Politics before troops, yet again.

[Tim]

Webb's troop amendment blocked

Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 - 01:59 PM


WASHINGTON -- Sen. Jim Webb's amendment to mandate minimum intervals at home for U.S. troops after deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan was blocked in the Senate on a procedural vote today.
The Senate voted 56 to 41 to limit debate on Webb's amendment, but 60 votes were required to cut off debate and proceed toward a vote on the proposal, so the Virginia Democrat withdrew his amendment afterward.
Critics contended the amendment by Webb, a Vietnam War veteran and father of a Marine Corps lance corporal who has served in Iraq, would improperly set limits on presidential authority and in effect would kill President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq.
Webb and his backers replied that Congress has complete authority to require the minimum intervals at home after deployment. They said the amendment was aimed at protecting and supporting soldiers and Marines who have been stretched dangerously thin by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't know how any American can vote against this. "Support the Troops" my ass. When it comes time to step up to the plate and do the right thing, why does it seem that these Republicans are all talk and no action? First is was getting the troop body armor and helmet liners, then it was up armored Humvee now it's giving them time with their families before they throw them back into the heat of action for yet another 15 month tour.

 

[GuesSAngel]

the republicans are bullshit..every last one of them. Good job to everyone that voted them in!

 

[dt3]

That's fucking crap.

I don't want to turn this into a political debate, but didn't the Democrats take control of Congress???

I don't care what party you are, that should have had a unanimous vote.

 

[Tim]

That's fucking crap.

I don't want to turn this into a political debate, but didn't the Democrats take control of Congress???

I don't care what party you are, that should have had a unanimous vote.

The dems do have control, but the republicans required at least 60 votes (which there are only 51 democrats) to pass cloture and allow it on the floor for debate.

Senator Webb's Floor Remarks on Republican Obstruction of Webb Amendment

Also Addresses Challenges to Constitutionality of Amendment

Mr. President, I first express my thanks to the Senator from Delaware for his service and also for his comments on this amendment. I come to the floor because I heard that the other side of the aisle may be deciding to filibuster this amendment. I would, first of all, like to express my vice that this filibuster might occur which, as the chair knows, would increase the requirement of the vote to 60 votes in order for the amendment to proceed. This is a very simple and a very fair amendment. I would like to express my opinions about some of the comments that have been made just as I was outside listening to different people from the media telling me what some of the reservations from the other side have been on this amendment. They are not accurate.

There are people saying this amendment is unconstitutional in the sense that only the Commander in Chief should be able to make decisions regarding the deployments of troops during war. First of all, Article one, Section 8 is very clear on this points of our Constitution. It states that the congress has the power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. This is well within the Constitution. In fact, there is much precedent when people who are opposed to this amendment discuss that it might be tying the President’s hands unnecessarily, we can go back to the dark days of the Korean War where, because of the national emergency that was caused from the invasion of Sought Korea by the north we didn’t have enough troops available and the administration at the time started sending soldiers into Korea who had not been fully trained and the congress acted within its constitutional purview. It passed a law that said no individual who is brought into the United States Military can be sent overseas unless they have been in the military for 120 days. The reason that the congress acted was to protect the well-being of those who served.

That’s exactly what we are proposing to do today. We are saying that whatever your beliefs are about this war – whether you want it to end in five weeks or whether you want it to go on for the next ten years - we have to come to some common agreement among the leadership of the United States that we are going to protect the well-being of our troops, of the people who step forward to serve in these times.

The minimum we can do is set a floor that basically says however long you are deployed you can have that much time back at home. Or if you are in the National Guard and Reserve if you’ve been deployed, you deserve to have three times that much time at home. The standard, the historical standard is if you’ve been deployed overseas or if you’ve been deployed on a deployment you should have twice as much time at home. The commandant of the marine corps, early this year when he undertook the duties of being commandant, said his goal was to bring in a two-to-one rotational cycle, given the requirements of Iraq.

We are now one to one with a good portion of that time at home being spent in work-ups to go back for these units and for these individuals. The army, as a result of this surge, now has a policy where they are saying, you go to Iraq for 15 months and we’ll guarantee you 12 months at home. That is not even one-to-one. Our amendment establishes a floor it is reasonable. It doesn’t have anything to do with political objectives of the war downstream. That can be sorted out later.

We are simply saying, if you’ve been gone for a year you deserve to be back for a year. If you’ve been gone fore seven months, you deserve to be back for seven months. Unless you want to go back. If you want to go back, fine, you can volunteer to go back. Our amendment doesn’t stop that.

Or if there’s a national emergency, an operational emergency where the president certifies that as a requirement, then the president can waive this. We’re trying to set a policy of stability so that military families can predict what their cycle is going to be and have enough time to truly become involved with our families again, have some downtime, and then refurbish and retrain and go back.

I would suggest to the other side that if they really believe that this is an amendment that is incompatible with military service they might want to consider aletter that I received today from the Military Officers Association of America. This is the largest and most influential association of Military officers in the country. It is composed of 368,000 members from every branch of the military.

They wrote me today. I’ll read portions of this letter: “On behalf of the 368,000 members of the Military Officers Association, I am writing to express our support for your amendment. The MOAA is very concerned that steps must be taken to protect the most precious military asset, all volunteer force, for having to bear such a disproportionate share of wartime sacrifice.” If we are not better stewards of our troops – this is the president of the MOAA, Vice Admiral Ryan, United States Navy Retired, saying this “if we are not better stewards of our troops and their families in the future than we have been in the recent past, we believe strongly we will be putting the all volunteer force at unacceptable risk.” I would submit to the President and this body that this is not the kind of a statement that would be made from a group of 368,000 military officers unless they believed in the constitutionality and the propriety of what we are attempting to do.

I would like to say to my colleagues and particularly to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that I am very disappointed in the notion that an amendment with this simplicity that goes to the well-being of our troops might even be considered as a filibuster. I would like to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the American people are watching us today and they’re watching closely with the expectation that we finally can take some sort of positive action that might stabilize the operational environment in which our troops are being sent again and again.

The American people are tired of the posturing that is giving the Congress such a bad reputation.
They’re tired of the procedural strategies designed to protect politicians from accountability and to
protect this administration from judgment.

The question on this amendment is not whether one supports the war or whether they do not. It’s not whether someone wants to wait until mid-July or September to see whether one particular set of benchmarks or summary might be taking us. The question is simply this. More than four years into the ground operations in Iraq, we owe stability and a reasonable cycle of deployment to the men and women who are carrying our nation’s burdens. That’s the question.

 

[Tim]

The amendment was defeated when it failed in a procedural cloture vote 56-41 to reach the de facto 60 threshold votes required for most legislation in the bitterly divided Senate. Seven Republicans voted for the amendment. Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut opposed it, but all Democrats supported it.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Can I get a link to the article, Tim?

 

[Tim]

Can I get a link to the article, Tim?

I posted the entire article... but there are many more articles out there... let me go find them for ya.

 

[dt3]

I don't watch much news and I hadn't heard about this.

I wouldn't vote for anybody who voted against this.

 

[All Else Failed]

Troops aren't people to the government. They are numbers on a page.

 

[Tim]

Army Times

LA Times

WDBA

Pilot Online

and from Senator Jim Webb's web site where you can read the amendment

is that good?

 

[dt3]

Troops aren't people to the government. They are numbers on a page.

In the grand scheme, yes.

That's right, I agree with you. Crazy huh?

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Army Times

LA Times

WDBA

Pilot Online

and from Senator Jim Webb's web site where you can read the amendment

is that good?

Thank ya kindly. I'm gonna read up on it.

 

[Tim]

I listened to the entire debate today on cspan. I was fucking amazed when I was hearing what the Republicans were saying about it. I know it's long, but Jim Webb was the last Senator to speak before the vote and I posted what he said above. It's well worth the read, I wanted to post video for it but can't find it anywhere. When I heard him, it made so much sense, I don't know how anyone could vote against it. I guess the white house doesn't want anyone messing with their pawns.....

 

[All Else Failed]

In the grand scheme, yes.

That's right, I agree with you. Crazy huh?

I'm sure we agree on a lot more.

 

[dt3]

I listened to the entire debate today on cspan. I was fucking amazed when I was hearing what the Republicans were saying about it. I know it's long, but Jim Webb was the last Senator to speak before the vote and I posted what he said above. It's well worth the read, I wanted to post video for it but can't find it anywhere. When I heard him, it made so much sense, I don't know how anyone could vote against it. I guess the white house doesn't want anyone messing with their pawns.....

Any idea how Senator McCain voted?

 

[Tim]

Here is the role call

McCain = Nay

 

[dt3]

I can't believe that...

 

[GraceAbounds]

The Web amendment as currently written should not be passed. If soldiers are given equal time off as the amount of their combat tours there wouldn’t be enough soldiers to fight the war. At the same token something DOES need to be done about the abuse of our soldiers being deployed to Iraq 3, 4, 5+ times. Something DOES need to be done about this, but once again a poor amendment was written.

 

[Tim]

The commandant of the marine corps, early this year when he undertook the duties of being commandant, said his goal was to bring in a two-to-one rotational cycle, given the requirements of Iraq.

Jim Webb is only looking for a one to one rotational cycle... that is not asking too much.

How can you say that the amendment was poorly written when he is seeking the bare minimum? Shall we just allow the President to burn these guys out completely?
This war a been poorly managed by the white house and it's a sin to punish the troops for it. We should not be laying this on the backs of the soldiers.

 

[NightWarrior]

The Web amendment as currently written should not be passed. If soldiers are given equal time off as the amount of their combat tours there wouldn’t be enough soldiers to fight the war. At the same token something DOES need to be done about the abuse of our soldiers being deployed to Iraq 3, 4, 5+ times. Something DOES need to be done about this, but once again a poor amendment was written.

Yeah, see here's the thing though. Not enough Americans actually have the guts to support their country. They are just happy to have been born here. Let the other guys take care of America's issues. Just a classic case of sitting around on an internet forum complaining of issues with the government when those same people are not even doing their part. America is full of a bunch of tree-hugging pus*ies. The recruiters can't pull enough people in anymore forcing these tired, over-deployed troops to be sent over again and again. Its pathetic.