Undermining the Commander-in-Chief...again

Virtual treason.
Undermining the President.

This is some of the language used to describe the events in the Senate yesterday. To keep it very simple, here's what happened. Senate Democrats began by proposing that the President unveil a timeline to get our troops out of Iraq. Here's what one Colorado talk show host had to say, "Today, Senate Democrats tried to force the US military to surrender to the terrorists next year..."

He may sound like an over-the-top talk show host. However, outlining a timetable for our troops to get out, for all to see, would have that very effect. All our new household names--from bin Laden to Zarqawi--would get to sit back, have a beer while watching their fans on Al Jazeera. Vacation would end the day that our men and women would leave Iraq. That simple.

Thankfully, that proposal was shot down by Senate Republicans (and a few Democrats, including 4 who are up for re-election in red states next year).

"Even so, the Senate's political statement was clear - and made even more stinging when the vote was held with Bush abroad, in Asia, an embarrassing step Congress often tries to avoid. With Democrats pressing their amendment calling for a calendar for withdrawal, Republicans worked to fend off a frontal attack by Democrats by calling on the White House to do more." (reports AP via My Way News)

The report goes on to say,
"The Senate then voted 79-19 in favor of a Republican alternative stating that 2006 'should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty,' with Iraqi forces taking the lead in providing security to create the conditions for the phased redeployment of U.S. forces."

"It does not require the administration to do anything. Rather, it simply calls for the Bush administration to 'explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq' and to provide reports on U.S. foreign policy and military operations in Iraq every three months until all U.S. combat brigades have been withdrawn."

While I am glad that they did the right thing for the nation to not vote for the timeline, I am very disappointed in the Senate's obvious political motives. If they were serious and had real conviction about this matter, why did they do this while the President was out of the country?! If I had real issues with my boss, I would request a meeting with him in his office. I would not wait for him to go out of town and then make a public statement to the rest of the staff and all our clients/customers/etc. This is what the Senate just did.

I understand that Congress already receives periodic reports on Iraq. If adjustments needed to be made, they should have taken it up directly with the man with whom they have the issue.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., admitted to some potential political motives for the proposal and for the support it received. "I think it speaks to a bit of nervousness about the public perception of how the war is going with respect to 2006."

If Republicans think that their behavior is going to do anything to gain votes next year, they're missing it big time. You do not have to agree with the President to be respectful to him. You don't have to throw him under the bus in order to win an election. I suppose that if they don't figure it out now, they will get it in, oh, maybe in about a year or so.

Let your Senator know what you think about their shananigans: 202/225-3121


At 11/16/2005 01:31:00 PM, Blogger Mark said...

I am not so sure a timeline wouldn't be in order, but it shouldn't be made public, nor should it be known that one even exists.

I am also not so sure that Bush doesn't have a goal in mind of when to begin removal of the troops.

If he does, he is doing the right thing by not telling anyone what it is.

But to create a timeline or a target date for pullout, would indeeed empower the enemy to do just what you say they would do.

But then, again, I am thinking that bin Laden is arrogant (or crazy) enough that he wouldn't sit by and wait even if there was such a public timeline.

At 11/16/2005 02:46:00 PM, Blogger Robert said...

I know this is not the majority view on the right, but the President brought this action on his own head. By failing to actively make the case for war over and over again, he has allowed the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) to frame the public mood on the issue. To further compound the problem, we have failed to prosecute the war as if it were a war. We're so concerned about the sensibilities of the Muslims that we're holding back--they don't do that! Bush's refusal to get serious about the border also plays to the idea that he isn't serious about the war. If the Republicans in Congress want to call him on this, they have my support.

At 11/16/2005 02:52:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Check out the telling video on gop.com

Gotta love em. Simple-mindedness is an artform.

S. Atlanta

At 11/17/2005 04:39:00 AM, Blogger Goat said...

If you want to know what is going the average citizen can visit CentCom.mil and click on press releases. I think most intelligent folks either have direct or close access to the internet. For example, Mom will call me when she questions a news story and her instinct is right 99.9999% of the time, good old barnyard horse sense. The socialists have an agenda of disinformationial propaganda they have used for years and it almost worked till Al Gore's internet took there dream away. The rumbling is not conservatives running away from the battle, rather rushing to form Spartan phalanxes against a disingenuous splintered and unorganized attack based on moral and ethical weakness. The war has not spintered the conservative base though it has shattered the left's, too many of their icons voted for the war and supported it in "98" before Bush was president.

At 2/01/2006 10:27:00 AM, Blogger J.L. Hinman said...

I was old enough to remember Vietname. Its' the smae war all over agian. the slogans are the same, stragy is the same, stupid right wing BS is the same.

At 12/08/2006 11:57:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You liberals have got it so wrong. The president is right, that's why he's the president. And he has surrounded himself with intelligunt people who, with their vast years of experience in the military and high office, he relies on for the most accurate assessment of the reality of Commie/Facist/Islamo plans to take over the world and take away our guns, just like you chickens want. That's why he's the decider, a do-gooder, and the MSM which is owned by liberal cut-and-runners like GE, Times/Warner, and Rupurt Mirdock are all in bed with the do-badders. He has a secret plan for total victory, so shut up, or else it won't be a secret and the traitors win! Do you want to lose? All this talk about saving lives and money and you never thought about what's good for America - Do you want to lose! I say we back him in whatever he wants to do because it's good for America. Pinheads for Bush say: Re-elect Bush in 2008!

At 1/08/2007 12:04:00 AM, Blogger USpace said...

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
don't fight wars to win...

At 5/02/2007 04:56:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The president is NOT the boss of the congress. Ever heard of checks and balances?


Post a Comment

<< Home