Democrats fail to get any legislation passed..

[jameznyhc]

Democrats Failing to Pass Anti-War Bill

Sep 21, 4:27 AM (ET)

By ANNE FLAHERTY

(AP) U.S soldier's from Bravo 6-9 Cav. Troop leave their temporarily base during operation Saber Hammer...
Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats are unable to pass legislation that would challenge President Bush on the Iraq war, despite public opinion polls that show the war remains deeply unpopular with voters.

Failing to muster the support, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says the war now belonged to Republicans and vowed they would have to go on record again and again as siding with President Bush. He scheduled a vote Friday on legislation by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., that would order combat troops home in nine months.

"Back home they assert their independence, but in Washington they walk in lockstep with the president and continue to support his failed policies," said Reid, D-Nev.

Friday's vote caps off a week of disappointing roll calls for the Democrats, who had hoped that more Republicans would have jumped on board by now.


Recent polls show that American views of the war largely have not changed since Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, testified last week.

A poll released this week by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that 54 percent of Americans still favor bringing troops home as soon as possible. And despite slight improvements in the public's view of military progress, more said the U.S. will likely fail in Iraq than succeed by 47 percent to 42 percent, about the same margin as in July.

On Wednesday, the Senate blocked legislation by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., that would have guaranteed troops more time at home; it fell by a 56-44 vote with 60 votes needed to advance. On Thursday, the Senate blocked legislation sponsored by Reid and Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., that would have cut off funding for combat in June 2008. That measure failed by a 70-28 vote, 32 votes short of 60.

Levin's bill too was expected to fall short of the 60 votes required, with Republicans saying they still oppose setting a firm deadline on the war.

"If we leave, we will be back - in Iraq and elsewhere - in many more desperate fights to protect our security and at an even greater cost in American lives and treasure," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee.

On Thursday, Republicans successfully pushed through a resolution condemning an advertisement by the liberal activist group MoveOn.org. Displayed in The New York Times, the ad taunted Petraeus as "General Betray Us."

The resolution, sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, passed by a 72-25 vote.

House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the House should consider a similar measure. But when asked if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., would allow it, spokesman Nadeam Elshami said in an e-mail: "The House is going to devote its full attention to providing health care to children, promoting energy independence to improve America's security, reducing global warming, and responsibly redeploying U.S. forces now in Iraq.

"These are the priorities of the American people," he said.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070921/D8RPO2080.html

[John Kennedy]

Democrats Failing to Pass Anti-War Bill

Sep 21, 4:27 AM (ET)

By ANNE FLAHERTY

(AP) U.S soldier's from Bravo 6-9 Cav. Troop leave their temporarily base during operation Saber Hammer...
Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats are unable to pass legislation that would challenge President Bush on the Iraq war, despite public opinion polls that show the war remains deeply unpopular with voters.

Failing to muster the support, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says the war now belonged to Republicans and vowed they would have to go on record again and again as siding with President Bush. He scheduled a vote Friday on legislation by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., that would order combat troops home in nine months.

"Back home they assert their independence, but in Washington they walk in lockstep with the president and continue to support his failed policies," said Reid, D-Nev.

Friday's vote caps off a week of disappointing roll calls for the Democrats, who had hoped that more Republicans would have jumped on board by now.


Recent polls show that American views of the war largely have not changed since Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, testified last week.

A poll released this week by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that 54 percent of Americans still favor bringing troops home as soon as possible. And despite slight improvements in the public's view of military progress, more said the U.S. will likely fail in Iraq than succeed by 47 percent to 42 percent, about the same margin as in July.

On Wednesday, the Senate blocked legislation by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., that would have guaranteed troops more time at home; it fell by a 56-44 vote with 60 votes needed to advance. On Thursday, the Senate blocked legislation sponsored by Reid and Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., that would have cut off funding for combat in June 2008. That measure failed by a 70-28 vote, 32 votes short of 60.

Levin's bill too was expected to fall short of the 60 votes required, with Republicans saying they still oppose setting a firm deadline on the war.

"If we leave, we will be back - in Iraq and elsewhere - in many more desperate fights to protect our security and at an even greater cost in American lives and treasure," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee.

On Thursday, Republicans successfully pushed through a resolution condemning an advertisement by the liberal activist group MoveOn.org. Displayed in The New York Times, the ad taunted Petraeus as "General Betray Us."

The resolution, sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, passed by a 72-25 vote.

House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the House should consider a similar measure. But when asked if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., would allow it, spokesman Nadeam Elshami said in an e-mail: "The House is going to devote its full attention to providing health care to children, promoting energy independence to improve America's security, reducing global warming, and responsibly redeploying U.S. forces now in Iraq.

"These are the priorities of the American people," he said.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070921/D8RPO2080.html

it's cool, the republicans are going to pay for it in 2008.

[CraftyVet16]

Democrats Failing to Pass Anti-War Bill

Sep 21, 4:27 AM (ET)

By ANNE FLAHERTY

(AP) U.S soldier's from Bravo 6-9 Cav. Troop leave their temporarily base during operation Saber Hammer...
Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats are unable to pass legislation that would challenge President Bush on the Iraq war, despite public opinion polls that show the war remains deeply unpopular with voters.

Failing to muster the support, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says the war now belonged to Republicans and vowed they would have to go on record again and again as siding with President Bush. He scheduled a vote Friday on legislation by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., that would order combat troops home in nine months.

"Back home they assert their independence, but in Washington they walk in lockstep with the president and continue to support his failed policies," said Reid, D-Nev.

Friday's vote caps off a week of disappointing roll calls for the Democrats, who had hoped that more Republicans would have jumped on board by now.


Recent polls show that American views of the war largely have not changed since Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, testified last week.

A poll released this week by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that 54 percent of Americans still favor bringing troops home as soon as possible. And despite slight improvements in the public's view of military progress, more said the U.S. will likely fail in Iraq than succeed by 47 percent to 42 percent, about the same margin as in July.

On Wednesday, the Senate blocked legislation by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., that would have guaranteed troops more time at home; it fell by a 56-44 vote with 60 votes needed to advance. On Thursday, the Senate blocked legislation sponsored by Reid and Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., that would have cut off funding for combat in June 2008. That measure failed by a 70-28 vote, 32 votes short of 60.

Levin's bill too was expected to fall short of the 60 votes required, with Republicans saying they still oppose setting a firm deadline on the war.

"If we leave, we will be back - in Iraq and elsewhere - in many more desperate fights to protect our security and at an even greater cost in American lives and treasure," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee.

On Thursday, Republicans successfully pushed through a resolution condemning an advertisement by the liberal activist group MoveOn.org. Displayed in The New York Times, the ad taunted Petraeus as "General Betray Us."

The resolution, sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, passed by a 72-25 vote.

House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the House should consider a similar measure. But when asked if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., would allow it, spokesman Nadeam Elshami said in an e-mail: "The House is going to devote its full attention to providing health care to children, promoting energy independence to improve America's security, reducing global warming, and responsibly redeploying U.S. forces now in Iraq.

"These are the priorities of the American people," he said.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070921/D8RPO2080.html

and you are happy about this?

and the republicans will be paying for this long past 2008

[John Kennedy]

and you are happy about this?

and the republicans will be paying for this long past 2008

he just sees it as "my team beat your team".. the guy couldn't care if this whole country got nuked, as long as a republican did it he'd defend it lol

[jameznyhc]

he just sees it as "my team beat your team".. the guy couldn't care if this whole country got nuked, as long as a republican did it he'd defend it lol

so its fair game to post a billion bush bashing threads ..yet dont you dare criticize the democrats.. how pathetic

[jameznyhc]

and you are happy about this?

and the republicans will be paying for this long past 2008


yes I'am happy about this because setting a timetable for withdrawel is giving your enemy tell to wait it out.. if they have a solution to stop iran or a mass civil war leading to a power struggle letting god knows who to take control would be disasterous

[John Kennedy]

so its fair game to post a billion bush bashing threads ..yet dont you dare criticize the democrats.. how pathetic

I don't dare? lol.. have you forgotten who you're talking to? I've done so many times.. I criticize and praise where its due, not according to who's on "my team" or "my side" as you love to put it because it makes things simpler for u to understand.

[Benny B]

i think its a joke.. it just goes to show that its a war between parties and not a war against iraq.. the fact is it makes it look as if OUR government isnt working.. i disagree with a time table pullout.. but in all honesty they are asking for the troops to come home.. george bush in his speech said that by xmas x many would be coming home and i think it was anoither 25000 by june.. there is a time table in place to start bringing them home. but because its not ALL of them its not good enough.. regardless.. as much as i think there needs to be parties at the same time i wish they would do away with them

[John Kennedy]

i think its a joke.. it just goes to show that its a war between parties and not a war against iraq.. the fact is it makes it look as if OUR government isnt working.. i disagree with a time table pullout.. but in all honesty they are asking for the troops to come home.. george bush in his speech said that by xmas x many would be coming home and i think it was anoither 25000 by june.. there is a time table in place to start bringing them home. but because its not ALL of them its not good enough.. regardless.. as much as i think there needs to be parties at the same time i wish they would do away with them

I agree with doing away with the party system, but you don't think the 30k surge followed by the 30k pullout is a political move? You really think 30k troops made the difference when General Petreus suggestion was for 500k troops to be on the ground to crush insurgents? They've been pussyfooting trying to extend the war for no reason, our "objectives" have been completed and the longer we are there fighting the worse off the Iraqi government and military will be. We should surround and protect the border and that's it, not still fighting in the streets and losing American lives.

[Benny B]

I agree with doing away with the party system, but you don't think the 30k surge followed by the 30k pullout is a political move? You really think 30k troops made the difference when General Petreus suggestion was for 500k troops to be on the ground to crush insurgents? They've been pussyfooting trying to extend the war for no reason, our "objectives" have been completed and the longer we are there fighting the worse off the Iraqi government and military will be. We should surround and protect the border and that's it, not still fighting in the streets and losing American lives.

trust me before any surge happened i said we should just pull out to the boarders and be there as "support" if needed. you can search for hte post.. we the united states arent going to benefit the iraqi people with having our hand in building their government its their government not ours.. and needs to be formed their way... but like i said.. it would be better off us being at the boarders keeping places like Syria and Iran out from interfiering with the rebuilding of that country.

[TheHipHopBillGates]

Bush is effectively just killing time, so he can dump this mess on someone else, that's why he doesn't want to pull out. You have to give him props for it.

[CraftyVet16]

yes I'am happy about this because setting a timetable for withdrawel is giving your enemy tell to wait it out.. if they have a solution to stop iran or a mass civil war leading to a power struggle letting god knows who to take control would be disasterous

if you didn't know our enemy by now.... they will wait hundreds of years.. they don't give a shit.... "so lets not tell them when we are leaving because maybe they will just give up", so in your eyes and your reasoning we will have to be there FOREVER... thats just dandy

[ShaE]

so its fair game to post a billion bush bashing threads ..yet dont you dare criticize the democrats.. how pathetic


I've seen plenty of criticism for the dems, but they are the majority in congress not the leader of the country. President vs. congressional majority jamez, big difference. I've seen JK criticize them, chris, and myself, especially as of late. but maybe you have selective memory.

bush runs the country, he's the commander in chief, he's the 'decider' if you will lol, AND he's BEEN making very costly blunders and poor decisions for 7 years now.

vs the dem congress, which CONSISTS of republicans, and cannot make decisions w/o voting. Just b/c dems have a majority they cannot just PASS legislation w/o republican support, bush can veto.

And you wonder why there's bush bashing going on? YOU DONT' THINK he deserves it? I'm more of a republican than this man and you don't get why he gets "bashed"?

Comparing bush's TWO TERMS of fuckups to the failures of the dem CONGRESS to pass legistlation bush can veto in his sleep is just so retarded.

[ShaE]

I don't dare? lol.. have you forgotten who you're talking to? I've done so many times.. I criticize and praise where its due, .

seriously, you are the least biased person on this forum, and most common devil's advocate lol

he's just labeling you b/c it's convenient to his point.

[ShaE]

i think its a joke.. it just goes to show that its a war between parties and not a war against iraq.. the fact is it makes it look as if OUR government isnt working.. i disagree with a time table pullout.. but in all honesty they are asking for the troops to come home.. george bush in his speech said that by xmas x many would be coming home and i think it was anoither 25000 by june.. there is a time table in place to start bringing them home. but because its not ALL of them its not good enough.. regardless.. as much as i think there needs to be parties at the same time i wish they would do away with them

Partisan bickering and bullshit is a plague here, i despise things about both parties but what they have in common is that they're fucking full of themselves and so preoccupied w/ infighting that they've failed to see the value in cooperation, compromise, and CONSIDERING one anothers' points of view. No one party has all the answers, if they did the country would be perfect. We need people to be willing to think beyond the typical restrictions of their base, whether that's opposing typically liberal supporters or pissing off the repub conservative base, somebody has to show them they have to be willing to bend a bit to come up with real solutions.

Our problems aren't simple, or cut and dry, and no dem or rep is going to be able to solve them by ramming their platform down our throats alienating the opposite side. I agree, I wish we could get rid of parties for many reasons but it would entail a lot of change and I don't know if it'd be the best. Regardless, we need a serious MIND SET reform both publicly and politically.