No spinning it now

[hork]

While it's hardly a shock that the GOP places agenda ahead of the American public's well being (even for those who fight to give them the right to be autocrats) at least now they won't be able to color the truth as they voted in a roll vote.

I can't wait until the first GOP candidate attempts to make it look as though the left lied on their promise to seek a suitable compromise with regard to the Iraq situation. It's now painfully clear who the unwilling parties truly are. And unless one wants to outright lie, there's no way to spin the roll call.

[-mmm-]

"The White House has been very effective of making this a loyalty test for the party," Hagel said after the vote.

Yeah that about sums it up.

And, as always with these close but no cigar cloture votes, look at the Republicans who voted for it:
Coleman
Collins
Hagel
Smith
Sununu
Snowe
Stabenow

So in essence, 4 Senators in tenuous positions for re-election trying to distance themselves even though they're still tied to the hip with Bush, 2 dreaded RINOs, and I dont know too much about the Senator from Michigan to comment.

[P562045]

No spinning this part of article either,

Democrats have struggled all year to pass legislation winding down the Iraq war....

This is just another veiled attempt to do just that. Now the article also mentions that there will other proposals in the senate to pull the troops out of Iraq. I am going to assume that these will fail as well.

I was watching a rhetorical little diddy by Senator McCain yesterday and he was talking about this would decrease the military effectiveness in Iraq. I would love to hear why democrats are wanting to as Senator McCain put it "increase combat deaths in Iraq." There are several reasons for this. Has there been a huge surge in the number of people who have been signing up for military duties recently? If the answer is no and these members of the military are required to stay out of Iraq for how ever many days before they can come back it would seem to me that the military will be even more stretched than the democrats are saying it is already. And as we all know the number one concern for democrats is to keep the troops safe right? Now in their minds the only way to really do this is get them out of combat situations in the first place. How many times has the congress this year tried very veiled attempts to get the troops out of Iraq?

The name of this should have been bring our troops home and in doing so we will make America so much safer.

I have mentioned just recently why the democrats are dragging their feet on getting the troops out of Iraq. The main if I could put it so bluntly is they do not want to be responsible for what happens in Iraq until after the elections in November of next year. There is another reason the war in Iraq also brings in huge amounts of contributions into the coffers of democrats candidates as well.

And to say there will be no consequences whatsoever is just assinine to the nth degree. I have heard it mentioned that there will be some consequences but of course that is not really what should concern us it should concern us much more the safety of the troops so what will the consequences be and are there going to be any unintended consequences as well?

I can't wait for the democrat spin machine to come out and say what I just said is completely wrong. So why have democrats not been working harder for just a few more votes if they are really so concerned about this? It only takes three republican senators in order to have an up and down vote on the floor. But this article points out that Senator Warner has actually changed his vote since the August recess. I wonder if Senator Warner is such an important republican senator now after he has changed his vote?

Did anyone actually see General Betrayus chart of what he wants to see happen with regards to troop levels in Iraq? There is an extremely slow reduction in troops sizes in Iraq which oh by the way the democrats better want as well. As I just mentioned the utmost concern of democrats is troops safety. Can this be achieved better by slowly reducing troop reductions or having them all brought home at once. I would say the first option is better because I have not heard anyone in Washington suggest that the second option will be nice and orderly and will actually keep the troops any safer than the first option.

I also have said recently that I could really care less who gets credit for what as long as we get it right this time. And I am also going to be very blunt and clear again. If we screw this up yet again what is happening in Iraq at this very moment will seem like a cakewalk compared to what we face down the road.

There is just one other thing I want to talk about with this whole matter. The democrats are running around acting like they are the agents of change in Washington. Does this really lend itself for democrats to make this claim? And clearly both sides of the political spectrum are using this for there own purposes with regards to next years election. I will indeed be quite shocked if what we are talking about in mid September of 2007 we are not talking still talking about this during the whole presidential election season next year. And the reasons why both sides are doing this the way that they are is going to be very hard to spin for both sides. So why is this so difficult if a majority of Americans want to bring home a substantial amount of the troops home from Iraq. It is so very easy to blame the republican minority in the senate for this and that is part of the point of all of this in the first place but as I have mentioned on more than one occasion now there are other factors that are not being mentioned as well.

[P562045]

I want to put this where it will not be "lost" in what I said in my last post. I also can't wait for the democrats to spin this if what I am saying is ever figured out by people voting. Are these good reasons to keep the troops in Iraq for an indefinite amount of time just like the president wants? And don't be fooled by the democrats veiled attempts to get the troops out of Iraq. The only real reason this is happening time after time this year is so that the democrats can run around and say that republicans want to keep the war in Iraq going. That is the whole point of this article in the first place.

I have mentioned just recently why the democrats are dragging their feet on getting the troops out of Iraq. The main [reason] if I could put it so bluntly is they do not want to be responsible for what happens in Iraq until after the elections in November of next year. There is another reason the war in Iraq also brings in huge amounts of contributions into the coffers of democrats candidates as well.