Senate Republicans block better breaks for U.S. troops

As the debate unfolded in the Senate yesterday, it was hard not to notice the disconnect between this week and the months leading up to it. We’ve heard, repeatedly, that everything would change in September. Republicans had grown weary of supporting a policy that doesn’t work. The GOP was this close to breaking ranks and forcing the president’s hand. There was a time limit on how long White House allies on the Hill could ignore the will of the nation.

But all of that turned out to be completely wrong. Of all the Democratic efforts to change the U.S. policy on Iraq, Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-Va.) amendment was the least controversial. It would have forced the administration to give the troops as much time at home as they spent in combat, which the nation has historically done. The measure had the support of a majority in the House, a majority in the Senate, and the endorsement of veterans’ organizations. If congressional Republicans were going use their power to support any kind of policy change, this was it.

And then they said no.

Senate Republicans yesterday rejected a bipartisan proposal to lengthen the home leaves of U.S. troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, derailing a measure that war opponents viewed as one of the best chances to force President Bush to accelerate a redeployment of forces.

The proposal, sponsored by Sens. James Webb (D-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), failed on a 56 to 44 vote, with 60 votes needed for passage — a tally that was virtually identical to a previous vote in July.

That last point seems particularly significant. The most palatable Democratic policy proposal not only couldn’t get an up-or-down vote, it also did no better than it did in July. It’s a vivid reminder that Senate Republicans won’t support (or allow votes on) any substantive changes to the administration’s policy at all.

The WaPo added that the vote was evidence “that the Bush administration still controls Iraq war policy.” I think that’s true, but it’s only because congressional Republicans allow Bush to control the policy. As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who helped lead the way in killing the Webb amendment, told the NYT, “The Republicans own this war.”

The full roll call is here. You’ll notice, of course, that Dems didn’t pick up a single Republican vote from July.

Two other quick angles to consider here. First, several news outlets are badly mischaracterizing what transpired yesterday. The LA Times’ headline reads, “Senate Democrats fail to limit combat time.” That’s wildly misleading — it makes it seem as if the main thing to remember is that Dems “failed” to help the troops. In reality, the story should be about Republicans obstructing the Dems’ efforts.

And second, I’d be remiss if I didn’t highlight Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), who is also the chairman of the Republican National Committee, who went to the Senate floor yesterday to speak out against the Webb amendment because, he argued, giving the troops longer breaks at home would “demean their service.”

“The reenlistment rates of those who have served in the theater are larger than those of any other. And, in fact, it is a testament to their courage, to their valor, and their sense of duty to their country. I think we would demean their service if we were to say to them that there had to be a parity between the time in service out of the country and the time at home. The goal ought to be for us not to have 15-month deployments. The hope would be that these would never be necessary. But the mandate from congress that this is how we must operate our armed forces I think is ill-conceived, it is dangerous and does not serve either the national interest of our nation nor the interest of the soldiers on the field whom it is intended to serve.

“We should not have a subterfuge of policy to change direction in Iraq heaped on the back of our brave young men and women in uniform…”

As Greg Sargent explained, “The argument here appears to be that because the amount of service our troops have performed shows that they are heroic, it would hence ‘demean’ them to reduce that amount of service by giving them longer rest time — because it would deprive them of more time to be heroic.”

Then, after the GOP successfully blocked the Webb measure, Martinez voted for another resolution endorsing the goals of the Webb amendment, just so long as it’s non-binding on the Bush administration.

When people wonder why Dems find it difficult to take Republicans seriously on Iraq policy, this should be a big hint.

We’ve heard, repeatedly, that everything would change in September. Republicans had grown weary of supporting a policy that doesn’t work. The GOP was this close to breaking ranks and forcing the president’s hand. There was a time limit on how long White House allies on the Hill could ignore the will of the nation.

But all of that turned out to be completely………..

Wait! Wait! Oh! I know! I know! They stood up to the “Du, which way did he go? which way did he go? George”, lived up to their word with the integrity and honesty you’d expect of a Congressperson, and supported our troops with more that just bumber sticker slogans. Right?

OK, back to reality. If you did not see this coming, raise your gullible third hand now. Most repigs wouldn’t know how to tell the truth or have a backbone to stand up for our troops if a bucket-full of it smashed them in their lying mouths. Why expect anything less?

  • There are a few things here that need attention. One is that it’s time to remind the Republicans about the hissy fits they threw to get up-or-down votes – which the Dems gave them – on their legislation, and their threats to use the nuclear option if they didn’t get their way. If it was good enough for the GOP, it ought to be good enough for the Dems, but the Dems are still stuck on minding their manners.

    Two, if Lindsey Graham wants to own this war, or this occupation, or whatever we’re calling this mess, he’s certainly welcome to it. It seems like an albatross to me, but then, I’m not batshit crazy.

    Three, would someone please kick Joe Lieberman to the other side of the aisle and strip him of his committee assignments? He’s of no use to us, and I’m sick of him thinking he’s got the upper hand.

    Four, we need Democratic leadership that will be in the media’s face and can organize a media campaign to show just how ignorant of the constitution these Republicans are, and that their positions show them to be about as anti-GI as it is possible to be. Where is Harry Reid? Oh, yeah…he’s “through” being nice. Pardon me if I remain skeptical. Where is Nancy Pelosi? Helloooooo? Is anyone home?

    It’s no wonder people are disgusted with Congress. We fought so hard to get that majority, and what good does it do us if we aren’t willing to use it to our advantage to get things done?

  • Some of you might remember me mentioning that my older brother is an officer in the Army. Pretty high up too. He’s met General Petraeus several times. He did a year in Iraq and has also been in other theaters. He’s also a Republican, a Bush supporter and he’s pretty heavy into Christianity as well. It’s pretty hard for us to talk about anything resembling religion or politics.

    Anyway. He sent me this video of an IED explosion that didn’t cause casualties. I have no idea what I’m supposed to take away from watching it. It’s an insane explosion, but I don’t know if there’s a point to the video, or to him sending me the video.

    I’d like to, but won’t reply by sending him a link to this post which includes “A Report on Mesopotamia” from 1920 by T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia). It would only cause problems if I did.

  • Why can’t the Webb Amendment, and habeas corpus restoration, and a timetable for withdrawal, be attached to the next Iraq funding bill in committee, where there is no filibuster and Democrats have a majority?

    That bill should then be presented on the Senate (and House) floor for a vote. If the Republicans choose to filibuster it, then no more funding for the Iraq occupation. If Bush chooses to veto it, no more funding for the Iraq occupation.

    It looks to me like the Democrats can control this thing, if they will just do it. Am I wrong?

  • I can’t add anything except for the heavy use of expletives, so I’ll just say that I don’t think very highly of the Senate Republicans who opposed cutting our troops a little slack. All common sense has been thrust out of the window in favor of an American Dictatorship. Just awful.

  • Isn’t it amazing that so many of the Republicans who voted with the Democrats are up for re-election next year?

    Why can’t the Democrats attach this bill to ANY funding of the Iraq war from now on? The Democrats can claim they are willing to fully fund the Iraq war and the defense department and the Republicans will be forced to vote against funding the troops?

  • So Republicans WANT to “own” the Iraqi Occupation? They WANT to own a quagmire that’s the dirtiest civil war ever seen?

    Fine!

    Have fun when the bills come due in November of 2008, assholes. Make sure you thank Mr Bush as you pack your shit and head out into the political wilderness for the next twenty years.

    I wish all our troops could be home soon, but having the Republicans out of power may be worth their sacrifices. I would add that their sacrifices would not be necessary if the Democratic leadership would just listen to the American people instead of the AIPAC lobbyists.

  • Okie—think “signing statement” here. Bush signs the whople package, and then exercises his “right” to not comply with those particular portions of the law.

    No, the only way to stop this bloodlust is to unilaterally prohibit a successful continuation of the status quo. Start telling everyone to ignore the recruiters. Keep your kids home from school on recruiting days. Tell them to ignore the recruiters on their college campuses. Convince everyone you know who is of enlistment age to “not enlist.”

    “You cannot feed the rapacious maw of war, if the fodder does not enter onto the field.”

    And THAT is one thing that ALL the George Bushes and John McCains in the world—COMBINED—can do nothing about.

    Start shutting this thing down—TODAY.

  • And then there’s this comment from Senator Joe:

    “It means that Congress will not intervene in the foreseeable future,” said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, the Independent who has voted with the Republicans on war issues. “The fact that it didn’t get enough votes says that Congress doesn’t have the votes to stop this strategy of success from going forward.”

    Funny to hear Joe talk about a lack of votes. Wasn’t that long ago he didn’t get enough votes in his state — a clear indication that his leadership was no longer wanted. So he threw a hissy fit and ran anyway. Honestly, I’d respect him alot more if he just came out of the policital closet and announced he was now republican. As far as I’m concerned he’s an elephant sized wolf in donkey’s clothing.

  • Jkap, I too cannot really add anything else. I’ve already said it–many others have–and it’d just be the same rehash.

    What I will say is Dems need to realize that they had better make some noise, and use their power. Represent us. Do we really have two parties, or just one–with one ‘side’ masquerading as the ‘opposition?’ It sure seems the latter.

  • Here’s the great irony in all this —

    We voted in these Democratic leaders in the hopes of making a drastic change. And so far, they have been unable to accomplish these goals, thanks to either a lack of support from their Republican counterparts or cowardice in the face of the opposition. They’ve left us feeling frustrated, angry and betrayed.

    But what are we going to do? Vote the Republicans back in? Of course not (not if we can help it) and frankly, they know it.

    We’re stuck in a catch 22 here folks. We’ve got ineffective leaders in the Democratic party, and warmongering yes-men in the Republicans.

    Someone said recently the way to fix things is to vote EVERYONE currently in office out of office. Get them all out. Start fresh and new. And see what happens. I’m beginning to wonder if that’s not such a bad idea.

  • I’m going to cheat and repost what I posted earlier this morning to teh Weds mini report:

    NPR this morning reported it “failed to muster the votes” to pass and “the Senate blocked” the bill, “coming up 4 votes short” without ever mentioning the numbers or that the bill was not even voted upon, that the Republicans were filibustering. Unstinkinbelievable

  • I think I understand why the Republicans oppose this thing. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I believe I read somewhere that by forcing the military to give troops as much time stateside as deployed the Bush administration would find it impossible to implement their foreign/war policies.

    Even though I believe Webb has the troops best interests in mind by pursuing this amendment, I think the Democrats see this as a sort of “back door” approach to ending the war without having to actually having to act completely on principle.

    The Republicans keep daring the Democrats to act on principle and vote to stop the funding if they are against the war.

    Everyone knows what kind of “spin storm” would ensue if that happened.

    It seems to me that everybody (well almost everybody) is playing politics with this very real life tragedy while more people are dying and more lives are being destroyed.

    Martinez’s statements are just one example of a long list of disingenuous actions from this so-called esteemed body of public servants.

    Shame on all of them!

  • There is no difference between a republican or a Democrat, they both are mindless slaves to their masters, big business and the military industrial complex. They are both working for the same objective going in different directions to make the sheeple think they are working for them. We all know this war in Iraq and soon Iran aren’t about fighting terrorism, which is a tactic rather than an enemy. The only way to protect our country is to bring all our troops home, secure our borders and keep our noses out of other peoples business. Also we must stop big business from running our country.

  • Just wondering: why aren’t these obstrcutionist Senators being forced to filibuster? If that’s what they want to do, fine. But don’t just roll over and let them kill this with the threat of filibustering. Make them do it.

  • So, Lieberman sees this as attempting to end the “strategy of success?” Once again, please let me thank Connecticut for sending this abomination back to the Senate.

    I also think it’s interesting that Gates has admitted that if we give the troops time at home equal to the length of their deployment, that they cannot maintain troop levels. They seem to be missing the point that not only do we think the troops deserve the benefit of the military’s own policy on how much rest the troops are supposed to have between deployments, but that we don’t agree that the current – or pre-surge – troop levels should be maintained. So, yes, you could make the argument that this is a way to back-door a reduction in force, but so what? Shouldn’t the policy take into account the ability to maintain troop levels?

    This has been part of the problem all along – that the policy was never developed or implemented after taking into account what would happen if our engagement was long-term. Having failed to make that part of the planning, we are now expecting the troops to pay the price for it – by extending their tours and not allowing them the time out of theatre that the military’s own policies call for.

    This is not how we support the troops, and this certainly is not a strategy for success.

  • All the amendment tries to do is require the armed service to live up to their own standards. The following if from Senator Webb’s FAQ on the bill:

    The amendment’s 1:1 deployment-to-dwell ratio for active units and members is a minimum floor. DOD’s historic policy and current goal is a ratio of 1:2. The Commandant of the Marine Corps has specifically reiterated this goal. Army units today deploy on a 0.75: 1 ratio, 15 months with 12 months at home. It is not unusual for Marines also to have less time at home than the length of their last deployment. By contrast, the British units deployed to Iraq have enjoyed a 4:1 ratio – six months in Iraq and two years at home.

  • Perception and reelection are not greater than ending the war. Every life that’s lost in Iraq is on all of their hands. They act like they don’t have options because the mean old Republicans, but really their just cowards. Shameful.

  • Harry Reid should not bring up this “sense of the senate” bill. Instead he should publicly and loudly state he is not doing so because “WE HAVE ALREADY HAD THAT VOTE” In filibustering the Webb amendment the American people have been given the “sense of each senator” We don’t need a collective “sense”.

    Lawmakers are paid good tax payer dollars to legislate, I’m not paying them to hear their opinion, I’m paying them to legislate and in voting we gave them the power to do that.

  • Senate Republicans yesterday rejected a bipartisan proposal to lengthen the home leaves of U.S. troops […] — WaPo

    Careless with the language, or cleverly manipulating?

    This wasn’t about *lengthening” the the home leaves; it was about bringing them back to normal levels. It’s the extensions of tours — from 12 to 15 months — and trimming down the down time that’s abnormal.

    This is the same as Bush’s sying he’ll be cutting the number of troops. That’s not what he’ll be doing; he’ll be simply cancelling the surge/escalation. Even discounting the reasons — not of the goodness of his heart, not because of any success, but of necessity — just the presentation, the framing, is a fundamental lie. As is saying that the troops’ home leaves would have been lengthened by Webb’s Amendment. The home leaves would not have been lengthened and the tours would not have been shortened. Things would have been brought back to what the soldiers signed on for when they volunteered for service. That’s all. Nobody’s asking any gifts from the maladmmin and the rest of the elephant circus; all that Webb’s amendment proposed was giving the soldiers their due.

    Isn’t there something in the Bible about workers being worthy of their hire? The pachyderms are indulging in a blatant breach of contract and palming it off as something entirely different. And, after all those years of being sucker-punched by them we don’t even notice.

  • I had plenty to add (and plenty of expletives) at my place. My conclusion…

    What unfolded yesterday convinces me the Democrats are NOT serious about any of this shit. None of it. Yesterday was not a “defeat,” it was a revelation. It was Congress, the democratic leadership in particular, exposed.

    Only one thing will change my mind, Harry—Bring it back. Force the vote. Make the Republicans filibuster, and then make them vote. Pass the bill and make Bush veto it. Only then will I “concede” defeat, because we don’t have the 2/3’s to overturn a veto. but by the time that happens the Republicans own it. The Republicans filibustered it. The Republican President vetoed it. It’s on them. But Reid is letting them get away with it.

    Next fall do you think anybody is going to remember what happened yesterday? That the Democrats did anything at all? No. Even the next day, most people never heard about it, and those that did, just heard, “Senate Blocks Troop Leave Bill” They lost the vote, lost the news cycle, lost the public’s opinion, failed the troops, failed to uphold their oath to defend the Constitution, and they fucked their own electoral strategy.

    All in a day’s work.

  • with 60 votes needed for passage – WaPo

    Un. Flerking. Believable.

    The GOP has filibustered so much that the traditional media is now OFFICIALLY reporting that a bill needs “60 votes to pass”. The “51” number is now ancient folklore, a story of a once proud Senate of a once great country…

    Political scholars are all in fits over this. This is an unprecedented use of the filibuster. And an equally unprecedented lack of leadership by the majority party.

    Harry, FORCE THE FILIBUSTER, LET THE GOP GASBAGS DEBATE forever. Why is that so hard to understand?

  • Why Harry does not start every press opportunity out by reminding everyone that we live in the age of Republican Exceptionalism, as apparently:

    Only Democrats can obstruct the business of the country, Republicans just do politics.
    Only Democrats can be hauled in front of committees and required to invoke the 5th, Republicans just do politics
    Only Democratic Presidents warrant impeachment. Republicans don’t commit crimes, they just do politics.
    Democratic Cabinet Officers are all Bastards out to ruin the country, Republicans are just well connected people, who just do politics.

    Are your screaming yet?

  • Most Republican senators that are up for reelection next year probably believe that anti-war leaners are not going to vote for them anyway if they suddenly struck more moderate positions, since they’ve already come this far in supporting the President’s war. Maybe their thinking is that their best bet is to pander even harder to their base in the hopes that somehow said base can save them come November 08. The problem is that anti-war leaners are growing and their base is shrinking, if party-affiliation and public opinion polls are any indication. So a dubious strategy to say the least…

  • ‘WHEN INJUSTICE BECOMES LAW, RESISTANCE BECOMES DUTY’
    Adam Kokesh

    To hell with the Dumbocrats and the criminal Repugs…UNITE THE PEOPLE and take back the country…otherwise line up for the Halliburton camps. That is the REALITY. What Congress person will you talk to when your the last one the jackboots round up in your neighborhood and take you away! Think it can’t happen here? Ask someone from Mississippi!

  • Comments are closed.