McCain: Anti-Iraq Vote Hurts Our Troops

[LaoSexMachine]

McCain: Anti-Iraq Vote Hurts Our Troops
WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 4, 2007(AP) The top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee sought to weaken support for a resolution opposing President Bush's Iraq war strategy, saying Sunday that supporters are intellectually dishonest.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, a 2008 presidential candidate, contended the bipartisan nonbinding resolution amounted to a demoralizing "vote of no confidence" in the U.S. military because it criticized Bush's plans to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq without offering concrete alternatives.

"I don't think it's appropriate to say that you disapprove of a mission and you don't want to fund it and you don't want it to go, but yet you don't take the action necessary to prevent it," McCain said.

"In other words, this is a vote of no confidence in both the mission and the troops who are going over there," he said, noting the proposal does not seek to cut off money for troops.

"I do believe that if you really believe that this is doomed to failure and is going to cost American lives, then you should do what's necessary to prevent it from happening rather than a vote of 'disapproval,' which is fundamentally a vote of no confidence in the troops and their mission," McCain said.

An early test vote is tentatively set for Monday.

A fellow Vietnam veteran, GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, disagreed with McCain's assessment. Hagel said the resolution would make clear the Senate's belief that Bush's policy is misguided.

Hagel said the proposal also lays out alternatives such as moving troops away from the sectarian violence and closer to the Iraq border to provide "territorial integrity."

"We can't change the outcome of Iraq by putting American troops in the middle of a civil war," said Hagel, who is considering a run for the White House in 2008.

The Democratic-controlled Senate heads toward a showdown this week on the bipartisan resolution by Sen. John Warner, R-Va. In a bid to attract more GOP support, Warner added a provision pledging to protect money for troops in combat.

The newly-worded resolution states that Congress "should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field."

That compromise, however, drew the ire of some Democrats, including Sens. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, who said it leaned too far in endorsing the status quo. They want to see binding legislation to cap troop levels, force a new vote to authorize the war or begin bringing troops home.

Republican leaders worked to block a vote on Warner's resolution. They insisted that several proposals be considered and each be subject to 60 votes — a strategy that could dilute support for Warner's measure and make it tougher for any measure to pass.

McCain, who is sponsoring a resolution expressing support for a troop increase and setting benchmark goals for the Iraqi government, sought to capitalize on some of the Democratic division. Democrats hold a 51-49 working majority in the Senate.

He said Warner's proposal makes no sense for Democrats who want stronger action. It also risks undercutting a military mission that could haunt the U.S. in the future should it fail.

"The consequences of failure are such that you will see a level of violence that far exceeds anything that we have seen," McCain said. "I believe we've got a great general there. I believe that this new strategy has a good chance of success."

Hagel said the Warner resolution strikes a careful balance for a majority of senators who oppose a troop buildup but differ on the appropriate response. If the resolution passes, some Democrats may choose to move forward with stronger measures against the war, he said.

"This is not a cut-and-run resolution," Hagel said.

He called McCain's proposal meaningless because it offers benchmarks but does not spell out what the U.S. government will do if the Iraqi officials fail to meet them.

"What are the consequences? Are we then going to pull out?" Hagel asked. "Are we going to cut funding? Now, that falls more in the intellectually dishonest category."

Hagel and McCain appeared on ABC's "This Week."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/04/politics/main2430480.shtml

[LKSXXX]

I still don't understand why people are making such a big fuss about Iraq like its somekind of catastrophe for the US military.
There's only 1 answer: political propaganda.
People should really concentrate on the facts.
FACT: Most Iraqis killed today are because of the "civil war".
FACT: US casualties aren't close to those suffered in the Vietnam War, if you take this in mind, historically, this is a very great acomplishment. Im not saying just losing 3000 troops is ok, Im just saying we should look at this fact from a historic point of view.
FACT: I think the majority of troops support the war, very different than in Vietnam when a lot of people were drafted/forced to go to war.

Nobody ever said it was going to be easy.
I agree with Condoleeza Rice. The short term enemy is AlQaida. The long term fight is to change de nature of the Middle east that created Alqaida.
The Most effective weapon against terrorism is Democracy and prosperity.
If Americans aren't prepared to spread this around the globe, then they should just wait for another 9/11.

"Most lives being lost in Iraq are iraqis, so if Americans don't support the war because of the death its causing, it means Americans care about Iraqis. That being said, they wont be helping Iraqis by abandoning them to be slaughtered by radicals, thus, creating more enemies"

LKS.

[rb132]

I still don't understand why people are making such a big fuss about Iraq like its somekind of catastrophe for the US military.

Could have something to do with all the casualties? :roll:


Not to mention the strain on the US economy and the corruption within the highest levels of government which started the war.



There's only 1 answer: political propaganda.
People should really concentrate on the facts.
FACT: Most Iraqis killed today are because of the "civil war".
FACT: US casualties aren't close to those suffered in the Vietnam War, if you take this in mind, historically, this is a very great acomplishment. Im not saying just losing 3000 troops is ok, Im just saying we should look at this fact from a historic point of view.


The number of deaths isnt the issue, its wheather the cause they are dieing for is worth it or not.



FACT: I think the majority of troops support the war, very different than in Vietnam when a lot of people were drafted/forced to go to war.

Nobody ever said it was going to be easy.
I agree with Condoleeza Rice. The short term enemy is AlQaida. The long term fight is to change de nature of the Middle east that created Alqaida.
The Most effective weapon against terrorism is Democracy and prosperity.
If Americans aren't prepared to spread this around the globe, then they should just wait for another 9/11.


You cant force democracy onto people, it has to come from within.

'Spreading democracy' in the Bush sense of the word means overthrowing governments that the US doesnt like, and installing ones it does like.

There is nothing democratic about that.



Most lives being lost in Iraq are iraqis, so if Americans don't support the war because of the death its causing, it means Americans care about Iraqis. That being said, they wont be helping Iraqis by abandoning them to be slaughtered by radicals, thus, creating more enemies"

They can't guarentee security while they are in the country now, so it makes very little difference weather they are there or not. Its just costing coalition lives and money.

[Hollis]

Could have something to do with all the casualties? :roll:


Not to mention the strain on the US economy and the corruption within the highest levels of government which started the war.



The number of deaths isnt the issue, its wheather the cause they are dieing for is worth it or not.



You cant force democracy onto people, it has to come from within.

'Spreading democracy' in the Bush sense of the word means overthrowing governments that the US doesnt like, and installing ones it does like.

There is nothing democratic about that.




They can't guarentee security while they are in the country now, so it makes very little difference weather they are there or not. Its just costing coalition lives and money.


Ok your in Australia, Ask yourself, if the US did not act, what would the casualties from terrorism be like for Americans or people on America's Soil? Keep in mind the people murdered on one day in Sept, 2001? Also ask about the cost of 9/11. The terrorist are not sleeping, remember Bali, London and Madrid? Say we had two more attacks similar in magnitude?

Personally the US nor Australia nor anyone else can afford to allow the tangos (terrorists) to operate at will, or allow rogue states to sponsor them.

Yes it is a high cost, but doing nothing could make the current cost seemingly insignificant. Prevention generally is far cheaper than the cure.

It seems you are falling for the anti-war propaganda.

American is not overly anything. Compare the cost and casualties to previous conflicts. The constant yelling that the sky is falling (costs of this conflict), just does not work. I guess if a person is going to run or hide from the tangos, any excuse is a good one.

[NuclearHead]

Ok your in Australia, Ask yourself, if the US did not act, what would the casualties from terrorism be like for Americans or people on America's Soil? Keep in mind the people murdered on one day in Sept, 2001? Also ask about the cost of 9/11. The terrorist are not sleeping, remember Bali, London and Madrid? Say we had two more attacks similar in magnitude?


I don't understand why it is so hard for you people to understand that Iraq was not behind 9/11. Al-qaeda wasn't even in Iraq! Now, Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists and Al-qaeda is all over the place.



Personally the US nor Australia nor anyone else can afford to allow the tangos (terrorists) to operate at will, or allow rogue states to sponsor them.


Once again, there's little or no evidence of al-qaeda being in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. If you really wanted to make war against terrorist supporting states, then I guess you'd have to go against Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, etc.

[Mastermind]

I still don't understand why people are making such a big fuss about Iraq like its somekind of catastrophe for the US military.
There's only 1 answer: political propaganda.
People should really concentrate on the facts.
FACT: Most Iraqis killed today are because of the "civil war".
FACT: US casualties aren't close to those suffered in the Vietnam War, if you take this in mind, historically, this is a very great acomplishment. Im not saying just losing 3000 troops is ok, Im just saying we should look at this fact from a historic point of view.
FACT: I think the majority of troops support the war, very different than in Vietnam when a lot of people were drafted/forced to go to war.

Nobody ever said it was going to be easy.
I agree with Condoleeza Rice. The short term enemy is AlQaida. The long term fight is to change de nature of the Middle east that created Alqaida.
The Most effective weapon against terrorism is Democracy and prosperity.
If Americans aren't prepared to spread this around the globe, then they should just wait for another 9/11.

"Most lives being lost in Iraq are iraqis, so if Americans don't support the war because of the death its causing, it means Americans care about Iraqis. That being said, they wont be helping Iraqis by abandoning them to be slaughtered by radicals, thus, creating more enemies"

LKS.

I support the war...But, I think "democratic" nation building in a Muslim nation is a fool's errand.

As a soldier, I know I would greatly appreciate the confidence that my nation was 100 percent united behind my effort and sacrifice. I would feel terrible that this kind of thing has to be a subject of debate at all...that would demoralize the sh1t out of me on the front line.

I know how I felt when the US FLED from Saigon...and I cried for all my friends who had given their lives for absolutely nothing.

If a nation expects her soldiers to be brave and committed, then the nation should be not one iota less brave or committed.

Any less committment is not worth the life of a single soldier more.

If we, as a nation, are debating this at all, then it is time to bring the guys home...to hell with it.
MM

[name already taken]

I support the war...But, I think "democratic" nation building in a Muslim nation is a fool's errand.

As a soldier, I know I would greatly appreciate the confidence that my nation was 100 percent united behind my effort and sacrifice. I would feel terrible that this kind of thing has to be a subject of debate at all...that would demoralize the sh1t out of me on the front line.

I know how I felt when the US FLED from Saigon...and I cried for all my friends who had given their lives for absolutely nothing.

If a nation expects her soldiers to be brave and committed, then the nation should be not one iota less brave or committed.

Any less committment is not worth the life of a single soldier more.

If we, as a nation, are debating this at all, then it is time to bring the guys home...to hell with it.
MM
Too bad the military is at war but the nation is not.

[Jobu]

I don't understand how you can send soldiers to war and fund it but not believe they can win. Is the Senate just sending them to Iraq to die?

If these Democrats and few Republicans really believe it is a lost cause it is their duty to cut the funding yesterday. Anything else means the blood is on their hands. They had the power to stop it but did not. Non-binding resolutions are horse**** and the whole world knows it. ****ing cowards.

[name already taken]

I don't understand how you can send soldiers to war and fund it but not believe they can win. Is the Senate just sending them to Iraq to die?

If these Democrats and few Republicans really believe it is a lost cause it is their duty to cut the funding yesterday. Anything else means the blood is on their hands. They had the power to stop it but did not. Non-binding resolutions are horse**** and the whole world knows it. ****ing cowards.
Remember it's not the Senate (or Congress) who sent troops in Irak but the WhiteHouse, contrary to what the constitution requires.
Now the Senate is fighting the WhiteHouse to bring the troops home but it doesn't have yet the 2/3 of the votes needed to overthrow a veto from the President.
That's why the senate is multiplying "nonbinding" resolutions against the war to gather more republican votes to overthrow a possible veto from the president.

They should try to cut funding the war, but again there's the possibility of the presidential veto.

The president was the only one to decide the war, the precedent senate having agreed to sign a paper letting him use force if necessary.

The president used force allright, but no one knows exactly why it was necessary. No WMD and so on.

The president never says why he feels it's so important to keep the troops there. (maybe oil ?)

[DB-ERAUPilot]

I don't understand how you can send soldiers to war and fund it but not believe they can win. Is the Senate just sending them to Iraq to die?

If these Democrats and few Republicans really believe it is a lost cause it is their duty to cut the funding yesterday. Anything else means the blood is on their hands. They had the power to stop it but did not. Non-binding resolutions are horse**** and the whole world knows it. ****ing cowards.

Agreed. The thing about "not cutting off funding of the troops" is almost laughable, It's not like the funding is cut and the next day the 82nd Abn runs out of ammo in the middle of a fire fight :roll: This thing is gonna on....and on...and on... until someone with some balls says tells the Iraqi's "we killed your dictactor, gave you a government, trained your army now get off your ass and save your own country!" sending more of our guys just sends the message that we're gonna continue to fight their fight for them.

[Covert_US]

Remember it's not the Senate (or Congress) who sent troops in Irak but the WhiteHouse, contrary to what the constitution requires.
Now the Senate is fighting the WhiteHouse to bring the troops home but it doesn't have yet the 2/3 of the votes needed to overthrow a veto from the President.
That's why the senate is multiplying "nonbinding" resolutions against the war to gather more republican votes to overthrow a possible veto from the president.

They should try to cut funding the war, but again there's the possibility of the presidential veto.

The president was the only one to decide the war, the precedent senate having agreed to sign a paper letting him use force if necessary.

The president used force allright, but no one knows exactly why it was necessary. No WMD and so on.

The president never says why he feels it's so important to keep the troops there. (maybe oil ?)

I hope this post was a joke.

[name already taken]

I hope this post was a joke.
Why ?....................... Because a post was posted ?

[Roids]

It seems to me now that it is now more of a question of how many Iraqi lives will be lost. I like the sound of the new surge plan and I hope that it will give hope for the Iraqis that it is possible to have a Democracy with opportunity and safety, give it at least a shot. However if no progress is not going to be made, we might as well cut our losses and fall back on what we have gained because their is no way in hell Democrats will even accept another escalation of the war. As of now, we fortunately have the Kurds, who probably given enough protection will remain peaceful, Democratic and economically prosperous. We also seal guard the border to try and make sure Iran and Al-Qaeda stay out. If the Sunnis and Shia want to have a war, than fine. When they see their Kurdish neighbor living exceptional well while they live in turmoil, perhaps those two groups will then smarten up.

[Covert_US]

Why ?....................... Because a post was posted ?

Because..


"They should try to cut funding the war, but again there's the possibility of the presidential veto." The President cannot "veto" or controll congress's spending. He cannot control congress's budget, he can only make recomendations and ask for money, but not be guaranteed it.

"The president was the only one to decide the war, the precedent senate having agreed to sign a paper letting him use force if necessary." Congress did authorize the war.. and btw the President is the Commander in Cheif.. also see the "War Powers act of 1973" http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

"The president never says why he feels it's so important to keep the troops there. (maybe oil ?)" To stabalize the country so it doesn't become a pre-2001 Afgahnistan/ Terrorist haven.

[Roids]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250403,00.html


WASHINGTON — The Senate's Democratic majority failed Monday to shut off debate on a non-binding resolution that "disagrees" with President Bush's troop surge in Iraq, throwing debate on the policy into limbo and depriving Democrats of a bipartisan rebuke of the White House.

The vote on a motion to end debate was 49 to 47, well short of the 60 votes necessary to stop discussion and move toward passage of the non-binding resolution sponsored by Sens. John Warner, R- Va., and Carl Levin, D-Mich.

[name already taken]

Because..


"They should try to cut funding the war, but again there's the possibility of the presidential veto." The President cannot "veto" or controll congress's spending. He cannot control congress's budget, he can only make recomendations and ask for money, but not be guaranteed it.[/b]
Good news. This way something can be done to resolve the situation one way or the other.


"The president was the only one to decide the war, the precedent senate having agreed to sign a paper letting him use force if necessary." Congress did authorize the war.. and btw the President is the Commander in Cheif.. also see the "War Powers act of 1973" http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Sort of.


"The president never says why he feels it's so important to keep the troops there. (maybe oil ?)" To stabalize the country so it doesn't become a pre-2001 Afgahnistan/ Terrorist haven.Maybe the president never experienced what is a religious war.
Everybody can die in a religious war because they all get 72 virgins for doing so.
Just like slamming in the world trade center to a certain death is very alien to our culture.

But the way he always talked about nation building, which is what you're writing about, I doubt very much this would be the real reason.

And by now Afgahnistan came back to the state it was pre-2001, and with the historically biggest opium crop it ever had, and when and from whom do you hear about Afgahnistan ?

[LKSXXX]

Why are people still hammering the same nail "why did we go to Iraq"?
Its just like the guy I saw on "The War Tapes" documentary: stop bitching about why we're there. It's a sealed deal. Support what it takes to make things work. This "argument" they use against the war is really starting to sound like some kind of religious song.. "NOOO WMD.... NOOO AL QAEDAAAA..."

I think this increase in troop levels will help.
I saw an interview with a soldier in Ramadi and he said that maybe they should pull off another "fallujah" in that region. Not to mention the iraqi goverment has given the green light to engage the Mahdi Militia in Sadr City (about time).

LKS.

[name already taken]

Why are people still hammering the same nail "why did we go to Iraq"?
Its just like the guy I saw on "The War Tapes" documentary: stop bitching about why we're there. It's a sealed deal. Support what it takes to make things work. This "argument" they use against the war is really starting to sound like some kind of religious song.. "NOOO WMD.... NOOO AL QAEDAAAA..."

I think this increase in troop levels will help.
I saw an interview with a soldier in Ramadi and he said that maybe they should pull off another "fallujah" in that region. Not to mention the iraqi goverment has given the green light to engage the Mahdi Militia in Sadr City (about time).

LKS.
Having a good reason would put the nation at war with the military.

So far the good reasons were good only to start the war, not for the nation to fight it.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2287276&postcount=22

[LKSXXX]

I can understand people from other countries laughing if the Americans said theyre trying to spread democracy and freedom around the world.

But if Americans themselves fail to recongnize that their nation fights not only for their own, but for other people's freedom (WWII, Korea, Kuwait, Panama), thats very sad.

People around the world (not americans) find it so hard to believe American's intentions in Iraq are good. Whats worse, I think Americans themselves are having a hard time believing in that.
Ive been hearing so many comparisons to the Vietnam war that sometimes I even think people want to be against the war, just to participate in Anti-war protests like in the 60-70s, and later on tell their children they were part of the "anti-war protests of 2007". Its a totally legitimate reason... if you have a good reason to be against the war. Its kind of the "rebel without a cause sindrome".

LKS.

[DB-ERAUPilot]

.
Ive been hearing so many comparisons to the Vietnam war that sometimes I even think people want to be against the war, just to participate in Anti-war protests like in the 60-70s, and later on tell their children they were part of the "anti-war protests of 2007".


:backhand:

You honestly have no idea why people compare this war to the one in Vietnam? how bout, both started under false reasons....both fought against an enemy we knew nothing about or why they were really fighting against us...both more about politics than the actual battlefield...both fought because of what "might" happen if we didn't fight...both highly unpopular at the home front and both defined the POTUS at the time in a very negative light..and thas just starters

[LKSXXX]

"You honestly have no idea why people compare this war to the one in Vietnam? how bout, both started under false reasons...."

The false reason for going to Vietnam being? To stop communism?
And the real reason was... ? Don't say the US went to Vietnam for oil.

"both fought against an enemy we knew nothing about or why they were really fighting against us..."

Why is the insurgency really fighting against the US then? The Vietnamese were fighting for their unity and independence. The Iraqis? Theyre not exactly fighting for unity right now, are they? They already have a goverment they themselves elected, so that rules out 'independence'.

Different times mate.
LKS.:)

[name already taken]

The military being at war

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/Gulf_War_2_Iraqi_Freedom_Marines/usmc184_001.thumb.jpg

while the nation goes about its business as usual

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=1569125216323959688

is a major failure in leadership