Why do Senate Republicans hate our Troops?

[ldzppln]

Senate GOP Blocks Longer Leave for Troops
Setback Comes in First Test of Democratic War Proposals

By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 11, 2007; 2:36 PM


Legislation that would have required longer troop rests between combat deployments fell today to a Republican filibuster, but GOP fissures over President Bush's war policies continued to widen, with two more Republican senators signing on to binding troop withdrawal dates.

The Senate voted 56-41 to cut off debate on an amendment to the annual defense policy bill by Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) that would have mandated that troops be granted home leave between deployments of at least as long as their previous combat tours. Already stretched National Guard and Reserve units would have been granted three-year breaks between assignments.

The vote was short of the 60 needed to break the filibuster, but it attracted seven Republican votes, a surprising number considering a similar proposal in the House this spring had been denounced as a "slow bleed strategy."

Two of the Republicans who voted for the Webb amendment, Sens. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) and Chuck Hagel (Neb.), announced this morning they would also support Democratic legislation, soon to come to a vote, that would begin troop reductions no later than 120 days after enactment. U.S. forces would then shift their efforts to targeted missions such as counterterrorism. The process would have to be completed by April 30, 2008.

"We have arrived at the crossroads of hope and reality, and we must now address the reality. We need to send a strong message from the United States Congress on behalf of the American people that the current strategy is unacceptable," Snowe said.

Hagel signed on after the amendment's authors, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), agreed to include his proposal that an international mediator be brought in to try to end the war under the auspices of the United Nations.

Webb's amendment touched off a passionate war of words before the vote, with Democrats arguing that troops desperately need a break while Republicans charged supporters were looking for a backdoor route to shut down the war.

"How in good conscience can we continue to churn these troops? Where is the equity? Where is the fairness? Where is the justice? Where is the support of the troops in that kind of policy?" pleaded Bobby Muller, president of Veterans for America, who was paralyzed in Vietnam combat.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) countered: "It is a disaster in the making to allow any Congress during any war to step in and say troops can only go here and they can't go there, they have to stay home this much -- it just basically destroys the ability of commanders in the field to get the resources they need to fight and win."

Webb disputed the GOP claims, noting that he had previously served in the Pentagon as Navy secretary.

"This amendment sets out a bare minimum floor . . . that will protect the well-being of our troops," said Webb, a Marine combat veteran.

He noted that all senators who served in ground combat, including Hagel, had co-sponsored the measure. "I believe that, if I may say, we collectively understand a truth acquired a hard way, and that's a truth that transcends politics, and we're trying in all good faith to do something about it," Webb said.

All seven of the Republicans who voted with the Democrats have criticized Bush's war policy to varying degrees in recent weeks. They include Hagel, Snowe, and Norm Coleman (Minn.), Susan Collins (Maine), Gordon Smith (Ore.), John E. Sununu (N.H.) and John W. Warner (Va.). With the exception of Snowe, all the Republicans who voted aye are up for re-election in 2008.

The Senate's failure to break the filibuster, however, signaled that Democratic efforts to mandate troop withdrawals almost certainly will fail in the face of Republican parliamentary roadblocks. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), said the endorsements now of three Republicans -- Snowe, Hagel and Smith -- "might make a difference," but, he asked, "can you get to 60 votes?"

Nelson will meet this afternoon with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) to try to win his leadership's backing of a bipartisan effort to force a change of mission without mandating troop withdrawals. The effort, led by Nelson and Collins, would shift U.S. troops out of combat roles, restricting them to fighting terrorism, securing Iraq's borders and training Iraqi forces. The amendment would not require troop withdrawals, but because fewer troops would be needed for the new missions, tens of thousands could probably come home, Collins said.

Reid angrily dismissed another bipartisan effort that would require Bush to develop a comprehensive plan based on the Iraq Study Group's recommendations. Under that amendment, the White House would be free to adjust timetables for the removal of U.S. combat forces and the transition of the mission to training and counterterrorism.

He said the amendment "doesn't have the teeth of a toothless tiger."

[hork]

i think it's unfair to accuse them of hating the troops. i think it's simply a case that they backed a loser for so long to admit they were guilty of perpetuating the lies and enabling a policy of agenda over america at this point would be tantamount to political suicide and thus all but guarantee the end of many careers. hence their need to pretend (and pray like hell we're stupid enough to buy into it) that all is going as planned and the nation is benifiting from the debacle.

[P562045]

Seems to me that some republicans want to get out of Iraq sooner rather than later. I do find it somewhat interesting that most of these republicans are running for reelection next year.

Maybe these senators are just seeing the writing on the wall and want to be able to say they wanted to get the troops out of Iraq much sooner than some of their republican colleagues in the senate.

It will be interesting to see if this backfires on these senators or not in elections next year.

I do find it rather interesting that the democrats are just assuming that the people want the troops to get out of Iraq because of the elections last year.

This "debacle" may have played a role in last years elections but it was not the only reason the democrats won.

I seem to remember republican having a ton of scandals last year as well. Can the democrats count on this again for the elections next year? There are other factors that I am not even thinking of right now such as local issues.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the next sixteen months.

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by coolpeter72

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the next sixteen months.

A friend of mine (who doesnt necessarily share the same political ideals I do) emails me all the time about "smilin' Norm". I know I mock the term RINO, but I dont mind it used in his case since he was a Dem when he was mayor of St Paul than quickly turned into a neo-con puppet when it became politically convenient (and why right now hes the #2 most endangered incumbent Senator behind Sununu). But he likes to point out to me that in every instance where Norm votes against the party line its always been in cases where its safe not to break cloture. And Im sure the same can be said for the other senators where they play this silly game for when campaign season goes into full bore.

On the flip side, here's a local story from MPR about how the Dems are taking heat for dragging their feet on Iraq.

My fave quote in there was Representative Ellison's "Its not enough progress." That about sums up all sides of the issue