The Republicans have made their commitments

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SMM, Sep 19, 2007.

  1. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #1
    We have heard much rhetoric, for not supporting the war, from some republicans lately. Well, two important pieces of legislation were recently brought to the senate floor. One was the Webb Amendment and the other was the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act. Passage requires a 60/40 majority to escape filibuster (the same thing they have done to kill other legislation). Well, guess what? Only a couple republicans actually had the grapes to vote their conscience. Both appear they will fail 56-44.

    Those who have been accusing the democrats of not effecting change need look no further than these examples as to why change is not happening. The republicans are holding on to every last pillar of power they own. There are some I believe would love to vote their conscience. However, their corporate masters are squeezing them into compliance. Now is the time to make them pay the bill.

    Those of you who want change, and have republican senators and congressmen, it is time to stand forth and make a difference. I am attaching a link to Crooks and Liars. They have both stories and who is voting with the WH. I only have one republican congressman in WA. Fortunately, he is in my district. Last week, when he pledged his fealty to Bush, my wife and I immediately contacted our local caucus to sign up. I will work very hard to ensure he is not in office next term.

    If you do not like what is going on, then please get involved. It does make a big difference.
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    Good for you. I live in Illinois and we don't have too many Republicans here (thank god). But I will do what I can to make sure they are out of office next election. This has gotten ridiculous.
     
  3. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #3
    I'm kinda of surprised there weren't already threads filled with comments about this. Guess we're just not surprised anymore. Wondering if anyone will even bother defending the failure of either of these. You'd think it would be obvious, habeas corpus and letting our troops (who we claim to support) have much needed rest time, but I guess not.

    Don't the Republicans realize that stuff like this is just going to hurt them overall, or do they just not care anymore? Or do they think we support them? Because we don't. We really, really don't.
     
  4. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #4
    I think the logic (if you want to call it that) goes something like this:

    Republican point of view: not supporting the war is going to hurt our re-election chances with the Republican base.

    Everyone else's point of view: supporting the war is going to hurt the chances of any Republican being elected at all.

    I guess a lot of these Republicans feel that, thanks to the wonders of gerrymandering, they live in Republican-safe districts. But I dunno...I wouldn't count on it. The mood in this country is ugly.

    I foresee more big gains for the Democrats in '08.
     
  5. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #5
    See now the problem here is that all the idiots (people who voted for bush and watch fox news) who don't pay attention to politics are going to blame "the democrat congress" for this, and next term they're going to elect more ****head republicans.
     
  6. imac/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #6
    I can see why many did not want to vote for the Wedd Amendment. Having congress dictate how much time our soldiers can spend deployed and how much time they must have back at home is crazy. Let our military leaders determine their capabilities. This amendment is trying to set up some arbitrary limit to hamstring our military so Bush either has to reduce the number of troops deployed or find a way to get a lot more troops. I agree that our troops are being abused by this war, but it is war. I also would like to see reduction in forces. This amendment, however, is placing control of our military's abilities in the hands of Washington representatives which do not have the experience or required knowledge to determine the capabilities of our fighting men and women.

    The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act, on the other hand, should have been a no-brainer. OUr legal system is there for a reason and Americans have always (until MCA 2006) had the right to Habeas Corpus. I can't see why republicans have tried to subvert this right.
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    Our military leaders' recommendations on length of deployments are already being ignored by the administration. This only helps the military, it hardly hamstrings it. Bush is doing that now. Are you trying to tell me that Bush is better at deciding troop deployment lengths?
     
  8. imac/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #8
    It should not be congress's role to determine this and I do think that Bush as the Commander in Chief is in a better position to determine deployment lengths. That is one of his jobs as President. Just because he is doing a bad job doesn't mean that congress should come in and change the role of our Commander in Chief with an amendment. And it does hamstring our military to have a limit on how long soldiers can be deployed and a minimum time at home requirement. If those troops are sitting at home, fully capable of redeploying, but have not yet reached the time requirement, they will not be able to be used to support the troops that are deployed. Our military needs to be flexible enough to be used in a wide variety of potential conflicts and situations and this amendment would limit the functionality of our forces. Should our military be using what congress has tried to pass as guidelines? In my opinion yes. But this amendment ties the hands of our military leaders. We do not need an amendment to protect our troops from their Commander in Chief.
     
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    Not from what I've been reading. There is a link to a PDF of the amendment on this page. It sounds to me like the standards are set by the military, not Congress. This only seems to be saying that Bush will have to abide by the standards set by the military, it doesn't say Congress sets the standards. I don't see anything wrong with making Bush play by the rules.
    http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7751

    What you're saying sounds like a scare tactic right out of Bush's mouth. I think we definitely need something to protect our troops from abuse by their Commander in Chief. That should be obvious at this point. The military should be flexible, but not to the point that it breaks.
     
  10. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #10
    you know, the democrats do have other options. they could attach a "bring home the troops" amendment to every bill that comes up. that only takes 51 votes. they could refuse to pass any legislation at all - heck, i might encourage that on general principle.

    there is mroe they could be doing. i'm glad they're finally getting around to doing something (but not until backed by every poll in the country :rolleyes: )

    shiftless dems and evil reps.
     
  11. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #11
    Exactly how I feel. EVERY time a bill is introduced in Congress that will bring the troops home, and it is vetoed, the Dems need to turn around and pass the same exact bill again. They need to keep doing it. They need to let people know they are trying to end the war, but Republicans are stonewalling their efforts and Bush is vetoing it every time it lands on his desk.
     
  12. imac/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #12
    This amendment does not give the Army or Marine Corps the flexibility to change their deployment schedules as needed without additional Congressional acts (from what I read at the same site). Section 1804 limits Army deployments to 1 year and Marine deployments to 7 months. Section 1805 then requires a period of time between deployments equal to the length of the deployments. The Dems have created this in order to get rid of the surge and bring many of our troops that are on the 15 month deployement schedule home early. While I do not think it is a bad idea to start bringing home our troops, I hate to see Congress dictate how long our soldiers are deployed. It is not their job. They should choose to either fund a war or not fund it. They should not meddle in how a war is actually fought.

    I am no Bush supporter in how he has used his troops but our Commander in Chief is the leader of our military. Every decision he has made for better or worse has been based off his knowledge of military capabilities. If congress can limit our military's capabilities in this manner it makes it more difficult for our people to carry out the mission. This is not a support the troops amendment, this is a pull out of Iraq amendment because we will not have the numbers personnel needed to complete the mission. This amendment will relieve the democrats of any blame of pulling out of Iraq while at the same time making it even more impossible to succeed. In reality, it is a brilliant piece of legislature.
     
  13. SMM thread starter macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #13
    You have it right Lee. Also, many of the bill sponsors and backers are ex-Military officers, or retired ones. They are not like the WH panty-wastes that are causing the problem. For cheese to call Bush "Commander-In-Chief" is enough to gag a maggot, although he is factually correct.

    Cheese - the Striker Brigade is from a local Army Base to me, Fort Lewis. Many of its soldiers have been breaking ranks and speaking to the press. They are pleading for someone to do something about these extended tours and short rotation schedules. They are good soldiers and do their job. But, they need this mess managed. We are now hearing daily reports from Iraq/Afghanistan, that speak of a total cluster-f**k going on over there.

    I read this morning, Blackwater, and some other private companies, have over 160,000 troops in Iraq. Added to the 130,000 US troops, we are 60% levels of the max we had in Vietnam (500,000). The rationale for the war was based on outright lies. The WH threatened and coerced the media, they did not control (FOX, etc), into supporting their cause, or at least keep quiet. They promised a short quick ‘police action’, knowing they were making a commitment which would last years.

    The WH, the inner core, have no experience in war. They are politicians (and crooked ones at that). Anyone true military/intelligence people on the team (Powell) were forced into a political role. We have the worst of all worlds running this show. How any intelligent person can support show blind loyalty, beyond all reason. This is truly the epitome of chauvinism.
     
  14. imac/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #14
    So congress should refuse to pay any more money for this war and force the president to bring home the troops. The democrats have the power to do that. They won't because they do not have the balls! So they try to subvert the power away from the military and hurt the effort without actually forcing it to end.
     
  15. halfprep455 macrumors regular

    halfprep455

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland USA
    #15
    The way things look now, especially if we go to war with Iran, its very unlikely that any Republican will be elected president. It also looks like the Democrats will probably get an even larger majority in congress.
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    They don't have the votes even if they did find the balls. You need 60 votes to get past the GOP fillibuster, and 66 votes to override the president's veto.

    They can't even get an up-or-down vote on the Webb amendment. The GOP is on a pace to shatter all previous records for legislation fillibustered. And of course they were ready to eliminate the fillibuster back when they were in control. Remember how sacred the up-or-down vote was two years ago? Exactly.
     
  17. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #17
    Apparently we do.

    No it hasn't. It's been about keeping this war going. Even at the cost of the military and our soldiers, who are now completely stretched to the limits. If the executive is within their rights to dictate policy, so is the Congress. But as you pointed out, they won't anyway, so it's a moot point.

    This is only going to cost the GOP in the next election, as people will only do what the Dems know they will, and vote for them by default.
     
  18. imac/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #18
    I could be wrong about this (I am no expert in the congressional process) but I thought that they actually passed a war funding bill in the Spring. In order to pass that bill the dems had to vote for it because the republicans can't pass a bill by themselves. They decided to support the war. When the next spending bill comes up the dems have the ability to end the funding by not passing a bill. They are in complete control as a party over all bills that actually get passed since they are in the majority. They might not be able to control which bills do not make it through because of the filibuster, but they have the power to stop any bill from going through.

    On the other note, I feel that the fillibuster is an important aspect of our government process that gives some power to the slight majority. I felt the same way when the republicans had the majority and I felt they were power grabbing idiots to try to eliminate the fillibuster as one of the tools that the dems (at that time) had to use. This keeps a small majority from running hog-wild over the other party that still has 40%+ of the public support.
     
  19. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #19
    They couldn't cut funding because then they'd get criticized for not supporting the troops. Even though they still are getting criticized for that. There's no way the troops would stay over there with no funding though, they would have to be brought home. Even Bush wouldn't do that, so that argument was just ridiculous.

    But they didn't have the votes anyway, and as we can see, don't even have the votes for this Rest Bill, which though more subtle and supportive of the troops, is still obvious in it's intentions.
     

Share This Page