan but calling on the Iraqi government to meet certain benchmarks for continued U.S. support.

more...

[Hosnon]

1. Warner's resolution is actually fine with me. We are dealing with politicians and

they have to take baby steps and test the waters.

Pass this one and then a new bar will be set.

[maryallen]

6. No, they don't have to take "BABY STEPS!"

The longer the troops stay in Iraq, the more young Americans will be killed ... for an immoral and unjust war. Every single day that passes while we "take baby steps" toward the goal of withdrawal, some mother's child needlessly dies ... for a treasonous lie.

Had Nixon pulled out sooner from Vietnam, thousands of American lives would have been saved. Ironically, when we did leave, it was a haphazard affair that only compounded problems for Vietnamese who had worked with us, and additionally, proved deadly for an inordinate number in Cambodia.

My son has already been to Iraq once. With the hidden "SURGE" numbers deliberately concealed from the public -- 35,000 - 48,000 troops will be sent instead of the 21,500 originally reported by Bush in the State of the Union -- the likelihood of my son's unit being sent back have increased greatly.

Since you're so generous with the lives of other people's children by outwardly supporting such a piece of warm shit -- an UNBINDING resolution -- I'm sure you will be able to assure me that one of your children -- or you, yourself -- has served -- or plan to volunteer to serve in Iraq.

[Hosnon]

7. They don't have to take baby steps but they will.

It's just the nature of politics. I would prefer that not be the case but politicians, especially those in the Senate, are quite timid.

It's quite a stretch to assume that I am "generous" with the lives of other people's children. I'm quite accustomed to such ad hominem attacks from conservatives and I expect more from those here. I would love nothing more than for all of the troops to come home now but a resolution that says that right now will not pass. The Congress will not cut funding for these troops, for two reasons: 1) As I said before, politicians are too timid and 2) There are not enough congresspeople in either house to override a Presidential veto.

It doesn't appear that the "all or nothing" approach will work. If the gradual approach will work - but take a bit longer - I am OK with that. If Congress cannot override the veto and force the troops home, i.e., the "all" option is not viable, the only way to get the troops home is step by step. It may take longer but that is better than not taking place at all.

[ryanmuegge]

8. Indeed, the politics of weakness. With the exception of Sanders, they're all gutless punks.

.

[saigon68]

9. They are gutless punks like Limpmann

[patrice]

2. Any idea when the vote will be and who the leaners are? n/t

[babylonsister]

3. No, I don't. With all the differing resolutions, they sound like they're

in disarray. Also, this new news of not only the doubling of troops for the surge, but the additional funds this admin will be asking for, might give everyone pause (I'm hoping).

[rodeodance]

4. Neither Russ Feingold nor Chris Dodd will support (was on Dobbs

tonight. I think it was the dobbs show)

[gratefultobelib]

5. This is very damned depressing.

[Heidi]

10. Kick.

:kick:

[kristopher]

11. Wash Times: Majority in Senate support 'stay the course' resolution

Majority in Senate support 'stay the course' resolution
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 2, 2007

A bipartisan majority in the Senate yesterday united behind a firm "stay the course" resolution on the war in Iraq, despite searing public criticism from both sides in Congress over President Bush's handling of the war.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070201-113344-6086r.htm


WTF?
Dems skunked again
or
is this just delusional?????

[EFerrari]

12. More than a million calls were made today to senate offices

in opposition to the "surge".

:shrug:

[pscot]

15. I called both my senators' DC offices

to protest this softball resolution that's being lobbed at the Whitehouse. I'm glad to learn I'm not the only one. CALL! Make your voice heard.

[fooj]

21. It's the Washington Times...

Black is white. Cold is hot. Up is down.

I don't believe it. Not for a minute.

[EFerrari]

23. Yep. Next: Democrats see Elvis in a tortilla. lol

[regnaD kciN]

13. Unless "stay the course" means "no surge"...

...it's delusional.

But when has the Moonie Times been known to lie in order to push their agenda? :sarcasm:

[Up2Late]

14. delusional, it's the Washington Times!

They are like Fox "news" in the belief that, if you just speak your lies with enough confidence, the RW Lemmings will believe you and then....follow you right over the cliff.

[donheld]

16. up is down, black is white, war is peace...

[struggle4progress]

17. Senate Critique of Bush’s Iraq Plan Wins New Support

http://By CARL HULSE
Published: February 1, 2007

WASHINGTON – A revised Senate resolution criticizing President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq, offered by Senator John Warner, Republican of Virginia, drew new support today as two of the authors of a sterner resolution of disapproval said they would accept the Warner compromise.

Senators Joseph R. Biden, Democrat of Delaware, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said they would back Mr. Warner’s new wording, which among other changes removed language that Democrats saw as creating a potential loophole.

“The bottom line of our resolutions is the same: Mr. President, don’t send more Americans into the middle of civil war,” said Mr. Biden, one of the authors of the resolution that was approved last week by the Foreign Relations Committee, which he chairs.

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, was the third author of that plan; on Wednesday night he had agreed to support Mr. Warner, the ranking Republican on that committee ...

www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/world/middleeast/01cnd-cong.html?ref=world

[struggle4progress]

18. Bush allies scramble to stop Iraq policy defections

POSTED: 0710 GMT (1510 HKT), February 2, 2007

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A day after Senate Democrats and a leading Republican reached agreement on a resolution "disagreeing" with the president's new Iraq strategy, Bush allies scrambled Thursday to prevent more Republican defections ...

The Senate is expected to take up the resolution late Monday.

Tuesday, at a closed-door meeting of Democratic senators, a "strong consensus" developed that Democrats should back the Warner measure, according to Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the chamber.

The deal was sealed after Warner agreed to add language from a number of competing resolutions to his own, including a paragraph stating that Congress should avoid cutting funding for the troops ...

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/01/us.iraq/

[struggle4progress]

19. Opponents of `surge' unite

By Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman
The Washington Post
Published February 1, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Democratic and Republican opponents of President Bush's troop buildup plan joined forces Wednesday night behind the non-binding resolution with the broadest bipartisan backing: a Republican measure from Sen. John Warner of Virginia.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced the shift, hoping to unite a large majority of the Senate and thwart efforts by the White House and GOP leaders to derail any congressional resolution of disapproval of Bush's decision to increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq by 21,500.

Although the original Democratic language was popular in the party, it had little appeal among Republicans. Warner's proposal drew support from both sides and was retooled Wednesday to maximize Democratic and Republican votes.

The revised resolution would express the Senate's opposition to the troop buildup but would vow to protect funding for the troops. The resolution does not include the Democratic language saying the troop increase is against the national interest but also drops an earlier provision by Warner suggesting support for some additional troops ...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0702010240feb01,1,2318969.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

[LynnTheDem]

20. Wow! The Wa Times LYING??!

AGAIN??!

Yep.

Gee, call me shocked.

Not.

[keopeli]

22. The headline is slanted, but the premise is true.

A non-binding resolution, by definition, has no impact. The words of the resolution itself precludes congressional intervention by cutting funding.

However, this is not "stay the course" since we never saw any resolutions for or against the war in the previous Congress. The legislature moves at a glacial pace - but, it is moving!

Peace

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[loveandlight]

26. Feingold opposes the Warner proposal, that is enough for me

Feingold is one of the few clearly directed anti-war senators right now, and if he thinks it is bad, then I will go with his opinion. I believe that Warner's compromise is so watered down that it amounts to nothing. Especially since it includes a provision not to reduce funding for the troops. That is all * needs to keep doing what he is doing. He puts them there, the Senate won't refuse to fund them and that is that. A clear resolution that states opposition to this increase and refuses to go along with extending the war to Iran is what is really needed, but that is probably not going to get through because of Republican foot dragging. I wonder if the best strategy at this point is to just put out the kind of tough resolution that we the people want and let the Democrats vote on it and whatever support comes from the Repubs will come and let that be. Even if it doesn't pass. Does this kind of watered down resolution, which in the end may hold us back further down the road really make a difference? Or does it just muddy the water, let * do what he wants any way, and give the Repubs a chance to say hey, I voted against the surge.

[Supersedeas]

27. How vague ambiguous and nonbinding can McCain make those benchmarks

[moondust]

28. Feingold/Dodd in 08!!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

29. A REPUBLICAN Resolution????

Wasn't this supposed to be a "compromise" resolution? Interesting press release. It almost makes it look this whole resolution business was the GOP's idea. The ONLY reason ANY resolution is getting passed is because we only have a razor-thin majority in the Senate and couldn't get enough Republicans to support the tougher (but still non-binding) resolution. Does anybody here think that the GOP would be passing ANY resolutions against Bush's policy in Iraq had they remained in control of Congress/Senate? Neither did I. Normally I don't pay a LOT of attention to media bias but this just really jumped out at me. It's almost like the GOP is getting credit and the Democrats are just signing on to it when we all know that it is clearly the OTHER way around! I personally think that, although something is better than nothing, the Democrats should've stuck to their original resolution (non-binding as it may have been) and held an up-or-down vote (which seemed so important to the GOP in the last Congress) on it and/or let it get filibustered. Even if it didn't get passed or filibustered to death, at least the public would be able to see for themselves who's trying to force a change in policy and who's trying to continue to support the same flawed/failed policies. :banghead: I predict that if and when a viable progressive political party emerges, the Democratic (the "establishment" wing of it anyway) party will quickly become obsolete.

[knight_of_the_star]

30. I love how they phrase this

Like it wasn't OUR idea in the first place or that it is NOT a bipartisan bill but that the GOP is actually cleaning up their act.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

31. It should read "COMPROMISE" resolution

This resolution was sure as heck NOT the Republican's idea in the first place!