Now Playing: George Bush and a ruined Republican Presidency aren't worth this.
Topic: Politics
Current Republican behavior in the Senate is not patriotism, it certainly is not any kind of statesmanship and does not have the highest good of the country in mind.
Can you imagine all those who voted against these amendments stuck in a room with the families of the next ten troop casualities and in all their senatorial dignity trying to explain the noble reason why they could not support the legislation?
It's one thing to defend a policy with weak & partisan republican talking points on Meet the Press. It's another to offer weak & partisan republican talking points to a grieving family - especiall when there is no guarantee you're speaking to one of the 30% left in this country who buy
bullshit.
Longer Deployment, Shorter Dwell Time
July 23, 2007, By Rick Maze, Army Times [Excerpts]
Three separate proposals aimed at cutting some of the stress of combat deployments for service members were rejected by the Senate during debate on the 2008 defense budget.
On July 11, Senate Republicans twice used a parliamentary procedure to block amendments that had support from a majority of senators.
One, sponsored by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., promised all service members deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan would spend as much time at home as they did in the war zone.
The second, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., would have restricted Iraq and Afghanistan deployments to 12 months for Army, Army National Guard and Army Reserve troops and to seven months for the Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve.
In both cases, Republican leaders, trying to protect the administration's Iraq policy, refused to allow up-or-down votes and threatened endless debate that could only be cut off with at least 60 votes.Webb's amendment was shot down on a 56-41 vote, while Hagel's was defeated 52-45.
When Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., offered a nonbinding resolution that simply asked the Defense Department to try to keep deployments to no longer than 12 months, even that failed, 51-44, on a straight up-or-down vote.
Webb and Hagel are decorated Vietnam combat veterans whose recommendations about combat-related matters affecting troops and their families normally would be given great deference in Congress, where lawmakers profess to put the troops first.
Hagel said he was a bit astounded that an amendment looking out for the troops did not get support, and said it was a sign of the difficulty facing Congress as it considers more sweeping legislation to change the Bush administration's Iraq strategy.
But the efforts of the two combat veterans were derided as micromanagement and political gamesmanship. Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, accused Webb of "wasting time" with an amendment that "we know the president will veto."
Graham, who has served in Iraq and is the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services military personnel panel, called Webb's amendment a "terrible idea."
"If you want to take care of the troops, let them win," he said.
The consequences of the amendment would be "devastating," Graham said. "In the name of protecting the troops, we should not destroy a surge the troops are involved in that is beginning to defeat the most vicious enemy known to the planet - al-Qaida."
The plan is a surge authorize, advocated and defended by not only those among the least militaryily-experienced ever to govern, but by individuals who have proven themselves anything BUT militarily, tactically nor logistically wise.
In that regard, what you see are political fools voting to support failed and inappropriate judgements of other political fools - all in the name of party unity - and at the expense of the entirety of The United States of America.
This country needs to plan on buying lots of brooms in time for 2008 - assuming the 2008 elections are still in place and fools have not attempted something even more foolish.
