Bush preparing for next battle

Look at who didn't vote says it all. Cowards to put their names on the record

I'm glad that the Republican Senators are going on record supporting W.'s surge.
I can't wait for them to go back to their home states and tell their people that they voted YES for the Iraq war again.

Public opinion is not going to sway the Republicans way when the Dems chock off the funding for W.'s Iraq disaster.
This is not like Vietnam where the GOP blamed the Dems for ending that war.....which turned out to be the right thing to do anyway...,the citizens of America are well aware that they were lied to in order to get this war started in the first place.

This being the "Swamp", the article starts off with an obvious untruth: "With the Senate falling four votes short today of the 60 votes needed to debate a resolution..." It repeats that untruth in paragraph five.

The Senate vote was FOR CLOTURE which if successful, would have STOPPED debate and allowed the Senate Democrats to ramrod the House Bill through to a final vote. Since the cloture motion FAILED, debate CAN CONTINUE. The opening sentence is EXACTLY BACKWARDS, demonstrating either sheer incompetence (at best) or rank partisan Democrat hackery (at worst). Take your pick.

Dale:

McCain was among the key cowards.

He didn't even vote on whether or not to debate it.

Could it be because he knew he would lose such a debate?

I think so.

This shows you how much power the democrats have,since they won a few seats here and there ...NONE!
Oh,and whatever happened to that minimum wage increase???
Paulo

You're right Paulo...as long as there are republicans in politics, nothing can or will get done. You all talk a big game, but you're legends in your own mind. The republicans had all the power, and what did they do...Nothing..oh but mis-managed a war so badly, that there is no way out. Oh..that's right..your going to have "victory", what ever that will look like.

Paulo shows how much you know. The power is in the hearings. But you don't watch real news . Just the stuff made up in your head

I laugh everytime I hear one of these pro-war Republicans in Congress say that we are hurting the troops by debating the Iraq issues at home.

DEMOCRACY is all about debating the issues,not lockstepping with a "party" idea given to you by Karl Rove,.....lockstepping has more in common with Communism than Democracy.

It's no wonder that the Iraq blunder wasn't up for debate during the Republican controlled Congress that just got voted out of office in 2006,Republicans don't debate,they lockstep.

Kennedy is a big dope.
Who's going to listen to this guy & the rest of those whiny, P.C. Demon-crats anyway?
Of course we should support our president.

Denying any more support to our troops already there is nothing less than a slap in their faces.

www.ReyFloresAmerica.blogspot.com

Bruce,

Every news outlet agrees with Mr Silva's interpretation of the vote on the Hill. Looks like you have your work cut out for you as I'm sure you want to complain to and correct every one of them while you miss the forest for the trees.

Hey Rey,

First of all, why the name calling? Second, you say we should support the president, but what ever happened to a balance of power? A little lesson for you: no one person runs the country. Our forefathers knew that would be insanity. And guess what? That's exactly where republican control has led us - insanity. Obviously, the American people did the right thing and restored a modicum of balance.

While this war is stupid, I fully support our troops. That is not the same as deciding the direction of this quagmire. How come so many blind followers of this "wanna be king" president can't see this difference?

Yeah, we the people always try to put the responsability of something that has been made wrong to others. If we all think that the war is
wrong, why don't we make our voice stronger??

We should tell once again all those senadors and representatives that we are tired of this.

Somebody with real power, and when i said real power is not just political power, but also somebody that the people really respect should organize a big movement against the war. It was the presure from the people that really ended the war in Vietnam.

Dear Mr. President;
As a Viet-Nam era veteran, My heart cries out to those youngsters I see dying week after week on the news cast for a war that we shouldn't be participating in the first place. Our democracy is good for our country and not necessarily good for anyone else who doesn't agree with our goals and government. We can spread the good news about our democracy and style of life, but shouldn't have to lose our young men in the process if these countries don't agree. We are the most powerful and riches nation in the world, yet, we have people starving to death, homeless, let's not mention katrina, and we just don't know how to take care of our own country, let alone, give billions to other countries for the namesake of democracy. If we could stop paying all these countries aid for just one year, we could probably save our own nation under god.

Reading comments posted, it sound like a testosterone war that is only both sides taking potshots at the other.

Am reading a history of the US from 1932-1972, "The Glory & the Dream" by Robert Manchester [obviously a very obscure person], that is well-documented.

There were many who opted for no entry into the war in Europe and blatantly opposed providing funds for troops - who, by the way, were initially sadly lacking in arms to defend themselves, and sufficient provisions to keep them going. Like the Democrats today, they favored isolationism and sitting on their hands, listening to promises Hitler made of limited invasions. They must have thought Chamberlain of Britain was a genius, and followed his lead.

FDR- a Democrat, I hear - sat the Oval Office and was one helluva leader. He saw war looming and promised the American people he would not lead them into war - either in the Pacific or Europe. However, when war threatened American citizens, he did what any sane Chief Executive would do - he moved to protect the population of this country, and its borders.

For his steadfastness, you guys do not speak or write in German - are still alive and have many freedoms.

There is a chilling parallel in this history lesson. Do not think for one moment that other countries on this planet are not watching the reaction of this country militarily to incursions on its citizens abroad, and on our home soil.

Before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, they were invading mainland China. The US had citizens living in Nanking, on the Yangtze River. The government sent the Panay to take them out of harm's way.

Japanese gunboats pursued the Panay twenty-seven miles, to where it dropped anchor near three Standard Oil tankers. The Yangtze, by the way, through treaty, was considered an international waterway.

The Japanese had been informed 12 days earlier of the Panay's mission -merely to get US citizens off Chinese soil- and knew exactly what their purpose was.

Japanese warplanes dive-bombed and sank all four vessels. Lifeboats deployed, and they were strafed as well. Three people were killed and eleven injured.

The Japanese diplomats called it a 'mistake'. Uh, fellas, a court of inquiry in Shanghai later brought out that the attacks were purposefully carried out to see if the US would strike back. It didn't........just accepted the explanation...
and Pearl Harbor wasted so many lives needlessly.

Little people have no say in what those in power do. They can only do their best to make provision for themselves and their families, for history is sure to repeat itself. From the 50's there was a famous saying, preparing for a nuclear holocaust - 'Duck and cover!.....still good advice....

Waaaaahhh wah wah, you libs can't stand losing. What's next, a claim posted on CNN that Jeb Bush rigged the senate vote. You lose this one and it's because the GOP are cowards. You lose the election(s) and its because they were rigged. Keep making excuses and Osama Bin Clinton and Barak Osama will not stand a chance.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

The troops in Iraq are military, they themselves can't question orders or purpose. We the people, of a [free?] democratic country have the responsibility to the troops to truely understand and debate openly the purpose and intent of our military actions. This simply isn't happening. The unaccountable administration see's any questioning as unpatriotic, and society has accepted this social darwinism as the way things are. With all the focus on the rep's and demo's, We the people are lost in a controlled media of full spectrum dominance. Mind control is something the industrial military black/op's has been working on for decades and used successfully in the first Persian gulf war. This technology is being used to subdue America, and usher in the NWO.

We are throwing money and lives at Iraq and it is NOT working. No other wars were won like we are fighting ours, yet we persist in our strategy of spending $100bil+ a year on it. What happened to the original strategy of establishing a gov't in Iraq? A troop surge isn't what we need, forcing the Iraqis to establish a gov't of their own is what we need. It has become a mess to say the least.

Paulo,

The minimum wage increase passed the House, and will likely pass the Senate. In fact, the House Democrats finished each of their seven or eight legislative priorities within their first 100 hours -- all while Republicans were voting to NOT debate the single most important issue of the last decade. Read that again: the Republicans, who crow about letting "democracy work" in Iraq won't even let it work here and allow a full open and public debate on the Iraq war, which would be the first of its kind since you can't really call what happened in 2002/2003 a debate.

Read that a third time: they voted against debating an issue.

The biggest disappointment to me is that the Democrats would not let debate happen for the other resolution which would provide funding. If this is such a great issue in our time(which it is) they should atleast give time for both sides, rather then just ramming in their ideas. Oh yeah where is that minimum wage increase?

Isn't America great? And our troops should really be respected. I know I woulden't sacrifice my life, just so a bunch of liberals and whiners back home can bash the war. OK, it's a VOLUNTARY service people, no one is being forced to goto Iraq. Oh and stop acting like this war is so bad. The average american woulden't even notice we were at war if it wasn't for the liberal media spinning the headlines everynight. But we should listen to the democrats, lets retreat, then wait for the next terrorist attack on our soil, GOOD IDEA !!

Rey,
I'm sure Karl Rove will be glad someone is still buying the talking points he sends over for the Republicans to regurgitate. Debating the merits of foreign policy is something we do in a democracy. Recent polls indicate that not only 70% of people polled in the US want the war to end, but that a nearly equal percent of those serving in Iraq right now also want us to redeploy them and eventually bring them home. You may be a veteran,like me, but many, if not most of the "hawks" still pushing this tragic war never served or never served in combat. Yet they call those who did such as Murtha, Chuck Hagel, and the new democratic congressman (who commanded a carrier fleet battle group in the Middle East) "appeasers and cowards." We ned a new approach in Iraq, and one that is not driven by Dick Cheney's oil company masters.

As a non partisan patriotic American citizen. It is very interesting to watch the two major parties collide. It appears that the republicans care more about winning over the democrats then actually addressing the situation at hand. It is as if there were no democrat's and only republicans, all problems would go away.

I ask this question...If this were a nation of republicans only that had divergent ideas about the war, and the party affiliation would be irrelevant what would the republicans say about it?

Why do republicans care more about defeating or prevailing over democrats rather than prevailing or even addressing the actual problems.

It is as if we are adolescents at a football game and our team winning is the only thing at stake. There is more here than a win or a lost. The fiber of American life is being considered as well is our future. Maybe everyone could stick to the merits of the issue rather than the game, and we could all benefit and make choices that are for the good of the people rather than the good of the party.

"Of course we should support our president"?
He lied getting us into this thing. He stuck with Rumsfeld for 6 years telling us we were "winning". His "war on terror" is nothing more than a wellfare program for Haliburton
and an excuse to cut funding for much needed domestic programs.
Great leadership. Republicans who support this illusion are doomed.

I was thrilled to see this outlined.

"The Senate vote was FOR CLOTURE which if successful, would have STOPPED debate and allowed the Senate Democrats to ramrod the House Bill through to a final vote. Since the cloture motion FAILED, debate CAN CONTINUE. The opening sentence is EXACTLY BACKWARDS, demonstrating either sheer incompetence (at best) or rank partisan Democrat hackery (at worst). Take your pick.
Posted by: bruce"

And, I thought, "Clarity!" but on a second look decided that
his ".. stopped [Republican] DEBATE.." should read "...stopped [Republican] FILIBUSTER.."

Because 'cloture' and 'filibuster' are yin and yang terminologically.

Is that NOT true?
If it is...then weasel-words and ass-end-up lawyer-language [always misleading and intended to be so] are used & -or is being practiced- here. And that sucks.

Because what it means is that none of you really want to communicate.
But I do, here!.... "That sucks."

P.S. Bruce...in using the pejorative 'Democrat' as adjective you are engaging in hackery.

Talk about missing the forest for the trees! The Senate is slapping the public that elected it in the face. Our big brave president Bush should be over there leading his men, if he thinks we should be in a war, but it's those who have had their power taken away by the wealthy that end up losing their lives in battle. Anyone with any common sense knows that war is a rich man's game. If the wealthy can keep the war going, then they keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer. And the Bush family is leading the pack of wolves getting richer and tearing away at our democracy. When is the American public, who is fighting and dying in this war, going to stand up on its hind legs and say," Enough, already!!!", before this war turns into another Vietnam debacle.

This vote was nothing more than political theater!
The real test comes when the funding votes come to the floor. It will be interesting to see who votes how;and how it gets spun. The biggest elephant in the room is the 2008 presidential election. Damn the troops, power is at stake!

Rey,
The troops on the ground are not getting the support they need right now so what is even more money going to get them. What makes you think they are going to get it with more money.
Part of that money he wants is to rebuild there educational system and to help get them job, these are just examples. But...we can us that money here, in the USA, for the same things.
They have all the money they need from oil production.

Paulo.

Trust your leader,and dont think.

Perhaps you are too young to know of LEADER..JIM
JONES and his 900 followers. Their trust took them to their graves. (google JONESTOWN)

Joe DELAWSKY, Van Isl. B.C. Can.

"Supporting our troops" includes having respect for them. Enough respect to prevent more of them being killed off just because the president is too arrogant (or stupid?) to admit that he made a horrible mistake.

There is zero chance that this surge will lead to a victory in Iraq. Zero.

Can anyone even imagine or describe what an achievable victory would look like? All the fighting factions suddenly saying "ok, you beat us, we'll stop killing ourselves and each other because you ....surged"? The only way this would ever stop is if we completely occupied every bit of the country (we don't have nearly enough troops to do that) and stayed there. Or if we killed off nearly everyone there.

Bruce:

I think you need to go back and review your civics lessons. Upon a successful cloture vote, the debate and vote on the measure can be no more than 30 hours. Thus if the cloture vote had been successful, the debate would have taken place prior to the vote. Since the cloture vote failed to receive at least 60 votes, there will not be debate and will not be a vote scheduled on the resolution. Unless there is support of at least 60 Senators, the resolution does not move forward.

The Republicans simply want to discredit the Democratic party in preparation for the next election. If the Dems vote to not pass a war budget and thereby deprive our troops of the necessary weapons, ammo., tanks, air support, etc. the Dems will look like the party that caused the death/disfiguerment and failure of
troops to win the war on Islam in the Mid East.

If the Dems DO support the troops and we lose battle anyhow (which will happen) and exit the Mid East than the Republicans will claim that the Democratic Party was to blame (note the use of Democratic and not DemocRATS).

Coming from a military family, with a loved one who faces a second deployment as a member of the National Guard-I find the above comments very positive!

Enough of this war, the lives and the money spent. Our soldiers have had enough misuse and the Iraqi people want us to leave. They never asked for this.

Please keep hounding our "leaders" until they stop this madness, they are destroying peoples lives and the infrastructure of Iraq. What is "conservative" about that??

Betting against the US Army has never been smart.

we definitely should support our president at the middle of the war, democrat or republican. we can not say that we are loosing or winning the war, the last battlefield is a diciding one, we are not there yet, majority of democrats.Oh,Ted Kennedy, do you remember SVN former president Diem and his two brothers were murdered during JFK,that was Democrats"war ,then God punished Kennedy family for John and Bob short lives.Almost 90000 deaths for mistakes in healthcare, 50000 deaths in car accident . How many soldiers has died to defend American interest and buid up democracy in Middle East??? The real issue is we should spend more in Iraq war, not on welfare fraud and medicaid fraud. For President Bush, you should let the special force lead the war in Iraq, not the regular army

I've never seen so much hot air wasted on nothing. People, NON-BINDING. John Call is right. The real battle will happen when the Democrats and Jack Murtha try to de-fund the war.

The democrats deserved to lose this one (even though they childishly claim victor.

A non-binding resolution is a stall techique to gain time to get a real resolution together. It is the only course the dems could take, since they don't have any better plan ... the very sin they accuse the GOP of.

Message to dems: if you are so sure the people are on your side why send the uncertain signal? go for it or shut up.
ssj.

Hey Rey,

First of all, why the name calling? Second, you say we should support the president, but what ever happened to a balance of power? A little lesson for you: no one person runs the country.

What you sane folks need to understand is according to Rey's vision for America there would be all red states. There would also be a hammer and sickle!

Patriotism does not equal one party system or calling the opposition traitors. You may now return to Rey Flores Amerikkka.

This has been a shameless promotion for a sordid little fascist blog spot called www.ReyFloresAmerica.blogspot.com

The dark sordid underbelly of the American dream.

www.ReyFloresAmeriKKKa.blogspot.com

thamguyan,

Did you forget to take your Prozac today?

....by the way how is Ted Haggard doing now that he's out of "gay rehab"?

Rey Flores, a self-perpetuating nightmare. The ramblings of the insipid, posted on a wretched little blog. Posted by a pathetic little simpleton.

WHAT A CRAZY THING THIS PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO DO...... WHY IS THIS MAN SO NUTS?

The debate is supposed to be about the mission, not the troops. All this talk about "supporting the troops" is a smokescreen being used to avoid the real debate which the Republicans know they will lose. What does "supporting the troops" have to do with the political debate on what direction the country should take on this war? Nothing, it's just a crutch being used by those who no longer can make their case.

Hopefully the people of Kentucky will show Sen. McConnell the door at his next election. All the senators obstructing the real debate need to be defeated. The '08 elections can't get here soon enough.

A little story is worth much here:
I have a friend who was a history major in college with me. He was also in the IL Army NG. He was sent to Iraq and served 1 year tour. He came home (thank God) and I asked him about his experiences. Not long after he got home he defended the actions of the US government and why we were in Iraq. A few months after that he resigned from the Army. Now he is doubting that there was any point in going to Iraq in the first place.

I really believe that if he believed in the mission, as is given by the Administration, he would have stayed and would now be on his way for a 2nd tour. Before anyone begins to think that the military is 100% behind this war think again. There are some things one can not say and do while in the military, but once out and free from military judicial proceedings they opinion of the military changes. Be careful what is taken as gospel from the "average" soldier.

Regardless of being for or against the war, we are there and should WIN! I keep hearing that you guys support the troops but not the war. Hmm You want them to withdraw as losers, constantly say they can't win, and aren't willing to give them this last chance. The majority of the troops Support and believe in the mission, want to finish it because they know they can win and they want to do right by the Iraqi people. If that's possible with a troop surge wouldn't it be worth it at this point? Supporting the troops would be sending a message that we believe in them and know they can win.

I don't see how America coming home in defeat, letting Iraq be taken over by terrorist etc..could ever be the best thing for this country. I was not for the war when it began but believe a 100% we should finish it, IN VICTORY!

Democracy is at work here, while we argue the pros and cons of our nation at work- on the internet, we have a new venue for Town Hall meetings.

We are the people who make America. The internet is just one more avenue of communication that WE share to make our world a better place to live.

Charlie,

Staten Island, NY

The passing of the bill has nothing to do with the vigor of democracy, it only illustrates the strength of intimidation. How can one declare a victory in an ongoing war where if anyone knows the involvement of foreign parties in those far off regions, there has never been a lasting peace imposed by external forces. America does not have the concensus of the majority of people living in those regions and increasing a warlike commitment is not a final solution.Readers and commentors may want victory, personally I don't see how that will ever be had.

We are not talking about a football game. To simplify the situation in the Middle East to our "winning or losing," is another aspect of the "for us or against us" mentality that got us into this mess. A diplomatic victory would the creation of a stable Iraq. That will never be achieved as long as our troops are viewed as occupiers and oppressors by a large percentage of the Iraqi people of all religious persuasions. We cannot let our troops remain the prime targets in the middle of a civil war. Of course, the Bush/Cheney goal is not a stable and democratic Iraq. Their goal is to create an Iraq where a puppet government of our choosing grants perpetual oil concessions to American oil companies. Acquiring control over the oil fields of Iran is another piece of the same Neocon dream of an imperial invincible America. Too bad the unintended consequences are deflating this dream. All empires eventually fall when their actions are based on short term financial rewards rather that any interest in true stability and equality among the parties involved.

I request that you (sorry to be trivial)put the most recent comments at the top of the page rather than at the bottom.

this war is lost. If you support this dumb war then you can't possibly support our troops. To kill three of our Americans a day is a sin.
Bush is so Bilicose about this war and won't stop the killing till the last man is dead.
He said he was a war president. If he is then he should go and lead the men on the front line except there isn't a front line.
What do you win if you win this war? This war is lost and Bush knows it. He is just hoping for a miracle which isn't coming.
I support our troops by bringing them home.
Wanda,

Question: How can anyone 'win' a war with no "victory" criteria?

Can "terrorists" (who are not accountable to any legally constituted government anywhere in the world) sign peace treaties?

Can legally constituted governments sign peace treaties on behalf of terrorists?

Under the circumstances, would anyone in their right mind trust them (i.e. "the terrorists" or the legally constituted governments who would have to be totally insane to even want to claim to represent them) to keep the terms of their agreement(s) i.e. the terms of their "surrender"?

This is a 'war' that cannot be 'won' - who can possibly formally surrender on behalf of whom?? Who would believe them? Who would trust them?

This whole thing is just simply insane.

The only way out is to simply stop fighting - and who wants to do that? -certainly not "the terrorists" or "their Leaders" - on both sides of the issue.

Insane. It's just simply insane.

-Brian Leslie Engler

"Vigilance is the price of freedom" - Thomas Jefferson

"You can't do the right thing the wrong way" - Abraham Lincoln

"an eye (I) for an eye (I) just makes the whole world blind" - Mahatma Gandhi

"We must be the change we want to see" - Mahatma Gandhi

"Anger ceases not with anger, hatred ceases not with hatred, violence ceases not with violence" - Gautama Buddha

"love thy neighbour as thyself" - Jesus the Christ

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO START LISTENING TO THESE GUYS? - Brian Leslie Engler

In Jill Zuckman's "Swamp" article on the cloture vote, she wrote: "Both Illinois senators, Dick Durbin and Barack Obama, voted to cut off debate and proceed to a vote on the resolution."

In other words, Swampune reporter Mark Silva says (above) that the Republicans tried to stop the debate, whereas his colleague Jill Zuckman correctly notes it was the Democrats who tried (and failed) to cut off debate.

And the Tribune wonders why it's losing both credibility and readership?

Bruce,

If the arc of my eye-rolling is an accurate meter, your geek quotient just went off the charts.