Senate Blocks Anti-War Bill, Condemns Ad

true, except for the fact that nobody bought the good general's testimony because it disagreed with every other report that came out in the same time. And, oh yeah, 70% of people want the hell out. Outside of that, though, the Petraeus testimony went swimmingly. Pretty soon, people will even be able to leave the Green Zone, after all!

Able to condemn an ad but not talk about the war. How many American's will die because of this rubbish? Does anyone even care? Except for those of us who want out of Iraq, natch.

Well there was a vote on cutting off funding for the war as well. That was actuually the first half of the headline.

The Senate blocked legislation Thursday that would have cut off money for combat in Iraq by June. It was a predictable defeat for Democrats struggling to pass less divisive anti-war measures.

The 28-70 vote was 32 short of the 60 needed to cut off a GOP filibuster. The legislation, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Russ Feingold, was indicative of the Democratic leadership's new hardline strategy.

... The outcome was not a surprise. In May, the Senate rejected a similar proposal by Reid and Feingold by a 29-67 vote, with Democrats who voted against it saying they did not support using money to force an end to the war because that approach could hurt the troops.

So the bipartisan votes seem to be going in the opposite direction that I expected.

it's amazing but you vote out the GOP and they appear to still be in charge. It's like the dems have been subjugated so long they have stockholme syndrum and the gop can still ram through what ever legislation it wants.
The dems forget it wasnt them that won, it was the gop that lost and there was good reason for that and they can allow the gop to keep losing if they wish. We voted out republicans not because we embrassed the liberal ideals but because we needed change and while the war is good for the dems and i cant understand they wanting to see bush take down the entire party, they cant win again by doing nothing. The super majority of of the gov for the dems is there for the dems to lose(personally i think it is better to have opposite parties in control of the house and executive cause then you get oversight)

It's like the dems have been subjugated so long they have stockholme syndrum and the gop can still ram through what ever legislation it wants.

Looks like a lot of the liberals are a bunch of neo-cons! (Sounds like a conspiracy to me :-)

See, and I think that the Senate taking time to discuss and vote on things like this are a complete waste of time. Is that really what we are paying them to be doing? Yes the ad was despicable. we don't need an official senate vote to tell us that tho. just my 2 cents

DAWeb

I think this is the first time you and I agree on something. Condemning MoveOn is a waste of time, and money.

Yes we do seem to be in agreement to some degree here, but I don't think it is a waste of time, just not something I think the senate needs to be concerned with.

what a completely childish and useless thing to do.

The ad, or the condemnation? I have a feeling you mean the latter, but the former is fare more childish.

please.

a person @!$%#ting in his pants is not childish if the person is only 2 years old. or if the person is 90. or if the person's job is to walk around and make stinkies.

but if the person @!$%#ting in his pants is getting paid to be a leader of people, thats pretty childish.

you cant possibly compare the 2. congress taking time out to issue a meaningless poke at an obviously partisan group with an obviously pro-military message is a slap in the face to every single one of our soldiers. you know, the ones who the same congress just refused to give a day's rest to? those soldiers? remember?

if our congress has gotten to this point, we are in more trouble than i had thought. @!$%#ing playground games.

The ad, or the condemnation? I have a feeling you mean the latter, but the former is fare more childish.

Frankly I think the US Senate should be held to a lot higher standard since they work and are paid for by us. Furthermore, the hypocrisy is pretty obvious/odious:

Senators Who Forced Debate On MoveOn Ad Earlier Complained Of 'Wasting Time On Empty Resolutions'

"The way that they have proceeded, I am not sure that you can count on anything getting done, even those things that look like a fairly certain bet." [Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), 7/25/07]

firsty...what a completely childish and useless thing to do.

That in a nutshell is all of the Congressional operations. If you look at them as the entitled, Ivy League, frat boy network it is, everything makes sense. Why can Halliburton and Bechtel steal from taxpayers for generations and never go belly up? Never serve time? Here's an oldie but goodie by Bechtel who's blazed the trail for corrupt, corporate government. The original name was McCone-Bechtel and not surprisingly, McCone was a Rockefeller Standard man, follow the FED and the oil, all the way to Washington.

There's another story I wanted and can't find, the fleecing of the 2" pipe line across Alaska, a fiasco except for Bechtel who managed to come out quite well, this is from the JFK History Project.

As John McCone admitted to Fortune Magazine on 17th May, 1943: "Every six months, we estimate how much work we expect to do in the next six months and then we get a fee of five percent of the estimated amount of work regardless of how much work we actually do turn out."

Bechtel-McCone was also involved in another scandal concerning war contracts. Lieutenant General Brehon Somervell, head of the Army Sources of Supply Command, decided to build "a major refinery at the Norman Wells oilfields in Canada's Northwest Territories, and run a pipeline from there 1,200 miles southwest through the Yukon Territory into Alaska."

The contract to do this was given to John McCone and Steve Bechtel. The terms of the contract were very unusual. The Bechtel-McCone Corporation was guaranteed a 10% profit on the project. The other surprising thing about the Canol Project was that it was to be a secret contract. It seems that Somervell did not want anyone outside the War Department and the Bechtel-McCone Corporation to know about this deal. The reason for this is that Harold Ickes, as Interior Secretary and the head of the Petroleum Administration for War, should have been the person who oversaw this project.

The $35 million for the project came from within a massive war appropriations bill that was passed by Congress in April 1942. After working on it for a year the cost had reached over $100 million. It was finished in May 1945. However, the wrong sized pipes had been used and it was discovered that to pump the oil it cost $150 per barrel rather than the $5 estimated by Somervell, Bechtel and McCone. Less that a year after it was finished, the plant and pipeline was abandoned. It had cost the American taxpayer $134 million.

After the war the "General Accounting Office told a House Merchant Marine Committee investigation that the company had made $44,000,000 on an investment of $100,000. The same committee a few months later complained that Mr McCone's company was "paid $2,500,000 by the government to take over a shipyard costing $25,000,000 and containing surplus material costing $14,000,000."

oops my link didn't there, John McCone

reminds me of how 9 billion dollars in iraq reconstruction money went missing because the govt hired ghost accountants to track it (well paid ghost accountants, at that).

sigh.

How is Romney "cross over"?

Hmm do you mean by that you need liberal policy examples of his or conservative?

I'll assume liberal and start with the universal health insurance he signed as a governor.

KyleN,

One law does not a crossover make or you could say that all but the most doctrinare and extreme candidates.

Nor is the Massachusettes approach particularly liberal and in many ways is a moderate middle of the road judged by what most Americans support. Most Americans say they would rather have single payer universal govertment run plan over the current system. The Masschuesetts system is pretty much like most other states with a collection of private and public coverage.

Romney is farther to the right on most issues and one issue doesnt change the rest unless you are a single issue voter.

The Democratic Party caves once again.

Are they really "caving in"-- and if so, to whom? Or-- are they merely following the wishes of the majority of their constituents? (Elected officials do tend to do that, due to this desire they have...to be re-elected! :-)

Or-- are they merely following the wishes of the majority of their constituents?

has there been a popular vote since last monday? i think i missed it. @!$%#.

the majority of americans wants out of iraq. theyve been doing polls on that all year. pretty reliable stuff. i'm pretty sure the majority of americans would agree with the idea of a day's warring giving a soldier a day's rest.

dont pretend this is for the good of the country. this is a waste of time.

has there been a popular vote since last monday? i think i missed it. @!$%#.

Popu,lar vote? No. Polls? Yes. It seems to me that most politicians do not go against the wishes of the majority of their constituents...and they try to keep abreast of opinion in their district. Why would they not do this? (With the possible exception of those that do no plan to run for re-election).

the majority of americans wants out of iraq

True- that's pretty clear. However, they do not want a sudden immediate pullout. And, I believe that I read that the majority would be against cutting off funding while are troops are still there.

dont pretend this is for the good of the country. this is a waste of time.

Well, I am not pretending that this is for the good of the country-- or that its not. Rather, I am merely stating that these people are representing the predominant opinion in their districts...which may or may not, ultimately, be good for the country.

with all due respect, your argument is a copout. again

And, I believe that I read that the majority would be against cutting off funding while are troops are still there.

only if they are uninformed, which is par for the course for americans but in no way excuses our leaders to act like children. it's a cute talking point to pretend that cutting off funding would make bullets disappear in thin air, but it's simply not true.

i'm not sure what you're arguing. but pretending that this, of all the endless buyout legislation that the congress deals with, is merely or even primarily a representation of the constituents, is silly.

this happened because democrats are too frightened of being further misrepresented by a future wave of outrageously inaccurate campaign advertising on the part of the republican machine. and this happened because the republicans know an opportunity when they see one, and far be it from them to sacrifice an opportunity to forward their misleading rhetoric at the expense of real people dying from real bullets.

you might as well argue that they voted this way because they flipped a coin. entirely possible, but entirely missing the point.

Personally, I think it would have been marvelous if the entirety of the Democrats in the Senate simply refused to vote on the measure. It would highlight the sheer pointlessness of it without making it appear that they support the ad, like a Nay vote might.