Both of the Democrats' goofy measures on troop withdrawal from Iraq have been defeated.
Roll Call for the Levin Amendment.
In a 60-39 vote, the Senate rejected the amendment, a meaningless piece of drivel.
The Washington Post described it as a "nonbinding resolution urging Bush to begin a troop "redeployment" by the end of this year. It does not specify a pace or a completion date."
Both Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold voted for it.
Roll Call for the Kerry-Feingold Amendment.
In a stunning thrashing, that crazy measure went down 86-13.
The amendment "order[ed] President Bush to withdraw nearly all U.S. troops from Iraq by July 31, 2007."
What an embarrassment for Feingold and Kerry!
No doubt, Feingold will go back to his Daily Kos blog to lick his wounds.
The supporters:
Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Wyden (D-OR)
It's a Who's Who of the Leftist nuts in the Senate.
Naturally, this AP account puts its anti-GOP, anti-Bush, pro-Dem, pro-Left spin on the story.
WASHINGTON -- The GOP-controlled Senate on Thursday rejected Democratic calls to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by years' end, as the two parties sought to define their election-year positions on a war that has grown increasingly unpopular.
"Withdrawal is not an option. Surrender is not a solution," declared Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, who characterized Democrats as defeatists wanting to abandon Iraq before the mission is complete.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, in turn, portrayed Republican leaders as blindly following President Bush's "failed" stay-the-course strategy. "It is long past time to change course in Iraq and start to end the president's open-ended commitment," he said.
In an 86-13 vote, the Senate turned back a proposal from some Democrats that would require the administration to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007, with redeployments beginning this year. No Republicans voted in favor of the plan.
Minutes later, the Senate rejected by 60-39 the proposal more popular with Democrats, a nonbinding resolution that would call for the administration to begin withdrawing troops, but with no timetable for the war's end.
That vote was mostly along party lines.
Considering that the war has "grown increasingly unpopular," that didn't prevent all Republicans but one to vote to reject the amendments.
It's worth noting that for all the blathering from the lib media that some Republicans are abandoning Bush and his Iraq policy, only one voted for Levin's plan and NO Republicans voted for the ridiculous Kerry-Feingold non-plan.
Siding with all but one Republican were six Democrats _ Sens. Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and three running for re-election this fall: Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Bill Nelson of Florida and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
In other words, some Dem senators running for re-election this November understand that voting for the amendment would not be a wise move.
Sen. Lincoln Chafee, who also is up for re-election, was the only Republican supporter of the troop withdrawal resolution.
Although Chafee is facing an election, he has his finger on the pulse of the people of Rhode Island.
(Note: Chafee is not a Republican. He's a fraud.)
The votes come a week after both houses of Congress soundly rejected withdrawal timetables for the 127,000 troops in Iraq and as polls show voters are weary about the war in its fourth year.
Weariness with war doesn't translate into a willingness to accept defeat.
Republicans argued the United States must stay put to help the fledgling Iraqi government, while Democrats demanded that the Bush administration make clear that American forces won't be in Iraq forever.
"We must give them that support and not send a signal that we're going to pull possibly the rug out from under them," Sen. John Warner, R- Va., said.
"The United States, with our Iraqi partners, has the responsibility to see this through," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., added.
But Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said: "It is time to tell the Iraqis that we have done what we can do militarily."
"Maintaining the status quo ... is a recipe for continuing instability and failure," Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said.
I'd like to ask Feingold why American troops are still in Bosnia. Haven't we done all that we can do militarily over there?
These amendments illustrate that the Dems were engaged in an effort to appease their base, plain and simple.
The measures were not grounded in what's best for the country.
Rather than recognize the importance of a free and stable Iraq to the success of the War on Terror, the Dems preferred to play politics with the nation's future, revealing that they are not fit to manage national security.
...This week, Senate Republicans welcomed the Democratic-engineered debate because it highlighted divisions in the Democratic Party little more than four months before Election Day and as the GOP is trying to overcome polls showing the public favors a power shift in Congress to Democrats.
Democrats, for their part, tried to deflect attention from differences in their party on Iraq, even though the debate was over two separate Democratic proposals on the fate of U.S. troops.
Once again, the Dems prove to be their own worst enemy.
They are divided. They have no coherent philosophy, other than to be anti-Bush.
...The Bush administration says U.S. troops will stay in Iraq until Iraqi security forces can defend the country against a lethal insurgency that rose up after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 that toppled dictator Saddam Hussein.
Senate Republicans opposed any timeline. They said a premature pullout and a public pronouncement of any such plan would risk all-out civil war, tip off terrorists, threaten U.S. security and cripple the Iraqi government just as democracy is taking hold.
In turn, almost all Democrats chastised Republicans for walking in lockstep with Bush and they accused him of failing to articulate a plan for the way ahead in Iraq. Democrats said it is time for troops to start coming home and for Congress to send a clear signal that the U.S. presence is not indefinite.
Why is it that the Republicans are considered to be marching in lockstep but the Dems' party line votes, on the Levin amendment for example, are not "lockstep" moves?
That's intellectually dishonest.
The Dems can "chastise" the Republicans until the cows come home.
Until they propose a legitimate, meaningful plan of their own, their Iraq measures will remain little more than empty political stunts.
An arbitrary deadline for troop withdrawal is not a plan.
It admits defeat. It guarantees failure in Iraq.
No comments:
Post a Comment