Republican Senators Say F-U to the American Public
by Pamela LeaveyRepublican Senators just issued a big F-U to the American public on the Senate floor. Screw the fact that the majority of the American public are against the Iraq War at this point, Republican members of the Senate went ahead and just “blocked a full-fledged Senate debate over Iraq,” with a 49-47 vote — “11 short of the 60 needed to go ahead with debate.”
Democrats launched a withering attack on Bush’s war policy in the run-up to the vote.
“The American people do not support escalation. Last November, voters made it clear they want a change of course, not more of the same,” said Reid. “The president must hear from Congress, so he knows he stands in the wrong place, alone.”
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, echoed Reid. “If the Republicans want to stand by their president and his policy, they shouldn’t run from this debate. If they believe we should send thousands of our young soldiers into the maws of this wretched civil war, they should at least have the courage to stand and defend their position,” he said.
Senator Dianne Feinstein nailed it yesterday on CNN’s Late Edition, saying if the Republicans blocked the vote, “It’s obstructionism.”
“This is not tolerable in a situation where it’s the number one topic in the nation, and the Republican party prevents the Senate of the United States from debating.”
I’m not surprised at all by this move by the Republicans to back their lame duck leader in his I’m the “decider” decision making role on Iraq. I’m disgusted… make that beyond disgusted.
UPDATE: Here’s the Roll Call Vote. Unless it’s wrong Majority Leader Harry Reid has got some explaining to do in my book. Reid’s vote explained: Majority Leader Harry Reid voted “nay” utilizing a “procedural vote that allows Reid to propose the bill again on the floor.”
Filed under: Bush Admin, Democrats, In The News, Iraq, Politics, Republicans, Senate | Get Permalink or trackback |
Pamela,
This is a procedural vote that allows Reid to propose the bill again on the floor.
Mass
Thanks – I wasn’t watching and wondered what the heck that was about. Will fix the post.
The arrogant “Decider” has again gotten his way! King George II refuses to change course in Iraq even though: the Baker Commission had alternative views, his own top field generals advised him to change course (they have been replaced by those who echo Bush), the American people in the 2006 sent him a message that they wanted change, and some of his primary republican legislators are not in support of him. None of this makes a difference to “The Decider”. The Senate republicans did a huge disservice to both the military and the country at large by blocking debate. American’s take note of those who stiffed debate and make sure that you vote them out next time around!
It seems unlikely, although there exists ample cause, that there will be a movement to impeach Bush. The impeachment process takes so long, that his remaining two years would likely be up before we could get him ousted.
What really needs to be done is an amending of our Constitution to permit presidential recall. King George’s approval rating now stands at an all time low of 28%. Several US states, like California, have a recall provision in their state constitutions. In fact the recall was used recently to remove a California Govenor from office. Great Britian also has an option to recall.
Now that the American people can truly see what damage he has done in the 6 plus years of his reign, they should have the opportunity to register a voted of “no confidence”. It makes sense to me that the electorate responsible for electing a president, should also have the legal opportunity to remove him from office when he is not representing their best interests!!
Both the President and the Republican Senate miniority have essentially thumbed their noses at the American electorate! It’s just amazing to me that our King, whose stated objective is to democratize Iraq, works to prevent debate at home. When people of conscience are summarily depicted as “traitors” it’s a travesty. The strong arm tactics of “The Decider” seem scarely reminiscent of 1950’s McCarthyism delivered by the ruthless and fanatical Senator Joe McCarthy!!
If you think this is McCarthyism, you are showing that you know nothing about history. Do you really believe that he is not changing his approach to Iraq? Are you that blinded by your ideology that you cannot see what he has done? He changed his Secretary of Defense to a guy who was on the Baker Commission. You cry that he does not make changes so he offers to add troops and make stringent requirements of Iraq, but then you say that is that same as it was…but it is not.
I would like to know why you want us to lose the Iraq War so bad. Well, politically I understand it helps your side out just like Vietnam did, but really, why? Do you not want a democracy to succeed in the Middle East? I did not know that people had gotten to the point that they would put their political leanings ahead of the good of a people and please do not tell me that the people were living better under Saddam because that simply is not true.
Secondly, I also know that you want to keep America focused on Iraq because that is how you will keep people from realizing that our economy is doing quite well now and has been for a year or so. You in your accusations of McCarthyism have yourself become quite McCarthesque by accusing accusing accusing without offering any proof and ignoring the facts that exist. You are exactly what you accuse others of being.
Thoreau Dogood
As a small business owner who talks to small business owners daily, the economy sucks. What planet are you on?
Dear Mr. T. Dogood: Why do you obviously view issues involving the well being of this county as being either “your side” or “my side” propositions? Instead of making disparaging remarks about those with different opinions, wouldn’t it make more sense to attempt to reach an “our side” mentality? Do you share President Bush’s view that the nations of this world are all, “either for us or against us”? Can no shades of gray exist? Do you support President Bush’s cowboy management style that would exhort our enemies to, “Bring it on?”
When Mr. Bush campaigned for the presidency in 2000 he assured us that he, “Would be a great uniter, not a divider.” Well as the old saying goes. “the proof is in the pudding”. The very fact that you must utilize such disparaging remarks in response as, “I obviously know nothing about history” and that, “I want us to lose the Iraq War so bad” show clearly that this President has failed utterly in his stated mission of bringing us together.
Unlike what I perceive by your comments, I have never equated dissent with treason. This country was formed on a foundation of informed dissent. I may totally disagree with your viewpoint but I will fight (and possibly die) for your right to say it. It is so very tragic that on 9/12/01 most all nations of the world were united in their sympathy for and allegiance to America!! The outpouring of support and grief was unbelieveable. President Bush, however, did not build on this empathy. Vice President Chenney was quoted as saying that we don’t require the support of old Europe with it’s old ideas. The rhetoric of this administration has been one of division and they have succeeded well in setting us against one another both at home and abroad. President Bush went on record just days ago in saying he didn’t care who opposed his surge policy, he was going forward with it, “as long as his dog and Laura agreed”. I would truly like to know how the President measures the degree of his dog’s support. With his current approval rating now down to an all time low of 28%, it may not be long before only the dog and Laura support him!
In conclusion, just let me say that, contrary to your assessment. I feel that I do know a little about history, as I graduated from college with a history major and have taught American history. President Bush Sr. made the right choice by ignoring his Generals advice to invade Iraq back in 1993 after the successful completion of Operation Desert Storm. We had achieved our objective of freeing Kuwait. The military insisted that he should permit them to enter Iraq, march on to Bagdad and topple the evil dictator S. Hussain. However, Bush the elder, would not consent. He said that invading Iraq would create total bedlam. Bush Sr. went further by saying that the overthrow of this dictator would create a power vaccum and possible civil war. He was right!! Then, years later, President Bush II was asked if he had consulted with his father before decideing to pre-emptively invade Iraq. His response was no, “I asked a higher Father”. I guess we should feel fortunate with the knowledge that our current President has a direct hot line to God. And, yes Mr. Dogood perhaps those who seek a different approach, aside from being traitors, should also be considered sinners as they dare to doubt the word of God as spoken by His ambassador on earth, “The Decider”
Now, truly in conclusion, I really resent your statement that wanting to lose helps “my side” just like it did in Vietnam.” I am a proud Vietnam veteran who served with military intelligence in the 25th Infantry Division from 8/67 thru 8/68. No Mr. Dogood, I was not rooting for us to lose this war! In a way, wouldn’t that have represented a death wish? However, I, like Senator Kerry and so many other loyal Vietnam Vets, realized once returning state side the utter folly in pursing it. This, Mr. Dogood, did not make us traitors. We just realized long before President Johnson was willing to admit it that there never really was, “a light at the end of the tunnel” When President Nixon tried to decive us into believing that we had achieved, “peace with honor” each an every veteran knew the real truth, we had at long last “lost” this un-winable war. If you have not already done so, I would respectfully suggest that you visit the hollowed ground of the D.C. Vietnam War Memorial. In cold gray slate are carved 58,000 names of brave service people who paid the ultimate price!! These were America’s finest!! I personally, although we lost, can not bring myself to say that they died in vain. However, I am willing to say that the faulty policy used in pursing the war contributed to their deaths. I hope and pray, Mr. Dogood, that years hence we are not standing at the foot of an Iraq Memorial listing the names of valiant heros whose deaths could have been prevented if debate, negotianting, and sound judgement had been employed.
Standing and clapping for Buzz!
As for the people living better under Sadam, there are interviews on camera with Iraqis who flat out say living under his oppression would be preferable to what they got and will have.
700,000 dead and 2 million displaced? No end in sight to the violence, killing, lack of safe water, jobs, sewer and electricity, health care and education? Some semblance of normal life?
I want to see the Iraqis succeed. If they have to choose a longer path to democracy, I can live with it. What we have now, with 14 new military bases in the country, are the people and the region overwhelmingly angry and afraid of us for destablizing an already tenuous coexistance.
We haven’t just asked for change. The specific change had to do with more diplomacy (or is that SOME diplomacy?) rather than more military. What good is it to appoint someone from the ISG to the SOD if you ignore the report’s recommendations?
Buzz, very well said!
clap! clap! clap!
Dave? Is that you? OMG, It is the famous ranter himself! Miss you buddy!