How does one make the leap from a bill about troop increases to Fahrenheit 9/11? What logic am I missing here?

Oh, and by the way, Bush was dishonest about the troop numbers. What he MEANT to say was "combat troops" when he gave the figure of around 20,000. Over the same number of support personnel will be going as well, meaning between 35,000 and 48,000 military staff in all. Is it any wonder that there's opposition?

If you're going to send 35,000+ troops, be honest and SAY that's how many. Don't lie and say 20,000 when you really mean 35,000+. If you lie over such details, people start to wonder what else you're lying about.

In case you're wondering, the figures are from CNN (source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/01/iraq.surge/ )

Oh, and by the way, Bush was dishonest about the troop numbers. What he MEANT to say was "combat troops" when he gave the figure of around 20,000.

Well, then, Wolf, I guess if he "meant" to say "combat troops," then he misspoke. Really, son, you BDS sufferers are very nit-picky. I know you hate this man, and I know you hate all the good your country does, so why bother acting like you really care?

Tip for all you Neocons,if the compromise resolution does not get to the floor for a vote it will send the message once again the Senate is not providing oversight. Americans know it takes 60 votes to do anything, therefore the Republicans will be viewed as not caring about our troops. If the resolution fails to get out of committee, blogsforbush supporters should start throwing as much money as they can to Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota, he is going to need it. He will be so far down in the polls that even a comedian could beat him!

The arguments jump around. 20,000 is simoultaneously too much and not enough. If its found that in addition to the 20,000 there are support troops its "Defenitely too much" if the support troops were part of the 20,000 it woudl go back to 'too few to make a difference.

In other words, no matter what, you woudl be playing gotcha. If there was NO troop surge, then you would be sayign there should have been one. And in fact, until it came up as an option presented by Bush, Democrats were saying just that>

"Whatever it is you're for, we're against it"

A true sign the Republicans got a backbone would be the following: Mr President, fellow Senate Republicans have seen enough of the Scotter Libby trial to conclude for political purposes Vice President Dick Cheney lied to the nation when he suggested he did not out a CIA agent. Doing such is grounds for treason. We demand you ask for his resignation. This is not his first lie, he has been lying to you about Iraq all along. By removing him, you can blame him for the failed polices in Iraq and then bring our troops home.”

..."Share in the glory of victory..."

What victory is that, pray tell?

When the Republicans develope a spine I will be shocked.Hey GOP leaders we lost in 06 because you guys screwed your base.Stand behind President Bush now and there might be some hope.

Over 80,000 of the 130,000 troops currently in Iraq are not combat arms. They're support troops. The remainder does the fighting. I had hoped that the 20,000 figure were combat arms; if not, the surge would have been useless. That 15,000 additional support troops are accompanying the 20,000 means nothing....except that militaries are like every bureaucracy. Overstaffed with pogues.

Not long ago this site called such Senate maneuvering "obstructionist".
Frankly, I think it's very important to get these flip-flopping GOPers on the record. I don't care if it's one resolution, or three.
Let them explain those votes back home in Minnesota, Maine, Colorado and maybe even South Dakota in 18 months -- once the situation is completely out of control and another 1,500 Americans are KIA.
"I supported the 'Surge'" is unlikely to be a campaign slogan of choice in 2008.
Lol

As long as we're being honest, lets skip the magic words that people use to twist the intent; this isnt a surge, its a battlefield reinforcement meant to induce victory. 'Surge' is more ominous in its vagueness than 'reinforcement'.

Lets also be honest about the troops themselves, many of whom were going to be there anyway, their deployment date was simply moved up and they were added to those already in-theatre. Hence the term 'reinforcement'.

I know the libs want to work themselves into an hysterical frenzy over this ("what else is he lying about?"-cue the scary music) but the truth is, the American public isnt going to wet its pants because Bush said 25,000 instead of 35,000.

"I supported the 'Surge'" is unlikely to be a campaign slogan of choice in 2008.
Lol

I know what you mean, I cant wait for the GOP presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to explain her flip-flopping on the war. Expect her windsock support to be front and center in campaign ads on tv, now THAT will make things interesting. Wait...she isnt GOP, sorry.

Hillary's statements are going to make Kerry's "I voted for before I voted against" gaffe look like a mild off-hand quip.

I say let the dems have their useless and cowardly resolution because the only repubs that support it are the same ol' Rinos anyway. Plain and simple, America wont vote for a party that is viewed as weak on national defense, and right now the dems are showcasing themselves as yellow appeasniks.

No Sal, the next campaign slogan you'll hear will be "Man we fu*#@d up by not voting to cut off funds."

First off, this is NOT a surge. We've gone back to "clean up" with a lower troop count than at the peak of combat. So, the term surge is bogus. The term, "clean up crew" is more like it.

BTW A former senior Iraqi minister said most of the leaders loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical anti-American cleric, had gone into hiding in Iran. Hmmm, ya think these pukes are running with their tails between their legs or what? Wait a second, I thought that the insurgency was growing not diminishing?

If you analyze the cause of the Dem's resistance to a resolution with teeth, it's pethetic to know that their decision is 100% politically driven and the only Dem that doesn't give a rat's ars about the political repercussions is The Swimmer. The rest are simply cowards that fear a 2008 political catastrophe.

Looking down the road, "when" we claim victory in Iraq, whatever that "victory" is, the Dems will come out in droves to claim that this was the reason for not voting to cut off funds and "we knew it would work"....right, gimme and the rest of us a break!

I'm not sure who to believe these days, but I can tell you that there's only one way to determine a victor and that is by body count...which we're winning 100-1.

The Senate "obstructionist" maneuvering that was found objectionable was filibustering judicial nominees. Legislative filibustering is a legitimate function of the Senate as it concerns bills introduced by the Senate itself. Judicial nominees, on the other hand, are made by the President, to which the Senate is Constitutionally authorized to give their advice and consent.

Throughout our nation's history, a President's judicial nominees had always received an up-or-down vote. The thought of filibustering even an ideological brand, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, wasn't considered. President Clinton nominated Ginsburg, and she was confirmed 96-3. Her well-known history with the ACLU didn't spark a filibuster. The "balance" of the court shifting to the Left with Ginsburg's replacement of Byron White didn't spark a filibuster. No, she was the President's nominee, and therefore deserved consideration by the Senate.

The Democrats have introduced a dangerous precedent by filibustering judicial nominees, but this is not the same as filibustering legislative bills. Like the stem cell debate, it seems that being vague with terminology, and not distinguishing between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells, that the Left has managed to have some success at labelling their opponents as being against ALL stem cell research, which simply isn't the case. Likewise, they were able to mix judicial nominees with legislative bills when it had never been such before. This is the "obstructionist" maneuvering that is to be opposed.

Um... if the Bill was introduced by a Republican (Warner), and we can assume that Senators don't usually try to block their own bills, then how, exactly, will all 49 Republicans in the Senate block the bill?

Rana/Georgia (I still like Georgia better):
It's called using the rules to get what he wants. Even if he didn't vote with the Republicans, the Republican Caucus still had enough votes to prevent the bill to come forward.

He knows that this way, he's standing strong with members of his own party (which he'll need so they won't filibuster the actual bill), and he'll also get what he wants.

You should know this.

"It's called using the rules to get what he wants. Even if he didn't vote with the Republicans, the Republican Caucus still had enough votes to prevent the bill to come forward.

He knows that this way, he's standing strong with members of his own party (which he'll need so they won't filibuster the actual bill), and he'll also get what he wants."--wawilliyo

Ahh, I see now. Warner's actually agin' it. But...he gonna draft legislation lookin like he's afore it. This way the sheeple actually "think" the thinkin' repub's are agin it, when they're actually afore it. Smooth. And, get this, he votes afore it, (cause he really shouldn't vote agin his own bill) coverin his own arse, and yet the ultimate goal is accomplished. Smooth.

I gotta love the transparency of the whole act. This stuff is deep. Geez.

I mixed up one agin with one afore, but you know what I was ameanin.

But there can BE no "victory" because the fight is essentially between two factions in Iraq, Sunni and Shi'a, for the Islamic future of the country. The only fly in the ointment is the Christian - read American/British - army, and the only time the two Islamic sides are anywhere near united is when they're joining to fight the Christians.

Why can there be no "victory"? Because only one of these three armies doesn't live there. The other two do, and will never leave. Even if there were to be outright peace tomorrow, Bush would be told by the new government "Get out. Get out completely. This is now an Islamic country, and we don't want Christians." Having built the biggest fortress any foreign power has on another countries soil, do you really think he will consider it's in America's best interests to leave it, and if he DOESN'T leave it, what then? He would be disobeying a government that the international community would recognise - and that, by international standards, is an act of war which the United Nations has a duty to respond to.

There is no way to clearly define "victory" therefore there can BE no victory. Bush wants a large presence in the middle east to be able to control politics and oil flow, and to be able to launch attacks on "axis of evil" countries on his hit list - such as Iran. Even if the surge works - which it won't - and peace were to come to Iraq, Bush would still refuse to leave and instead of "victory" being to bring peace and stability to Iraq, "victory" would be to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons so the troops would have to stay and war with Iran would become inevitable (ignoring the fact that while Iran is years at best from nuclear weapons, assuming it even IS trying to develop them, North Korea has still gone unchallenged even though it's tested a bomb and actually said if it could develop the ballistic system needed, it would have a shot at America, just because it could.)

No definition of victory = no victory, and since 2002 the definition of victory has changes so many times NOBODY knows what it is any more.

You have the GALL to come forward and discuss a lack of transparency in regards to John Warner when your Speaker spent a 600 hour long 100 hours passing legislation that those voting on didn't even have a chance to read... much less put any input on... and that's the actual Democratic Caucus, much less the Republican Conference.

Come on...

Actually, I think he really is against it. I believe he and Mr. Hagel understand that you just can't keep fueling the fire, how many times do we have to keep repeating the same thing over and over? To try and say "OK, THIS TIME" it will work, is plain crazy.

Comes down to it, he has no balls. Period. He will fall in line. For a goof, I bet he votes against his own bill. Laughable.

Sheep...Baaaa, baaaa.

I'm proud of what the democratic house was able to accomplish, I really hope it galls you. Good.

What galls you is that it still has to pass the Senate... and fortunately for the Country, that Body requires consideration in a committee environment unless 60 people agree to it... and then... the best part of all.

Neither the House nor the Senate can muster enough votes to override a two letter word Bush can write on a bill.

Much like you hear all the time Raker... NO. The word is NO.

Man... how quickly you forget reality when you think the wind is at your back. By the way... Harry Reid voted against cloture on the Senate Ethics Bill... Did that mean he was against ending debate, or was that him using the rules of the Senate to bring a cloture vote up again?

Hmmm... Now there's a legislator with NO balls.

But can Bush actually write a two-letter word?

It would be great if somehow, magically, a unity government was formed and accepted by the entire population of Iraq, but I wouldn't bet large sums of cash on that happening.

Comes down to it, he has no balls. Period. He will fall in line. For a goof, I bet he votes against his own bill. Laughable.

Speaking of balls, there is an entire democrat caucus that seems to be 100% female. A symbolic vote against the surge....whooo....that just screams manly courage. Yessir, thats ballsy!

I remember it well: "We are going to change the course of the war, we are going to get the troops home, we are going to end this war right away", yet here we are with the dems in control and they are busy doing nothing but gyrating on their own thumbs.

Maybe you libs should call your pols and demand that they follow the 'Breck Girl' Edwards plan; withdraw 45,000 troops now and then...and then...umm...uhh...lets see...then we re-evaluate the situation. Laughable is right, and this guy could be your presidential nominee.

Or it could be Hillary... who will follow the example of her husband and poll before every decision she makes... to quote a movie involving a politician who never made a decision without a poll...
"Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don't-
I've come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step,
cut a little swathe and lead the people on."

We'll go back to the days when politicians were popular, but the height of response to a mortal danger was a mortar round dropped in the evening on a building killing the cleaning crew.

Or maybe it'll be Dennis Kucinich. Department of Peace... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha (Breathe) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA... okay... I'm fine.

John Edwards... the man who wouldn't take a case of a child who was sick, he's only take cases where the kids had died, because "you make more money when they're dead." Further, has nearly twice the number of bathrooms in his home than people. I bet people in FEMA trucks would be good to know that John won't have to go to far to find a place to do his business.

Or Joe Biden, who is currently busy trying to vomit out his foot and his shins after making a statement that appeared to be either entirely not thought out or maybe one of those secret racist thoughts that slip out... after all, we now know what people meant... at least liberals have divination powers.

Or maybe Barack Obama. He would easily win High School Student Body President, but what are his credentials besides being able to say "audacity with hope and sound motivating. Just look at his legislative record in Illinois... he's not advertising that very much.

Vilsack... is he even going to win in his home state?

Richardson? I'd actually consider him but he's got plenty of skeletons while he was working for the that pillar of ethics, Bill Clinton.

I don't know if anyone, liberal or conservative could think of all of them. And that's not being rude, it's just there are soooo many of them.

Ok, ok, the battle, not the war...I could not catch my breath with 'the breck girl' comment. Good one.

Ya know I will have to admit, Im not all that enamored with ANY of the potential presidential nominees from either side; there doesnt seem to be the one person to whom all sorts of people gravitate. I miss ya, Gipper.

It appears that even Warner himself will vote to block his own resolution.

I mixed up one agin with one afore, but you know what I was ameanin.

We know you is an idiot...

Warner - I had a falling out with him on the 2nd Amendment.

Gotta say that our side isn't looking so great either.

I'd like Rudy, if not for abortion and gun rights. He's for gay marriage also - but I just don't care about that.

Romney kmay be good. Still kinda L for my tastes.

McCain - Nope. I'm sick of seeing him capitalize on opposition to Bush to get TV time all these years. Though I'd vote for him if he was on the ballot.

The rest? Well who are the rest?

America is gonna win this one for the Gipper.

Everyone on this site has bashed mcCain for the last few years, but he has been the only seenator to show some spine the past year or so.

"WASHINGTON - 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."
I will support him for his run. He can get Rudy as his running mate and we will win this war, libs be damned.

There's ol' Josh again, tossing around the word he can't define.

Josh WHAT IS A NEOCON?

This must be the 20th time I have asked you, and you just ignore me, because you quite simply have no idea. You heard Ranty Rhodes use the word a lot and it sounded kinda cool, so you latched on to it, but as with your other "ideas" you have no clue.

But Joshie, you really should be able to tell us what a "neocon" IS if you are going to persist in using the word.