WASHINGTON -- In the Senate, after weeks of skirmishing, Republicans easily turned back Democratic legislation requiring a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days. The measure set no fixed deadline for completion of the redeployment, but set a goal of March 31, 2008. The vote was 50-48 against the measure, 12 short of the 60 needed for passage.
Senate Democrats promptly said they would try again to force a change in Bush's policy beginning next week when they begin work on legislation providing money for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Good news!
This defeat for the Dems is a defeat for the terrorists.
From The New York Times:
The action in both houses threw into sharp relief the Democratic strategy of ratcheting up the pressure, vote by vote, to try to force the White House to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. But it also highlighted Republican unity in opposition; in the Senate, only one Republican, Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, voted with the Democrats.
Republican leaders said they counted the day as a victory. “It is clear now that the majority of the Senate opposes a deadline for the withdrawal of troops,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, countered, “The Republicans are rubber-stamping the president’s failed policy. That’s the message here.”
Why is it when Republicans vote in a block it's rubber-stamping, but when Dems tow the party line it's principled, reasoned, and the right thing to do
...The Democratic resolution in the Senate would have redefined the United States mission in Iraq and set a goal of withdrawing American combat troops by March 31, 2008, except for a “limited number” focused on counterterrorism, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and protecting American and allied personnel. The House measure set a withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008.
March 31, 2008 or September 1, 2008 -- I'd like to know why the Dems picked those as the magic dates.
What is it about those specific days that makes troop withdrawal make sense?
It's ridiculous.
...The only Republican defection was Mr. Smith of Oregon, who said in a statement, “Setting specific dates for withdrawal is unwise, but what is worse is remaining mired in the quicksand of the Sunni-Shia civil war.”
Smith voted for doing something, in his words, unwise.
That's not too bright, is it?
Two Democratic Senators, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, crossed party lines to oppose the withdrawal plan. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent and staunch supporter of Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy, voted as expected with the Republicans. Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican running for president, was campaigning in Iowa at the time of the vote.
Ned Lamont wouldn't have voted the way Lieberman did.
Boo Hoo.
It's another case of a defeat for the Dems being a defeat for the terrorists, which is good for the country.
Democrats asserted that the only alternative to their plan was endorsing, once again, the status quo in Iraq. In a debate steeped in anger and dismay, Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia declared, “We were wrong to invade, we were wrong to think victory would be quick or easy, and we are wrong to stay on in occupation that earns us only hatred — with no end, no end, no end in sight.”
I can imagine Byrd repeating "no end." I'm surprised he only said it three times. When he decides to emphasize a phrase, he doesn't like to let it go.
"No end, no end, no end." I wonder if that really is an exact quote.
Republicans declared that the resolution would be devastating to the American war effort, “like sending a memo to our enemy,” or “giving notice to the other side of when we’re going to depart,” in the words of Mr. McConnell.
Of course, setting a date for troop withdrawal is no way to fight a war. It's definitely no way to win a war.
Clearly, the Dems are demanding that the U.S. withdraws from Iraq defeated and demoralized. They vow to fight on to secure that defeat. They vow to have it no other way.
I don't understand how they can do that in good conscience.
I really want to believe that our elected officials in Washington, Dem and Republican, are Americans first; that they would put the good of the country ahead of the good of their party. I want to believe that our national interest is more important to the Dems than their personal political power goals.
I want to believe that but I can't. It's not true.
As the Dems learned yesterday, you can't always get what you want.
No comments:
Post a Comment