Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Webb amendment would cripple troop surge in Iraq

[Tell Jim Webb "no" to amendment: (202) 224-4024. Tell John Warner to vote "no" to Webb amendment: (202) 224-2023.]

The opening paragraph of the Washington Times editorial says it all:
When the Senate resumes debate later this week on the defense authorization bill, one of the first issues on the agenda will be an amendment by Sen. Jim Webb that would effectively cripple the troop surge in Iraq — even as it is demonstrating real success. The real goal of this legislation is to embarrass President Bush and score propaganda points with the antiwar crowd. But it would be a mistake to gloss over the destructive nature of what Mr. Webb's amendment would do to the military and the National Guard.
Touted as the "anti-war bill," it demands troops who have been previously deployed must spend as least as much time at home before being deployed again. Mr. Webb continues to disappoint as a representative in Washington.

The amendment looks to have the necessary democrat votes to avoid a Republican filibuster and, thereby, be passed. If that happens I say ...

... veto, Mr. President.


kestrel9000 said...

Never again dare to say you support the troops, Lynn.
Clearly, you do not.

Brian said...

James Webb is doing a tremendous job as senator. I hope some day to vote for him as president.

AmPowerBlog said...

Nice post! I agree fully...the Webb amendment would be a disaster.

kestrel9000 said...

Yeah, a disaster for Bush's illegal war, and a disaster for the political calculus of troop-hating Republicans like you and SWACGirl.
Why do you hate the troops?

Lynn R. Mitchell said...

Nice try, Eddie Garcia. As you know by now, the Webb amendment was voted down -- and it was not supported by John Warner.

This is not a partisan issue; it is a military issue. Decisions concerning the military should be in the hands of those commanders, not Congress ... and certainly not citizens who have no idea what all the background intelligence is about these situations. Let the military run the military.

Thanks for stopping by....

Anonymous said...

I am a former Republican and this cowardly and shameful behavior in shooting down the Webb ammendment is just one reason why.

My fathre served, my brother served and my sister was killed in the first Iraq war.

Our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons and daughter deserve better treatment than the current crop of Republicans is giving them. They, who are serving our Country so well, deserve the same amount of time off as they serve.

Shame on you.

cafe de emporia said...

You're pretty good at pointing the finger Kestrel,

so what do YOU do to support the troops?

cafe de emporia said...

And Jennifer....shame on SWAC Girl?

As much as you might not like to admit it...she's right about one thing. This is a military issue. It goes without saying that this type of decision needs to be made by the commanders on the field---Not by our legislature in Congress who are already way passed being timid on this issue.

Lynn R. Mitchell said...

Jennifer, please thank your family for their service to our country ... and their supreme sacrifice in losing your sister.

Those who are the military know better what the needs are of the military than Congress ... or even you and me. There are many on record including Defense Secretary Gates who were not in agreement with the Amendment.

That is not to say I do not agree with the concept of allowing troops longer time at home before deploying again to Iraq or Afghanistan. However, I am not the person to make that decision. That is the military's place and I respect that they were not in favor of this legislation.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

kestrel9000 said...

What do I do to support the troops, Alex?
More than you do, obviously.
I stand for ending this illegal and unneccessary war that does nothing to protect us, and bringing them home.
What does this war do to protect us?
Goodlatte wouldn't answer that question from me, and etraeus wouldn't answer it in Congress.
"I don't know" he said.
Or did you miss that?

kestrel9000 said...

Lynn, Warner was for the amendment before he was against it.
and if military decisions should be left to the military, then why is General Petraeus selling out to the politcians, and letting them vet his reports?