Senate Rejects Troop Withdrawal

OK, let's start with this:

The Republican-controlled Senate, embracing President Bush's handling of the unpopular war in Iraq, rejected two Democratic efforts yesterday to begin a withdrawal of U.S. troops from the three-year-old conflict.

Just because there are people protesting this war and there are people unhappy with the way Bush is running the war, doesn't mean people think that we shouldn't be fighting the war (I refuse to call any war "popular"). I think we should have went in sooner (right after 9-11), so even I'm unhappy with the execution of this war.

And what is the purpose of mentioning that the Senate is "Republican-controlled?"

So how many Democrats oppose the war enough to bring home the troops? How many believe we should leave Iraq as soon as possible?

Displaying cohesion that has eluded Democrats, Republicans voted overwhelmingly to leave deployment decisions in the president's hands. The votes, which followed three days of sometimes-fierce debate, outlined the positions the two parties will carry into the November congressional elections and underscored the Democratic constituency's split between staunchly antiwar activists and those who are frustrated but less fervent. Thirty-one of the Senate's 44 Democrats opposed setting a firm deadline for

The Senate voted 86 to 13 to reject a proposal by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) that would have ordered Bush to bring most of the troops home within 13 months.withdrawal.

13 Democrats want to leave Iraq at any cost, cut and run and leave without finishing the job. 13 went on record and were not afraid to do what they think is right, leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves. And isn't it great that the man who voted for the war before he voted against it sponsored the bill that would leave the Iraqi people defenseless.

And what I find laughable is the fact that they think they can "order" Bush to do anything. 13 Senators think they have the authority to "order" the President to deploy his troops. Haven't they heard that Bush is the Commander and Chief and that they can't "order" him to do anything. He isn't under them, he isn't their subordinate that they can "order" him around. Could you imagine Bush actually signing this thing into law (I'm smirking just thinking about it :-).

There was a second Democratic bill that got more support:

Another Democratic measure -- a nonbinding call on Bush to begin a troop drawdown by December -- fared better but still failed, 60 to 39. Republicans unanimously opposed Kerry's plan and lost only one member, Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.), on the second proposal.

Ok, "nonbinding call" sounds a lot less pompous and arrogant, a little more humble and aware of their lack of standing. But it still didn't get the full support of the Democrats. There are still Democrats who understand that we are at war:

Six Democrats, meanwhile, sided with Republicans in opposing both measures. One of them was Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), the Democrats' 2000 vice presidential nominee, who is in danger of losing his party's senatorial nomination this year to a strongly antiwar challenger.

And then there's this (one of the funniest lines in the who article):

Throughout the debate, Senate Republicans said troop deployment decisions must be left to military leaders advising Bush. "The proponents of these amendments want us to tell the new government of Iraq that we are leaving . . . no matter what the implications for the future of their country, no matter how much they plead with us to stay," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.). "The time to leave Iraq is when we have achieved our objectives."

Troop deployment decisions left to military leaders? Wow, ya think? That's a novel concept, letting the military leaders who have been trained at great expense and who are paid for the expertise advising the President on how to fight the war verses Barbara Boxer or Joseph Biden.

And what about the arrogance of Reid to say what the American people want:

"The Republicans in the Senate stand alone in insisting on 'no plan and no end,' " Reid said.

No, Senator they do not stand alone on this issue (amnesty for illegal aliens yes, this issue no), we stand with them when they say that the decision on how to fight this war should be left to those who are fighting it not to the Senate who has absolutely no business telling Bush how to run this war. Stick to your own business, cutting my taxes and getting us more oil by allowing more drilling.

And it seems like Kerry, who is sucking up to Kos' Kids, angered his colleagues by trying to bring some honesty to the issue:

Kerry's proposed amendment to a military policy bill to set a deadline for withdrawal was co-sponsored by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.). Both men are weighing presidential bids in 2008 and drawing support from antiwar Democrats busily writing blogs and raising money. As the party's 2004 presidential nominee, Kerry has a high profile, and his insistence on pushing his measure angered some colleagues who felt that it fueled the GOP's "cut and run" taunts.

Hehe, the Democrats don't like being taunted. Are they worried that the public would get the right idea about them?

The Senate rejected the idea of troop withdrawal, can we know shut up about this and let the military decide when to bring home the troops?