Webb's bill would have split units up. Any unit with replacement servicemembers would be broken up with some staying while others returning home as called for with his bill. That makes no sense unless you just don't care about cohesion. This one was easy to figure out. Nice try, bad timing, last March this probably would have passed. Oh, Reid wouldn't settle for this would he back then. Just too stubborn I guess. Had to have a date certain.
Timing
details
Posted by peter at September 19, 2007 03:33 PMErin, At least Reuters got the headline right!
Senate Republicans block Iraq bill
Posted by Seven of Six at September 19, 2007 04:15 PMWebb's bill would have split units up. Any unit with replacement servicemembers would be broken up with some staying while others returning home as called for with his bill. That makes no sense unless you just don't care about cohesion.
This was the exact same argument I heard in the Senate today from Jon Kyl and Jim Bunning. Two Senate members who know nothing about military service!
They have something in common with you peter.
It's up to the Pentagon to split up units or not. If they deploy together, they should be coming home together. Once again a republi-con talking point that does not make any sense.
Funny, the last people who should be talking about cohesion of our troops are the hypocritical, non caring, repukes!
And you can also add,
Bill defeated that would have hindered war effort.
"... for prosecuting enemy combatants."
Definition of enemy combatant:
An “enemy combatant” is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.”
Let me point out the salient passage:
"...may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict.."
But let me read the definition again.....
Nope, no mention of habeas corpus.
SoS, it still says "blocks" instead of "filibusters." The 'pukes are pussies, and the headlines cover it up. But it doesn't matter. We know that they, and their followers, and anyone who enables the slow, but steady dissection of our rights, and of the military, and of justice system, are really nothing but stupid little scairdy cats. That's why they want us gone. Because we know. And nothin's gonna change that fact, is it?
Posted by iamcoyote at September 19, 2007 06:09 PMand right on cue enters jj. Peter, the game is up. We all know you are jj and probably Baggey too.
Posted by Judith at September 19, 2007 06:14 PMBill defeated that would have hindered war effort.
We are not fighting a war. It's a fucking occupation.
Posted by Seven of Six at September 19, 2007 06:17 PMiamcoyote,
"Because we know."
But what we all want to know is the dimension in which what you "know" is actually true.
Regards,
Bagley
"Baggey..."
Judith, as usual, you crack me up!
Regards,
Baggy
Posted by Bagley at September 19, 2007 06:33 PMIn the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban.
How again did this involve Iraqi's?
Who wrote this... "Gonzo"?
Posted by Seven of Six at September 19, 2007 06:37 PM7of6,
I do believe that there is an organization in Iraq named Al-Qaeda in Iraq (sometimes referred to as Al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia).
Now, I do not believe that metion of this organization was made in the recent bin Laden communication, but he was sticking to the Democratic talking points and, as you so aptly point out with your question: the Democratic talking point is to avoid any acknowledgement that al Queda is actually in Iraq.
Posted by Bagley at September 19, 2007 06:41 PMthe Democratic talking point is to avoid any acknowledgement that al Queda is actually in Iraq.
Why are they in Iraq?
Because we invaded Iraq.
"Why are they in Iraq?
Because we invaded Iraq."
Well, should'nt we be killing them where they are?
Posted by Bagley at September 19, 2007 06:47 PMWell, should'nt we be killing them where they are?
Right, so when they weren't there... we invaded?
And since that time, we have lost 3800 lives, 30,000 thousand injured, 1 trillion dollars spent, created a new battle front for Al Queda and took us away from our objective in Afghanistan.
Couldn't have played into Osama hands any better.
You make a lot of sense, bags.
Posted by Seven of Six at September 19, 2007 06:57 PMAs I recall, the last Congress threatened to change procedural rules to eliminate the filibuster. What is stopping the weanie Dems in Congress from threatening the same action?
Oh yeah...they're weanies. Dump all incumbants.
Posted by brisa at September 19, 2007 06:59 PMWhy do you Leftists support Habaeus Corpus for Islamic Jihadis??
To show them that our system WORKS. We've faced way more dangerous than these people without throwing habeaus corpus out the window.
Posted by Daryl at September 19, 2007 07:03 PMWhoa! Is it a full moon tonight?
Posted by Seven of Six at September 19, 2007 07:03 PM"... objective in Afghanistan."
Clever. A perspective that I have never seen you address. So may I take it then that you support the war in Afghanistan?
But, as to your point:
"Right, so when they weren't there... we invaded?"
Ok, suppose for the sake of argument I concede to you this point. What do you think will happen if we abandon Iraq: will all of those al Queda types leave also?
Is that the idea? We leave. They leave.
Posted by Bagley at September 19, 2007 07:07 PMI dunno, SoS, but today sure seems like wacko day to me.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 19, 2007 07:08 PM"Is it a full moon tonight?"
I do not know, but there is a full-blown wacko in this thread.
Thanks for the bandwidth, Steve.
7of6, we can carry on this conversation later. (I do think that it will be interesting.)
Goodnight all.
Posted by Bagley at September 19, 2007 07:14 PMSo may I take it then that you support the war in Afghanistan?
Like many others I was fooled into thinking that might was the way to fight a war on terrorism.
I believe we need to use our guile more. In other words, out think (what was once) a minor group of religous zealots.
Subterfuge, work our way inside, disrupt the teaching mechanism radical Islam. Also,
give them the things that would endear us to them: Electricity, clean water, a way to treat their sewage.
What do we do? We bring them destruction, weapons, and more war. Who do you think is more prepared for a long war now?
Of course whatever good will we could do, bu$h fucked that up totally.
Is that the idea? We leave. They leave.
Hey, (to keep it short) I'm interested in saving American lives. They are free from Saddam, we can't fix the civil war, they have too, and I'm sure the Iraqi's will take care of Al Queda. But let's also pay them reparations.
Definitely, let's get the fuck out, now. The longer we stay, the worse it gets!
To show them that our system WORKS. We've faced way more dangerous than these people without throwing habeaus corpus out the window.
How right you are Daryl!
Posted by Seven of Six at September 19, 2007 07:59 PMREPUBLICANS FILIBUSTER!
Fuck Yes! That is the headline!!
Posted by jcricket at September 19, 2007 08:14 PMI'm suprised President Cheney doesn't want to pull all the troops out now. He has to rest them up for a long weekend before the upcoming war with Iran.
Of course, he'll motivate them by mentioning that girls in Tehran can wear mini-skirts and go to night clubs.
'Well Tehran girls are hip,
I really dig the styles they wear,
And the Hormuz girls with the way the talk
They'll knock me out when I'm stuck there..'
(Apologies to the Beach Boys)
Posted by tempus at September 19, 2007 08:32 PM"al qaeda in Iraq" is mostly made up of Iraqis, not foreign jihadis. Few expert now doubt this. Even our military concedes it.
So they ain't gonna follow anyone outside of Iraq. More propaganda. Anything to continue the occupation, or for rightists like bagley, to politically "defeat" the hated left, which bagley hates far more than any foreign enemy.
Posted by euzoius at September 19, 2007 08:35 PMWell now is not the time to get depressed and crawl in a hole. I suggest anyone who is pissed with the Republicans' obstruction and getting impatient with the Democrats' seeming weakness might send this sort of message to Democratic Senators in the party hierarchy (i.e. Reid, Durbin, Stebanow, Schumer etc). For a convenient list with links see the leadership page on the Democrats.senate.gov website. If you are represented by Democratic Senator(s) you might send similar messages, regardless of whether said Democratic Senator is "progressive" or [gag] "centrist."
For example:
Dear Senator X,
Regarding the disappointing votes defeating motions of cloture (Webb amendment; Habeas Corpus restoration):
Why don't the Democrats force the Republicans to actually filibuster, instead of caving in to the mere threat of a filibuster? WHY SENATOR X, WHY ?!? People are dying needlessly while you guys dither and fret. Make them ACTUALLY FILIBUSTER and we'll see who blinks first...
Democrats in the Senate (and House, too) need to start playing hardball. PLEASE CALL THE REPUBLICANS' BLUFF.
Sincerely,
sane citizen
---
Senate Democrats NEED to keep hearing this, over and OVER. As for the Republicans, I'm not wasting finite energy writing to those @$$wH'Lz.
This is a provocative article by Mark Kleiman suggesting possible near term strategies for dealing with ReichWing obstructionism.
Posted by TrainWreck at September 19, 2007 08:49 PM"al qaeda in Iraq" is mostly made up of Iraqis, not foreign jihadis. Few expert now doubt this. Even our military concedes it.
Of course you're right euzoius, I try to make it simple for the knuckle-draggers.
Tempus, Where the hell have you been. That was sweet.
Hey, have you heard of a musical artist from Calgary called Feist?
In jail, Seven, for holding up a "Get The Fuck Out Of Iraq and Afghanistan, YOU IDIOTS!!!"
Posted by tempus at September 19, 2007 09:11 PMI'm sure it was the resisting arrest, while drunk, and slurring some comments about his lack of manhood...or Napoleon complex.
So they have a police state in Canada as well?
I love it. Just nine months and you're pulling your hair out. We had years of Democratic obstruction and we were expected to say "thank you, may I have another" all the time. "We are right to block this or that, we're protecting Americans" Or something like that. The Hsu's on the other foot now.
I loved that piece Judith placed up there about several posters all being the same person. I guess she doesn't think there's that many independent, read non progressive here, people out there. "There just can't be that many commenters opposed to our way of thinking."
There are
Each time you try this garbage, we're able to stall your attempt. In each attempt you're becoming more "Bush" like. Or even "Cheney" like if you will. The movement is faultering, you're losing. Each day we're there, we're getting closer to victory. A victory that will haunt each and every doubter. So close and still so far away. We will see Victory and y'all will pay for it.
You see Tempus up there with his sign. He equalled Iraq AND Afghanistan. The later is the war we're "supposed" to be in. The war the world supports us for. He wants us to lose BOTH of them. That's your problem.
Who put you in jail Tempus? Where and how long did they detain you? As long as OJ?
Posted by peter at September 19, 2007 10:02 PMI loved that piece Judith placed up there about several posters all being the same person. I guess she doesn't think there's that many independent, read non progressive here, people out there. "There just can't be that many commenters opposed to our way of thinking."
Your right Peter, there aren't many. May I remind you that you are in the minority, so your statement is stupid.
Posted by Judith at September 19, 2007 10:18 PMReading "My Pet Goat" aloud over and over hardly qualifies as a filibuster.
Posted by TIKI AL at September 19, 2007 11:33 PMTrainWreck, if you expect Democrats to take a stand, you are going to continually be disappointed.
Posted by Judith at September 20, 2007 01:46 AM"We will see Victory and y'all will pay for it."
Sounds like Peter is gasping for air.
Posted by Judith at September 20, 2007 01:50 AMpeter: Timing details
yes, pants-pissing peter is your typical right-winger who "supports" the troops by refusing to give them the proper training, the proper equipment, and the proper rest between REPEATED tours
btw, jj and bagless [the other 2 personalities of pants-pissing peter], where is Osama? you remember him? "dead or alive" and all that
peter: "We will see Victory and y'all will pay for it."
WHO is this "we"? you posting from Iraq? no? then STFU
as for "pay", that's the troops in Iraq you yellow cur
one other thing, pants-pissing peter (or jj or bagless or whatever), how come Gen. Petraeus’ report didn't significantly increase support for Dear Leader's occupation of Iraq?
I wouldn't want to be a ReThug in November 2008. ROFLOL
Posted by gay veteran at September 20, 2007 05:44 AMTrainWreck, if you expect Democrats to take a stand, you are going to continually be disappointed.
I'm more of wait and see on this point. For all that's happened, Dems still haven't been in power for a year. It takes time to get your sea legs when you've been the minority party for 12 years.
I think Reid did his job by exhausting every possibility of a bipartisan consensus. Fine. That's what he's supposed to do especially when it comes to ending a war.
That's all gone now. Reid joked a couple of days ago that Senate Repubs wanted to make Iraq their war because they're jealous of Bush. That's not a joke. Reid is going to hang Iraq, Bush and Cheney around Repub necks from now until the polls close on November 4th 2008.
If he does this one of two things can happen
1. The repubs join the dems in ending this war and the GOP base revolts
2. The stick with Bush and the party collapses.
My prediction is Reid is going to make them pay dearly for shafting the Webb amendment
Posted by Daryl at September 20, 2007 11:48 AMAt least Republicans will USE the damn filibuster....
Posted by Tampa Student at September 20, 2007 06:57 PM......unlike....say....the....
Posted by Tampa Student at September 20, 2007 06:58 PMTrainWreck, if you expect Democrats to take a stand, you are going to continually be disappointed.
Judith, I AM continually disappointed (like ever since as far back as I can remember - Reagan times). And, no, I don't "expect" many of the current Democrats to take a stand. I am more cynical than that. And really, I do understand that the Democrats and Republicans are in some sense wings of the American Business Party. On the other hand I don't see any a third party strategy being viable on the national level anytime soon. I would like to be wrong about that and don't have any brilliant answer at this time. Still, it's conceivable that something positive could come out of the nudging of current Democratic party officials. At least the damage might be slowed.
Posted by TrainWreck at September 20, 2007 11:29 PM