In the latest attempt to undermine our troops and "slow bleed" our military into leaving Iraq, Webb sponsored a bill that he knew the Senate didn't have the 60 vote majority needed to further the bill.
He was warned it would be filibustered, but again, like I said in my last post, the Dems in the Senate and Congress are S.L.O.W. Learners.
But Republicans threatened to filibuster the measure, which they said could force a premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq because of shortened deployment cycles.
"It would undercut the ability to maintain the surge," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., referring to the surge of U.S. troops announced by President Bush in January. Graham said he is preparing his own amendment that would make Webb's measure advisory without requiring the Pentagon to change its policy.
Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., stopped short of opposing Webb's measure, but described the cost of it as "enormous" and noted strong opposition to it from the Defense Department.
"I do have some concerns about it," Warner said. "His objective is laudable, but these are decisions historically left to the Defense Department to make."
Setback Comes in First Test of Democratic War Proposals
Legislation that would have required longer troop rests between combat deployments fell today to a Republican filibuster, but GOP cracks on 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. Jim 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. 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."
In World War II, the country understood the need to achieve victory against our enemies and games to "slow bleed" the military weren't an option. (Added note: I believe they used a point based system and am still finding the links, so I will add them here as I get them)
[UPDATED with link, huge hat tip to HCdl]
The Air Force, Navy, and Marines were volunteer units. The escalating war, however, required more draftees. In 1965 about 20,000 men per month were inducted into the military, most into the Army; by 1968 about 40,000 young men were drafted each month to meet increased troop levels ordered for Vietnam. The conscript army was largely composed of teenagers; the average age of a U.S. soldier in Vietnam was 19, younger than in World War II or the Korean War. For the first time in U.S. military history, tours of duty were fixed in length, usually for a period of 12 or 13 months, and an individual’s date of estimated return from overseas (DEROS) was therefore set at the same time as the assignment date.
It doesn't take a genius to understand that in World War II, there WAS no "fixed" length for combat duty, and guess what? We WON.
Webb's amendment is nothing more than a way for the Democrats to pretend they actually give a damn about the troops, yet the troops themselves state, they are in it to WIN... to bad our politicians don't have the same courage and bravery and selflessness that our brave troops have.
[END UPDATE]
The liberal MSM and the left liberal blogs will scream, "see, those DAMN Republicans don't care about the troops" and yet it is those same liberals that ignore every word our soldiers blogs, emails and writes to the American people, telling them to shut up and let them get the job done.
The strawman for the liberals IS our troops because our troops, nowadays, have the ability to get their voices heard and we show you those voices every time we see them while the liberal blogs IGNORE every letter, every email that they send.
It isn't the liberals collecting money to help rebuild memorials that have been destroyed.
It isn't liberals that set up donation buttons for our troops.
It isn't liberals that publish the letters from our soldiers in Iraq so the world may hear their voices.
It isn't liberals that receive thank you notes via email from the soldiers in Iraq.
Finally, it ISN'T the conservatives that shoots an Air Force member, on American soil before turning the gun on himself and committing suicide... Nope, that was an "angry liberal".
So yes, tell us again how the "liberals" support the troops.
The list goes on and on and on, and yet the liberals and the MSM will keep spreading their lies because their supporters will believe anything they say, like good little lapdogs, but actions speak louder than words.
Is it any wonder that Democrats aren't trusted with National Security?
[Update] A list of the Democrats broken National Security promises shows us that they have indeed EARNED the motto "Weak on National Security".
The only thing the Democrats seem to be good at, is LYING to their supporters, but no worries, most of their supporters are too stupid to care.DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #31: Implement ALL 9/11 Commission Recommendations
Promise: “On the first day we control Congress, we will begin by passing all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations.” – Then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Press Release, July 21, 2006Promise: “House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says she plans to pass all of the Sept. 11 commission’s recommendations within 100 legislative hours of a Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives.” – “Pelosi Plan to Swiftly Enact Recommendations of 9/11 Commission Short on Specifics,” Congressional Quarterly, November 6, 2006
Broken Promise: “On the eve of last November’s elections, then-minority leader Pelosi promised that Democrats would implement all the 9/11 commission recommendations in their first day in office. But it leaves out key provisions of that prestigious panel that were considered and rejected in the GOP-controlled Congress: It does not take up panel recommendations to declassify the top line of the intelligence budget; It would not shift covert paramilitary operations from the Central Intelligence Agency to the Defense Department; It skirts the lead recommendation of the 9/11 commission for members of Congress: to dramatically reduce the number of committees that claim oversight over homeland security.” – “Pelosi Plan to Swiftly Enact Recommendations of 9/11 Commission Short on Specifics,” Congressional Quarterly, November 6, 2006
Broken Promise: “But the [9/11 bill] package will not include a reorganization of congressional oversight of the Homeland Security Department or an attempt to declassify the intelligence budget, despite the fact that those, too, were key recommendations. Although Democrats pledged during the election to implement all of the commission’s unfulfilled recommendations, aides now concede that doing so will be harder than they thought.” – “Dems Drop Some 9/11 Panel Proposals From Agenda,” CongressDaily AM, December 15, 2006
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #32: Pass Clean Spending Bills Without Iraq Policy Changes
Promise: “House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member John Murtha, D-Pa., told reporters last week that he would not use the spending bill to enact policy on Iraq -- a war he strongly opposes.” –“Dems To Reorder Defense Priorities, But Not Slash Budgets,” Congress Daily PM, October 27, 2006Broken Promise: An editorial in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette accused Democrats of using the supplemental spending bill to author “resolutions that would severely restrict supplies and reinforcements” for American troops in harm’s way, and would “tie the president’s hands by imposing all kinds of conditions on his ability to reinforce the troops.” – Arkansas Democrat Gazette Editorial, February 21, 2006. CNN’s John Roberts questioned Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) about his “slow bleed” scheme to undermine our generals and our troops on the ground (“American Morning,” CNN, April 24, 2007):
JOHN ROBERTS: You heard what President Bush said, that Congress shouldn’t be micromanaging the war. What do you say?
REP. JOHN MURTHA: That’s our job, John.
On the upcoming Department of Defense spending bill, it’s clear House Democrats and Rep. Murtha do intend to attach the latest version of his “slow bleed” scheme to undermine our troops: “House Democratic leaders are considering votes next month on another legislative package aimed at changing course in Iraq, and might announce those plans this week, aides said Monday. ... The Iraq language would be attached to the Defense appropriations bill.” –“Dems Weighing Next Attempt To Change Course In Iraq War,” Congress Daily PM, June 26, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #33: Protect U.S. Ports
Promise: “Immediately implement the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission including securing national borders, ports airports and mass transit systems.” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) “A New Direction for America,” Page 5Broken Promise: According to the 9/11 Commission, “The small terrorist travel intelligence collection and analysis program currently in place [the anti-terror ATS-P terrorist screening program] has produced disproportionately useful results. It should be expanded.” But during consideration of the Homeland Security authorization bill in May, 160 House Democrats voted against a Republican proposal to give the Homeland Security Department the authority to continue utilizing the anti-terror ATS-P terrorist screening program. – Roll Call Vote #317, May 9, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #34: “A New Strategy to Win the War on Terror”
Promise: “A New Strategy to Win the War on Terror. . .We need to use all the tools of American power to make our country safe.” – The Plan, Rahm Emanuel & Bruce Reed, page 56Broken Promise: “[House Democrats on the Armed Services Committee are] banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget. This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee’s Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase.” – Military Times, “No More GWOT, House Committee Decrees,” April 4, 2007
Broken Promise: “Democrats have banned the phrase ‘global war on terror’ from the draft Pentagon budget, arguing that it is a propagandist term. . .” – The Daily Telegraph, “Democrats Put End to Global War on Terror,” April 10, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #35: Support U.S. Troops in Harm’s Way
Promise: “Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm’s way...” – Interview with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), ABC News’ Diane Sawyer, January 19, 2007Promise: “But we will always be there to protect our troops and to support our troops.” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), CBS’s Face the Nation, January 7, 2007
Broken Promise: “Cutting funding, Katie, is seen as a very unpopular thing, even among a number of Democrats who think it could be construed as not supporting the troops. So Murtha’s proposal is a way to get at the same goal without holding a vote to cut funding.” – CBS Evening News Correspondent Sharyl Atkisson, February 15, 2007
Broken Promise: “After months of denying that they were about to cut off funding for the troops or impose a rigid timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, the Democrats in Congress are about to do just that.” – “The Defeatist Democrats,” New York Sun Editorial, March 9, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #36: Fund Key Intelligence Programs
Promise: “We all, Democrats and Republicans alike, take very seriously our responsibility to protect the American people. We know the important role that intelligence plays in that.” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Press Conference, January 8, 2007Promise: “This bill contains robust funding for critical intelligence programs …” – House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvestre Reyes (D-TX), Floor Remarks, May 10, 2007
Broken Promise: Democrats pledged to provide full funding for critical intelligence programs – but just months after taking power, they took precious resources away from critical intelligence programs and used the money to fund research on global warming instead. “Led by U.S. Rep. Sylvestre Reyes of Texas, a coalition of D.C. Democrats say national security will be better served if CIA cash is used for global warming research – because apparently there just aren’t enough people studying the issue out there.” – “‘Intelligence’ Committee Threatens National Security,” Detroit News Editorial, May 13, 2007
Broken Promise: “One defeated amendment, offered by the Intelligence Committee’s top Republican, Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, would have deleted a requirement that the intelligence community produce a report on the national security ramifications of climate change. Democrats and Republicans fought bitterly over the requirement, with Republicans alleging that an assessment of global warming’s implications for national security would be a waste of intelligence resources ….” – “House Passes Intelligence Measure,” Congressional Quarterly, May 11, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #37: Increase Human Intelligence
Promise: “To defeat terrorists and stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, we will…increase our human intelligence capabilities.” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) “A New Direction for America,” Page 5Broken Promise: In May, just months after taking power, House Democrats approved cuts to classified human intelligence programs to combat radical Islamists – then voted en masse against a Republican motion that would have increased funding for human intelligence programs by $23 million by shifting funds away from an illegitimate earmark requested by senior Democratic Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). – Roll Call Vote #340, May 11, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #38: Reclaim American Leadership
Promise: “Reclaim American leadership with a tough, smart plan to transform failed Bush Administration policies in Iraq, the Middle East and around the world.” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) “A New Direction for America,” Page 1Broken Promise: “It [Democrats’ plan] is an initial step by newly empowered congressional Democrats to completely undermine the war by limiting funds – to deny the troops the beans and bullets they need to win, and to broadcast to America’s enemies in the Middle East and around the world that the United States has lost the will to protect itself, and its friends.” – “Dems’ Disgrace,” New York Post Editorial, February 17, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #39: Renew Strategic Alliances
Promise: “…renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) “A New Direction for America,” Page 5Broken Promise: Instead of renewing alliances with countries that support our national security objectives, Democratic leaders have reached out to nations that sponsor terrorism, over the objections of the U.S. Department of State. “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi apparently is willing to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad – even though Syria has supported terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah and allowed terrorists to cross the Syrian border with Iraq to attack U.S. troops… – “Pelosi’s Syriana,” San Francisco Chronicle Editorial, April 12, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #40: Defend Human Rights
Promise: “…lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights.” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) “A New Direction for America,” Page 5Broken Promise: Despite promises to uphold and defend human rights abroad, Democratic leaders have been largely silent on such issues, most notably during Speaker Pelosi’s widely criticized trip to Syria. “Pelosi and the Dems should begin crafting a new vision for the region by tying American aid and military support to substantial and publicly declared steps toward democracy and respect for human rights – not only in Iraq, but in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan. And not more trips like Pelosi’s junket to Syria without loud public demands for human rights reforms. – “Pelosi’s Petty Politics,” New York Daily News Editorial, May 27, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #41: Strengthen Intelligence Oversight
Promise: On naming Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee: “Congressman Silvestre Reyes has impeccable national security credentials.” – Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Press Release, December 1, 2006Broken Promise: “Six-term Texas Democrat Sylvestre Reyes, the incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, revealed to Congressional Quarterly Friday that he does not know whether al-Qaida is Sunni or Shiite Muslim (answer: Sunni). Reyes also could not say what Hezbollah is (answer: the Lebanon-based militia behind the 1983 Beirut bombing that killed more than 200 U.S. Marines).” – “Intel 101,” Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA) Editorial, December 13, 2006
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #42: Promote “Smart & Tough” Security
Promise: “Democrats are committed to protecting our country with real security initiatives that are smart and tough.” – Then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Press Release, October 25, 2006Broken Promise: House Democrats brought legislation to the House floor supporting the transfer of responsibility for a critical national security program to the United Nations, and then 230 Democrats voted against a GOP motion-to-recommit which would have would have prohibited this transfer of responsibility and made clear that America’s national security is the responsibility of America alone. – Roll Call Vote #14, January 4, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #43: Protect U.S. Borders
Promise: “I believe there is virtually unanimous agreement in the Congress that we must secure our borders and know who is entering our country.” – Then-House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, Press Release, May 25, 2006Promise: “Democrats are for the rule of law, we want to get border security right. . .We would do what’s necessary to protect our borders ...” – Then-House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, Press Release, December 15, 2005
Broken Promise: Just six months after Democrats took power in the House, 214 House Democrats voted against a Republican proposal to “provide the funds necessary for the construction of at least two layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barrier, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors pursuant to section 102(b)(1) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1986…” – GOP Motion to Recommit on H.R. 2638, Roll Call Vote #490, June 15, 2007
Broken Promise: 218 Democrats voted against an amendment by Rep. John Carter (R-TX) to strike new bureaucratic hurdles in the Homeland Security Appropriations bill designed to undermine the Department’s efforts to complete the construction of the fence along the border. As Brit Hume said recently on Fox News: “House Democrats added more than a dozen new rules the administration must meet before it can spend more money on the border fence.” – Special report with Brit Hume, Fox News, June 18, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #44: Allow Fair & Open Debate on Iraq
Promise: “In perhaps the biggest break from the current practices of GOP leaders, Pelosi said she would be willing to lose votes on the floor.” – “Pelosi: Bipartisanship Gets Major Role If Democrats Regain Control of House,” CongressDaily AM, May 18, 2006Broken Promise: Just weeks after taking power – faced with the possibility that a Republican resolution on Iraq could pass with some Democratic support – House Democratic leaders showed they are not willing to lose votes on the floor, by shutting out the GOP and refusing to allow Republicans to offer its alternative measure. “After more than a week of discussion over how – and whether – to allow the Republican minority to raise its alternative to a resolution condemning President Bush’s proposed troop increase in Iraq, House Democratic leaders opted Monday night to prevent the GOP from offering its own measure.” – “GOP Boxed Out on Iraq; Democrats Change Debate Plan,” Headline, Roll Call, February 13, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #45: Make America Safer
Promise: “Today we begin our first 100 hours, our policy package. We will begin by making America safer…” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), National Public Radio, January 9, 2007Broken Promise: “Congressional Democrats voted to cut funds for a Europe-based missile defense system …” – “Dems Look to Halt Missile Defense,” Centre Daily Times, June 7, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #46: Destroy Al Qaeda Networks
Promise: “[Democrats want to]...destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda...” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) “A New Direction for America,” Page 5Broken Promise: During their first six months in power, Democratic leaders tried repeatedly to stop U.S. forces from engaging in military operations against al Qaeda in Iraq, even contradicting statements made by America’s generals in the field concerning the nature of the enemy. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) called it disingenuous to “claim that the fight in Iraq is primarily against Al Qaeda.” – Press Statement, April 25, 2007. General David Petraeus, however, said “a number of Sunni Arab tribes” in Iraq were joining “the fight against Al Qaeda, saying ‘No more, they've had it’ and linking arms with the coalition to take on Al Qaeda in one city after another...” - General David Petraeus, Press Conference, April 25, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #47: Send Additional Troops to Iraq
Promise: In December, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes stated, “We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … I would say 20,000 to 30,000 – for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military.” – “We Can’t Afford to Leave,” Newsweek, December 5, 2007Broken Promise: “All of a sudden, Reyes disagrees with Bush, which is to say, with his own original position. ‘We don’t have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level,’ he explained. He went on to accuse Bush of pushing the same old Iraq policy, even though, again, Bush’s policy is identical to the one Reyes himself had been advocating just weeks before.” – Tucker Carlson, MSNBC, January 19, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #48: Allow Vote on Alternative Iraq Resolution
Promise: On NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ (February 11, 2007), House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) promised to give Republicans a vote on an alternative to the Democrats’ bill designed to choke off funding for troops in harm’s way:REP. BOEHNER: If you are not going to cut off troops -- cut off the funding for the troops in harm’s way, why not allow Republicans to bring a resolution to the floor and let the House vote up or down on the resolution?
REP. HOYER: That’s a good question and you are going to have that opportunity.
REP. BOEHNER: When?
REP. HOYER: Initially the first thing we are going to do --
REP. BOEHNER: When?
REP. HOYER: Within the next 35, 40 days.
Broken Promise: To date, Democratic leaders have refused to allow a vote on the Republican resolution offered by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) supporting America’s troops in harm’s way.
[Update #2] Via RCP I just found a very amusing article in which the writer, Tony Blankley, imagines todays Senate having this same battle about WWII:
The Senate: Chamber of Shame
Excerpt:
But the debate today in Washington is about none of these strategic concerns. It is exclusively about Washington's political timetable and when the president will bend to such political necessity. For self-admitted politics -- rather than national security -- to be driving decision making in wartime Washington is not only an unpatriotic disgrace -- it is a national menace.
Imagine the following fanciful discussion in April 1943:
FDR: "Ike, you're going to have to get the Normandy Invasion completed by June this year."
Ike: "But I need at least another year to assemble troops and materiel, establish logistics and strategy and train the men for the battle."
FDR: "Sorry. Several senators are feeling very uncomfortable with the war. Frankly, they have just had it. And several of them are worried about their re-election."
Ike: "My men are fighting and dying for yards in Italy right now -- and even so, they can't wait to take the war to Hitler next year in France. Tell those pantywaisted senators to unloosen their girdles, take an aspirin and go to bed -- and leave the fighting to my men."
FDR: "But we could lose the Senate."
Ike:" Better to lose the Senate than the war."
FDR: "I'm with you, Ike. You beat Hitler, and let me beat the Senate."
Ike:" My men thank you, Mr. President."
Of course, it is an absurdity to imagine such a conversation would have been possible during WWII. And it is a tragedy and disgrace that we are, in fact, having precisely such a conversation today.
But the worm will surely turn. And senators who today proudly call for retreat will then be hiding their faces in shame. And deservedly so. And the public will remember.
Not only will we remember, we will see to it that it is blasted all across the world, via blogs, to remind everyone constantly what a hopeless bunch of baffoons are in our Senate today.
More over at Hot Air with continuous updates.
.
