From Senate website:
On the Amendment (Cornyn Amdt. No. 2100 ) to H. R. 1585
Voted on July 17, 2007, 02:48 PM
To express the sense of the Senate that it is in the national security interest of the United States that Iraq not become a failed state and a safe haven for terrorists.
94 Yeas
3 Nays - Byrd (D-WV), Feingold (D-WI,) Harkin (D-IA)
Not Voting - Biden (D-DE), Inouye (D-HI), Johnson (D-SD)

Expected leftist Sen. Feingold to be a "nay". Confirmed.

Please tell me why these Democrat Senators will admit that they support a plan that they believe will encourage terrorism?

The party of treason.

Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state, fertilized by the manure of republicanism. This Congress has become a mud puddle hasn't it. LOL

Why do conservatives always have to take the morons interpretation of news they can't stomach. Even a moron knows that PRECIPITOUS withdrawal would result in chaos. For your beaddled enlightenment, the Democrats are calling for an ORDERED and PROGRAMMED withdrawal. Allowing the Iraqi Government to establish their own system of order. It's the Republicans that are constantly demanding OUR WAY OR NO WAY.

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 07/18/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Goldie and J:

Why aren't the terms of surrender to put in this bill? That way we can have an ORDERED and PROGRAMMED defeat, too.

we've already got that, wjo. but don't take my word for it, stop hatin' on the troops that don't agree with you and hear them out once in a while:

"Troops say we've lost Iraq war

Chicago Sun-Times, Jan 15, 2007
by Bill Corcoran

If the media only knew what soldiers stationed in Iraq were privately saying about President Bush's plan to send 21,000 more troops into Iraq, they would be shocked. Every soldier or Marine is told to say only glowing things if they encounter a member of the media or a politician visiting Iraq.

The same M.O. was in effect when I was in the Army Combat Engineers during the Korean War. We were told to give the press only a thumbs-up on the mission, and not volunteer any personal opinions.

....

Morale in Iraq with soldiers and Marines is horrible. More and more units are finding out they will not be coming home, and because of Bush's obsession with winning the war (whatever that means), their tour in Iraq has been extended. All the conservatives and neocons say we can't pull out because it would leave the country in chaos. What do they think is happening in Iraq now?

If Bush only knew what the soldiers are saying about the Iraq War and about his leadership, he would crawl under a rock. There is not a single GI home from the Iraq War I've talked to who doesn't say the war has been lost.

.... "

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20070115/ai_n17128918

needless-to-say, you'll say this is bunk. very well, then--riddle me this: if this war has the support of the troops, as you'll insist it does, then why the attrition rates? why are troops voting on this war with their feet?

j:

Do you actually know any veterans from Iraq? Ongoing wars are fluid things. Why not give me someone's opinions of stock prices from January 15, 2007 as being representitive of broad market trends and see how that holds up?

As for "attrition rates", please clarify your terms. Do you mean enlistment or reenlistment rates?

As a more current example of direct sourcing on the subject might I suggest:http://michaelyon-online.com/

as a quickie reply, before i check out your link, yes--i not only know veterans of iraq/afghanistan, i'm related to three of them: my brother, husband and father of three sons, an army ranger and 1st LT (after 15+ years in the service, mind you--he went through the enlisted route all the way to the top before OCS) veteran of two tours in iraq and two tours in afghanistan; and two cousins--both marines, both brothers, never got out of enlisted, both served single tours in iraq, one wounded. between the three, there are two bronze stars, a silver star, and a purple heart (besides several unit commendations and other awards, etc). you've no reason to believe me on any of this, of course, but i know you're dead wrong to suppose i don't even *know* any veterans of this conflict; my brother was running white ops in africa and the middle east while bush was running a baseball team. doesn't make me an expert on anything, i'm man enough to admit. but it *does* make me attentive to veterans and those currently serving....

j:

I tip my hat to your family members.

My cousin, a lifer, is on tour #3.

j:

Another source, not of the "happy talk" variety: dirhttp://www.commentarymagazine.com/contentions/index.php/boot/657ect

back them up with evidence.

The "ignore my voting record" line will be a big hit on the campaign trail with voters.

Since when did genocide ever mean anything to vicious America haters like R. Stanton Scott ? Hell, leftists were trying to tell us life was better under Pol Pot, well, for all those except the 2,000,000 who were slaughtered.

"then--riddle me this: if this war has the support of the troops, as you'll insist it does, then why the attrition rates? why are troops voting on this war with their feet?"

I more than willing to clear up the confusion. It's not a complicated riddle. I know what the enemy is, what they are capable of, and how vital the mission is for the long term safety of Americans. And with that firmly in my mind, I left anyway. Liberals just aren't fit to protect, and I would no longer lift a finger to defend them. My sheepdogin' days are over. Every time I hear liberals whine that there aren't enough volunteers to protect then, I grin a little bit.

Stanton - A bill reportedly via which withdrawal begins in 120 days and is completed by the end of April 2008, neither of which date based on current reporting is affected by conditions on the ground, sounds arbitrary and capricious at a minimum, some might even say precipitous.

then why the attrition rates?

Attrition compared to what?

Every time I hear liberals whine that there aren't enough volunteers to protect then, I grin a little bit.

Then you're not doing much grinning, buddy, because no liberals are saying that.

Liberals were screeching it during Katrina, while simultaneously doing counter-recruiting. I know you remember that. Let's not be silly. Or rewrite history.

The Katrina complaints were aimed at the Feds in general.

I've also had a liberal say it to my face. You promised that it was "nobody". I'm not going to quite use the "L" word just yet, but what you said was objectively false.

I was just helping J out with his request for information.

Doc - Charlie Rangel keeps trying to reinstitute the draft. Surely that must be because there are too few volunteers to protect the liberals. It can't just be naked cynical political posturing from such a fine civil servant and veteran who can understand the merits of a volunteer military relative to a conscription service, can it?

Actually, its because Rangel is a crank who's been off his lithium for quite a while now.

I think we both know why Rangel makes a call for a draft.

Yes, there's political posturing on both sides of the aisle on a daily basis, and it would be ridiculous to say otherwise, but Rangel's call for a draft is no more naked or cynical than, say, "Mission Accomplished" or "The insurgency is in its last throes" or "Heckuva job, Brownie." Our elected officials--Democrat, Republican and None of the Above, are fools, poltroons and megalomaniacs in various degrees of admixture.

Brando:

Because you once had a person tell you in a personal conversation that the army isn't doing enough to protect him or her, this a) is something that liberals do all the time and b) makes me a liar?

I think that this word "liar" does not mean what you think it means, señor.

Doc - Why don't you explain why you think Tangel keeps calling for a draft because I don't understand it. He willfully ignores date on the composition of the armed forces to demagogue his positions, which to me are frankly insulting to the troops that serve. Why do YOU think he does it?

He willfully ignores date on the composition of the armed forces

I'm not sure what you mean here, but I'll try to answer the rest. If I miss something, clarify and I'll try to address it.

I can't remember whether it was Rangel himself or an aide who said that the call for a draft was a "put up or shut up" dare to Bush: if the war in Iraq is as important to our national survival as you say it is, be a man, institute a draft, and live with the consequences. If not, then let's do this thing some other way.

I seem to remember similar calls for including Iraq funding in the actual budget Bush submits to Congress, rather than including it in a supplemental: if he's going to spend gazillions on the war--and he knows that he's going to do so--then he needs to set things up so that he can't say something on the order of, "Look, America: the war isn't costing all that much. Look here at the budget I sent to Congress."

I see my comment has been deleted. Turns out that you can dish it out (or watch your commenters dish it out), but you can't take it.

Echo chamber, anyone?

Fallacy of excluded middle, anyone?

Doc - That's circular logic. Why are you afraid to describe how venal your leaders actually are. If we are getting enough volunteers who actually want to be in the military we do not need a draft. You have already said that liberals are not saying we don't have enough soldiers to protect us. Why then does Rangel need to propose a draft?

If we need to increase the size of the military, doesn't Bush get Congressional approval, something that just recently happened? Why can't you just call a spade a spade and say Rangels moves are blatantly anti-war, with no serious intent except to damage the President and the war effort, insulting to the troops, and that he has no intent of actually passing and having signed into law.

If you have a different spin, I'd like to hear it.

daleyrocks writes,

Why are you afraid to describe how venal your leaders actually are.

I think I already did that, in the strongest terms:

Our elected officials--Democrat, Republican and None of the Above, are fools, poltroons and megalomaniacs in various degrees of admixture.

Doc - You are continuing to dodge a specific situation with generalities. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do this. Have you been taking lessons.

Rangel has introduced legislation related to a draft I believe three or four times. Is he just wasting our money to score partisan political points and insult the troops or is there something behind what he is doing?

You can't address the actions of your leaders yet have the effrontery to claim conservatives can't face the truth? You are a waste of bandwidth.

I'm not sure what you think I'm not addressing. I've explained my understanding of why Rangel is making his proposal:

I can't remember whether it was Rangel himself or an aide who said that the call for a draft was a "put up or shut up" dare to Bush: if the war in Iraq is as important to our national survival as you say it is, be a man, institute a draft, and live with the consequences. If not, then let's do this thing some other way.

I don't think I can get much more specific than that.

Also: refresh my memory of where I wrote that conservatives "can't face the truth." The specific instance escapes me.

I had always taken Rangel's claims at face value. He just literally loves conscription. It doesn't matter if you call it the draft, or conscription or something fancy like selective service. It's just slavery, plain and simple.

I think, as good citizens, we should be against slavery. It's bad, m'kay.

Doc - All you are doing with Rangel is repeating what he or an aide said about the bill. For someone who dodges the point by claiming politicians from both sides include all sorts of scoundrels, implying Rangel is one of them, is it wise to take him at his publicly stated purpose for his actions? Believing a liar doesn't do you much credit. Don't you have any actual opinions of your own on the matter. His avowed purpose makes no sense.

Well, then why is he doing it?

Doc - To use your words, if Rangel is one of the

fools, poltroons and megalomaniacs in various degrees of admixture,

I am more interested in your view of why he is doing it, or do you usually act as a stenographer for fools and poltroons?

Liberal politicians are afraid to say what they really think because then no one would vote for them. That disease stretches to their supporters as well. The dodging continues.

I guess Rangel must think the military is too small to protect us if he thinks we need a draft, which is why he keeps bringing it up. You deny that but offer no good explanation for his actions.

Daleyrocks, I've told you why I really, really, really, really think that he's doing it. I've told you twice. My answer is not, apparently, the answer you want me to give. I have no control over that.

The contention that Rangel is a dyed-in-the-wool liar whose every word must be distrusted is yours, remember, not mine, so I'm under no obligation to doubt the reason he gives for this.

All I can do with the fools and poltroons is to see whether the things they say are internally consistent with the perspective said fools and poltroons seem to have on life, the universe and everything. The reason I shared with you bears up under that scrutiny, for me at least.

This interaction with you points up a key distinction that I've noticed between the way Righties and Lefties see each other. In my experience of several years' surfing of various web pages in Left and Right Blogistan, I've noticed that Righties tend to assume that Lefties are crafty but lying about everything they say. Lefties tend to assume that Righties are sincere but unutterably stupid.

There would seem to be no resolution to this.

Doc - Does the fact that Rangel has subsequently withdrawn his proposals for a draft each time he has submitted them bother you? Do you think that indicates a lack of sincerity or seriousness on his part?

Do you personally think instituting a draft in the current envitronment has a snowball's chance in hell of passing? I don't. I think it's a waste of time and pure demagoguery of Rangel to keep bringing it up.

Do you think it is right of Rangel to blantantly misrepresent the demographics of our armed forces in support of his non serious proposals?

Do you think his proposals are insulting to our troops? I do.

See, there are a whole host of questions you manage to dodge by your non answers. Liberals don't like questions like these and try to dodge them. Rangel is not as bad a race pimp as Je$$e Jackson or Al Sharpton, but he oftentimes gets close.

I don't think that Rangel's proposals are an insult to the troops. Why would that be the case?

I don't know what you mean by "blatantly misrepresent the demographics of our armed forces," so I can't answer that one right now.

No, I don't think that a draft has a chance of passing.

Rangel's proposals are not frivolous if you accept the reason I've suggested for why he's making them. If he's making a point or sending a message, then he probably thinks that he has made his point each time the President declines to take up the call for a draft.

Doc - Earlier in the thread you restated either Rangel or an aide's position as follows:
"I can't remember whether it was Rangel himself or an aide who said that the call for a draft was a "put up or shut up" dare to Bush: if the war in Iraq is as important to our national survival as you say it is, be a man, institute a draft, and live with the consequences."
Now you accept that as his real reason for promoting a draft. I cannot accept that because a "put up or shut up" dare is doomed to failure when the one proposing it is fundamentally unserious about his dare, which Rangel has repeatedly demonstrated. The argument doesn't hold water.

I find his constant harping on the draft insulting to the troops because it implies the military needs fixing. Why tinker with something unless it is broken or not getting the job done. Using your position, Rangel is saying the volunteer military cannot get the job done. I find that insulting.

Rangel claims the enlistees to the military are overweighted to minorities and poor. The most recent demographic statistics clearly show him in error and he has been confronted with the truth on numerous occasions. He blythely ignores the data to continue his demagoguery.

By the way, the original reason I brought up Rangel, was to point out a liberal who was saying we didn't have enough troops to keep us safe. Your explanation of his position, that to win the war and for our national survival, Bush needed to institute a draft. You didn't acknowledge my point then and I don't expect you will now, but thanks for playing anyway.

Y'all come back now.

You didn't acknowledge my point then and I don't expect you will now, but thanks for playing anyway.

What you mean by saying that I didn't "acknowledge your point" is a mystery to me. I answered your question more than once. Do you mean that I continued to disagree with you? That I didn't say, "Good point!" when you were done?

Your explanation of his position, that to win the war and for our national survival, Bush needed to institute a draft.

Actually, I think that that is your interpretation of Rangel's call for a draft, not mine. It's a little frustrating that you still see that as my point, even after going through my interpretation for you twice.

About the insult thing: I've lost count of the things that people on the Right count as "insults" to the troops when they're said by people on the Left. Everything is taken as an insult. There's a lot of outrage out there.

Let's accept for the sake of discussion your spin on Rangel's calls for a draft: specifically, that it signifies that Rangel feels that more troops are needed in Iraq. (Remember, that's all a draft is: getting more troops. A draft doesn't have anything at all to do with saying that the military is broken or "changing direction" or getting new generals or anything else; it's simply getting your hands on more troops. That's all it is.) Your take on this whole thing is that saying "we need more troops" is an insult to the military. By your logic, then, the surge itself was an insult. Somebody--some general or bureaucratic functionary--decided we needed more troops over in Iraq, so more troops were moved to Iraq. Did that person, too, insult the troops?

You see the problem.

The fact of the matter is that neither one of us knows what Rangel is really thinking. We can only go with our interpretations, and your interpretation is that he's lying. This goes back to my whole "Righties think that Lefties always lie, no matter what" theory of political discourse on the Internet.

Doc - I don't agree with your spin Doc. The only reason a draft would be required, apart from Rangel's phony demographic claims, would be to expand the overall size of the military and to include a bunch of people essentially through slavery. The surge was done with existing forces not a conscription. Your analogy is not valid on its face.

The implication of Rangel's proposal, again ignoring the demographic smears he makes, is that the all volunteer military can't get the job done or is not the right way to run the show. But maybe that's me.

I would be rich if I had a dollar for each smear by lefties against the troops I read or heard who claimed they were not actually insulting the troops. The lack of patriotism, honor and duty, make large segments of the completely tone deaf on such matters.

The implication of Rangel's proposal, again ignoring the demographic smears he makes, is that the all volunteer military can't get the job done or is not the right way to run the show.

Okay. I'm ignoring Rangel for a second and just going with my ideas here.

I don't want a draft, and I don't want this war, but I will note that somebody somewhere has decided that four things are necessary to fight in Iraq: first, intensive use of reservists; second, multiple tours of duty at the front lines; third, lowered requirements aimed at getting more recruits; finally, extended 15-month rotations for the army.

These are relatively new developments for our forces, aren't they?

In your mind, are these all signs of a military that has all the tools in its toolbox that it would like to have?

Doc - I'm sorry that you claim you've explained your position some many times. I think it's more like you've explained so many positions. It would be nice to have you settle down on one.

First you repeated what Rangel or an aide said without necessarily agreeing with it. Then you agreed with it. You also implied he was a poltroon and other not nice stuff in there. Then you agreed that a draft had no chance of passing, although you did not acknowledge it is tough to make a put up or shut up threat when all your threats are empty. Then you attempted a weaselly move by saying it's too bad you don't know what Rangel really thinks. Doh! Way to take a stand and voice an opinion.

There was an interesting story out today about a study Jack Murthatard requested the CBO perform related to the draft. It was called Restoring the Draft:No Panacea. I've excerpted a few paragraphs below and provided a link.

"The report, requested by Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, says that drafting people could make it easier for the Army to reach its 2012 goal of 547,000 soldiers. It might also save some money if Congress opted to pay draftees less than volunteers. But the downside, the report claims, would be a less effective fighting force, thanks to a sudden influx of draftees who would remain in uniform for much shorter spells than today's all-volunteer soldiers.

Usually, greater accumulated knowledge and skills come with increased experience," the report notes. "Because most draftees leave after completing a two-year obligation, a draft might affect the services' ability to perform those functions efficiently." To maintain the same capability, the CBO suggests, the Army might have to grow, which could eliminate any savings. On the other hand, increased training costs for draftees - with less time in uniform, more have to be trained - could be offset by cuts in advertising and bonuses now used to entice volunteer recruits.

The report says that while 91% of last year's recruits were high school graduates, only 80% of U.S. residents aged 18 to 24 have attained that level of education. And high-school graduates, the military says, make better soldiers than dropouts. The CBO, which does not make recommendations but only charts options for lawmakers, estimates that somewhere between 27,000 and 165,000 would be drafted each year. That relative small slice - some 2 million males turn 18 each year - could resurrect the problems seen in the Vietnam era when deferments and friendly draft boards kept some well-connected young men out of uniform. Under current law, women could not be drafted.

If it doesn't make military or economic sense to launch the draft, what about the notion of fairness? Critics have claimed that minorities are over-represented in the all-volunteer military because they have fewer options in the civilian world. The CBO disputes that, saying that "members of the armed forces are racially and ethnically diverse." African Americans accounted for 13% of active-duty recruits in 2005, just under their 14% share of 17-to-49-year-olds in the overall U.S. population. And minorities are not being used as cannon fodder. "Data on fatalities indicate that minorities are not being killed [in Iraq and Afghanistan] at greater rates than their representation in the force," the study says. "Rather, fatalities of white service members have been higher than their representation in the force," in large part because whites are over-represented in the military's combat, as opposed to support, jobs."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20070721/us_time/restoringthedraftnopanacea

First you repeated what Rangel or an aide said without necessarily agreeing with it.

That's because you asked me what Rangel's reason was, not what my thinking was on the subject.

Then you agreed with it.

No, I didn't. I was explaining why I thought Rangel meant what he said. That has nothing to do with my opinion on the draft issue.

Then you attempted a weaselly move by saying it's too bad you don't know what Rangel really thinks.

"Weaselly move?" What the hell do you think I am, psychic? Are you psychic? If you are, then leave me the hell out of your Rangel obsession and read his mind your own darned self. I said again and again that I can only go by what the guy says on any given topic. What I mean by that, essentially, is that I can only go by what he says.

Only you could suggest that being unable to read someone's mind is a "weaselly move."

Also: thanks for the minilesson on the evils of the draft, which I needed like I need a hole in the head. Remember this (emphasis added)?

I'm ignoring Rangel for a second and just going with my ideas here.

I don't want a draft.

Or was that too "weaselly?"

Doc - There you go Weaselling again. Virtually my first question was to explain why YOU thought Rangel did what he did:

Doc - Why don't you explain why you think Tangel keeps calling for a draft because I don't understand it. He willfully ignores date on the composition of the armed forces to demagogue his positions, which to me are frankly insulting to the troops that serve. Why do YOU think he does it?

posted by daleyrocks at July 19, 2007 09:12 AM

Just a reminder. Try to keep your stories straight.

Why do YOU think he does it?

Just a reminder. Try to keep your stories straight.

HOLY FRICKIN' CHRIST!!!!!!!!

I've explained more than once, and I've answered it the same way each time.

First:

I can't remember whether it was Rangel himself or an aide who said that the call for a draft was a "put up or shut up" dare to Bush: if the war in Iraq is as important to our national survival as you say it is, be a man, institute a draft, and live with the consequences. If not, then let's do this thing some other way.

Then:

I'm not sure what you think I'm not addressing. I've explained my understanding of why Rangel is making his proposal:

I can't remember whether it was Rangel himself or an aide who said that the call for a draft was a "put up or shut up" dare to Bush: if the war in Iraq is as important to our national survival as you say it is, be a man, institute a draft, and live with the consequences. If not, then let's do this thing some other way.

I don't think I can get much more specific than that.

So I've answered the question twice using exactly the same words each time.

Are you even reading my posts?