Citing General Petraeus by name, the resolution, which is sponsored by Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman and Republican Lindsey Graham, "commends and expresses the gratitude to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces for the service, sacrifices, and heroism that made the success of the troop surge in Iraq possible."
The Senators -- allies of John McCain -- had hoped to attach the resolution to a defense bill under consideration this week. But Mr. Reid wouldn't allow it. Democrats have often claimed that while they may oppose the war in Iraq, they wholeheartedly support the troops. That's a defensible position, and this resolution honoring our soldiers and Marines for a job well done gave them a chance to back up their rhetoric. Yet they still balked.
I wonder why Hussein didn't reach across the aisle and work with Republicans to get this resolution attached.
Perhaps, like in Germany's non visit to tour a hospital full of wounded troops, he couldn't get any PR out of it so he went and played basketball.
And I wonder if the people of Nevada will care, or remember, this insult to our troops who are risking their lives.
WSJ Link
You might try a less biased news source:
ReplyDeleteDemocrats, however, say multiple factors in addition to the surge have led to less violence in Iraq -- such as the formation of Sunni Awakening Councils opposed to al Qaeda; Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's call to his militias to obey a cease-fire, and the rising competency of the Iraqi security forces. The Democratic leadership also is loath to bring anything to the Senate floor that could help McCain.
Democratic leaders had been working on an alternative to Lieberman's non-binding resolution in hopes of giving rank-and-file members something to vote for without contradicting Obama. They would not allow Lieberman's resolution to come to the floor because it was not related to a defense bill being debated.
Liebermann presumably has been in the Senate long enough to know the right time to present a resolution.
Sounds like Liebermann is trying to get attention for himself, especially since he didn't qualify for the VP role.
Some new facts about the surge:
A new study released today by the University of California, Los Angeles concludes that ethnic violence — not the Bush administration’s surge — was the primary factor in reducing violence in Iraq. As FP Passport notes, researchers used satellite imagery from the Pentagon to track “electricity use in Iraq before, during, and after the surge took place”:
“If the surge had truly ‘worked,’ we would expect to see a steady increase in night-light output over time,” says Thomas Gillespie, one of the co-authors, in a press release. “Instead, we found that the night-light signature diminished in only certain neighborhoods, and the pattern appears to be associated with ethno-sectarian violence and neighborhood ethnic cleansing.”
from the report:
'Night light in neighborhoods populated primarily by embattled Sunni residents declined dramatically just before the February 2007 surge and never returned, suggesting that ethnic cleansing by rival Shiites may have been largely responsible for the decrease in violence for which the U.S. military has claimed credit, the team reports in a new study based on publicly available satellite imagery. "Essentially, our interpretation is that violence has declined in Baghdad because of intercommunal violence that reached a climax as the surge was beginning," said lead author John Agnew, a UCLA professor of geography and authority on ethnic conflict. "By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left." The night-light signature in four other large Iraqi cities — Kirkuk, Mosul, Tikrit and Karbala — held steady or increased between the spring of 2006 and the winter of 2007, the UCLA team found. None of these cities were targets of the surge. Baghdad's decreases were centered in the southwestern Sunni strongholds of East and West Rashid, where the light signature dropped 57 percent and 80 percent, respectively, during the same period.'
and, from Global Guerrillas:
The REAL reason that the US threw out COIN and adopted open source counter-insurgency (the 'IBM strategy' I mention in this 2005 article in the NYTimes). We embraced the insurgents. We gave them autonomy (based on primary loyalties to tribe/sect) from the government. Gave them protection from the Mahdi army, weapons, training, and jobs. Once we did this, the civil war collapsed. This was the social systempunkt that produced the network effects needed -- nothing else explains the speed of the switch.
What's interesting is that this result wasn't the result of planning at the White House or by Petraeus. As is almost always the case (when network effects are involved), innovation on the ground produced the formula necessary for the social systempunkt and the success was reinforced by command (after the fact). We are particularly lucky since the US military doesn't often support the "Open Decision Making" process that produced this result.
So, I should believe you, or my lying eyes...............
Global Gurellias? Non-biased?
ReplyDeletehahahaha
The bill "not related...?
hehehe
How many times do you think non-related amendments have bee attacked???
Besides, who would vote aaginst a bill honoring the troops?
hahahahahaha... I guess we know. Harry "We surrender" Reid..
The Demos gonna have their own "resolution?"
Okay.... You got any problems with TWO reaolutions??
DA, the actions of Reid are driven by a desire to not admit that the surge has worked and the war is being won.
That's politics. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is also despicable. Shame on you and shame on the uber Left and their hand maidens in Congress.
Yes, if you bothered to click the link, you would see the subheading of the blog:
ReplyDeleteNetworked tribes, systems disruption, and the emerging bazaar of violence. Resilient Communities, decentralized platforms, and self-organizing futures. By John Robb
So, to clarify your understanding, yes they are non-biased,(in the Left-Right sense) and they are biased(against Global Guerrillas, in case you still haven't bothered to check it out).
But that would involve learning about something new, wouldn't it?
How many times do you think non-related amendments have bee attacked???
You do seem confused, the resolution wasn't attacked, it was blocked.
According to the current rules, Lieberman can put it up as long as he doesn't try to tie it to the authorization bill.
You do understand that even "Holy Joe" has to play by the rules?
Okay.... You got any problems with TWO reaolutions??
I have no problem with Reid leading the Senate majority and determining the agenda, and having their own resolution, not what "Holy Joe" wants.
DA, the actions of Reid are driven by a desire to not admit that the surge has worked and the war is being won.
And if you believe that, I've a lovely bridge across the San Joaquin River I'd like you to take a look at.
And you ignore that fact that if the surge had been working, you wouldn't see the effect of ethnic cleansing on the ground in Bagdad:
“Instead, we found that the night-light signature diminished in only certain neighborhoods, and the pattern appears to be associated with ethno-sectarian violence and neighborhood ethnic cleansing."
Of course, I can believe you, or my lying eyes, perhaps the satellite photos are controlled by the uber-leftists in Congress as well.
It is also despicable.
You know more about despicable behavior than I, I've never said otherwise................
sigh..... The point is that the Left won't honor the troops... because they are afraid of Bush getting some credit...
ReplyDeleteThe point has nothing to do with whether or not the surge has worked.
Why are you afraid to say something nice about those fighting for you??
The point is that the Left won't honor the troops... because they are afraid of Bush getting some credit
ReplyDeleteIf that point were true, they wouldn't be talking about another resolution in place of Holy Joes'.
The point has nothing to do with whether or not the surge has worked.
Then Holy Joe could propose a resolution with Graham that doesn't mention the surge, and follow the Senate rules about when a non-binding resolution can be offered up.
Lieberman is trying to play politics with a resolution, and those evil Demos don't want to thank the troops if they don't go along with him.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Why are you afraid to say something nice about those fighting for you??
I'd like to do so and be truthful at the same time, unlike Holy Joe.
Why are you afraid of debating the issue on it's merits, and keep moving the goal posts when you're not oversimplifying the issue at hand?
TTFN
It's called a "delaying tactoc."
ReplyDeleteYou know that. I know that. Everyone knows that.
I say again. It costs nothing to have it as presented, NOW.
If the uber Leftists want to do their own (yeah sure) they can also introduce a second one.
Pure despicable BS, DA. Shame on you, shame on the Left. Politics is everything to the Left, even when it costs lives.
Politics is everything to the Left, even when it costs lives.
ReplyDeleteYes, if this resolution isn't passed, it will cost lives.
Thanks for demonstrating your lack of logic.
As you know my comment referred to the very vocal opposition to the war, including Reid's.
ReplyDeleteWe've been here before, don't bother arguing.
As you know my comment referred to the very vocal opposition to the war, including Reid's.
ReplyDeleteDon't know how it cost lives, unless you take the POV that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, but as I've noted earlier, you like to smear when you run out of facts and reasoning.
Glad to see somethings never change.
It costs lives the same way it did in Vietnam, by giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
ReplyDelete"Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us."
http://www.viet-myths.net/BuiTin.htm
Oh, that guy?
ReplyDeleteIn a 2000 PBS American Experience forum, he maintained that no American POWs had been tortured during their captivity in North Vietnam during the war.[7]
So he's very believable, just ask McCain...................
The reluctance of the Left to accept responsibility for the cost in US and other lives is understandable.
ReplyDeleteI would be ashamed myself.
In case you didn't notice it, I just
ReplyDeletedemonstrated how reliable the fellow you quoted was(not).
In case you didn't notice it, his denying torture didn't occur is perfectly understandable. It makes him look bad. Telling the well known truth about how the Left aided North Vietnam doesn't impact him so he has no problem with it.
ReplyDeleteThe same with you denying the actions of the Left aided and abetted the enemy and cost lives. It makes you look bad so you deny it...
hehehe
So, you're saying that he's lying about the torture, but not about how
ReplyDelete"the Left" helped the Commies out, even though there's nothing but his say-so.
Ok.
In other words, he's lying when it makes him look bad, but not when it makes "teh Left" look bad, even though it rebounds to his advantage.
ReplyDeleteThere's also something called common sense.
ReplyDeleteToo bad you appear to have none.
This thread is closed to further comment.