Lieberman says the new Iraq resolution coming up for debate "doesn't make sense"

[bigtree]

that's reason enough for me to consider it . . .

Democrats say close to new Iraq resolution

By Susan Heavey 1 hour, 42 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Democratic-led Senate is moving closer to rewriting the measure that paved the way for President Bush to invade Iraq nearly four years ago, two top Democratic lawmakers said on Sunday.

The move would not repeal the Senate's 2002 vote authorizing the war, but instead limit the mission of U.S. troops to focus on counter-terrorism efforts such as protecting Iraq's borders, said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"It will not be combat in the middle of Baghdad. It will be a transition to a more limited mission of supporting the Baghdad army training and logistics," the Michigan Democrat told CBS's "Face the Nation."

He added the measure, expected to come up this week, would be binding.

"We are coming to a very broad consensus, and that consensus ... is this: that we ought to change the mission," Schumer, vice chairman of the Senate Democratic Conference, told ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." "We want to change it, to have a much more narrow focus."

Connecticut Independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman , who has staunchly supported the Iraq invasion, told CBS that the resolution made no sense.

Democrats are also considering attaching possible conditions to any measures that fund U.S. troops. They are considering requiring that rotations into Iraq be limited to a year and mandating that soldiers be adequately equipped and trained. Some also want to call for troops be out of Iraq in six months.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070304/pl_nm/iraq_usa_congress_dc_1

[Beelzebud]

1. There is Harry Reid's "Thank You" for giving him the Democratic radio adress..

[Tom Joad]

2. It doesn't make sense. They want to redefine the mission in Iraq,

while what we should be doing is saying that the US has NO rightful mission in Iraq.

This resolution will reauthorize US presence in Iraq, and should be opposed by all who want to end this illegal and insane war against the people of Iraq.

[bigtree]

6. this is Levin's proposal

I'll wager that other proposals calling for a clear exit will also get a chance to be debated and voted on in some fashion. But, remember, after these proposals reach the floor, they will be subject to all of the levers of obstruction that the republicans can manage. There's simply very little that Reid has the power to do about the cloture votes and points of order which republicans are allowed to employ in the minority under the Senate rules.

What many fail to grasp about the Senate is that each of the more strident (and correct) proposals are responsible, in and of themselves, for their own success in gathering the votes necessary for passage.

There will either be this effort which Reid is managing to the floor which tries to get the widest amount of support for passage, or there is the approach which tries to ram a partisan initiative through which has an even greater chance for failure if it happens to run the republican gauntlet and reaches Bush's desk.

I think all of this is necessary. There has to be a point where Bush is presented with SOMETHING rebuking his false authority in Iraq. The question is whether ANY of the Democratic proposals from ANY Senator can rise to an actual vote and move through both houses, not the hypercritical judgment of the critics of the Dem leadership effort which supposes that the immediate withdrawal proposals would prevail by just asserting them.

[Monkeyman]

3. Hell Joe make's no sense

[BlueJac]

4. Joe, Joe, Joe...........

you are king on making no sense. You are a fucking traitor to democracy.

[rodeodance]

5. it really has surprized me how timid the Dems are.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Seriously? It's not exacly anything new.

[bigtree]

9. hey, how's that Green Party coalition you folks have managed to get elected to Congress

working for you?

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. Not any less effective than what's there now, thanks.

[Forkboy]

24. Ouch

[Beelzebud]

26. The truth hurts.

[Forkboy]

28. It sure does!

:)

[bigtree]

32. silly really, to judge this Congress on the weeks they've been in business

the question for the Greens is, where are their representatives in Congress? Agitating outside of the system can only do so much, go so far.

[madokie]

44. the last thing we need is a wedge, a divider and thats what a third party would become

very few repukes would ever change to a green party or whatever its called so that leaves dems to bolt and then we will have a repuke majority from hell. I'm a proud assed Democratic voter and will stay one. Mind you I would like to see them do better and will continue trying to make that happen but I won't turn my back on them though, it would be counter productive if you ask me.
majority rules, no changing that.

[bigtree]

8. It's not timidity, it's their realization of the limits of their majority

I've seen plenty of strong words spoken from our side. There's no shortage of outrage from our party over Bush occupation, but there are few viable avenues to forcing Bush's hand short of impeachment for something or other. Just pushing forward in the Senate, for example, with a proposal for immediate withdrawal from Iraq wouldn't in any way assure that it would see daylight, much less reach Bush's desk.

I've yet to see a proposal from the critics of the Democratic majority's efforts which would have a guaranteed success or even move the political debate forward in any significant way to effect ANYTHING Bush is doing. Everyone wants a direct confrontation, but there are very few, if any, direct avenues to confront Bush which would anyway move him from his occupation, short of impeachment.

They are working through all of the proposals, but we all know they don't have the votes to do anything in the Senate. They can't overcome the stifling cloture votes in the Senate without republican support, so . . . it's not so much timidity as it is political reality.

[trashcanistanista]

31. They don't need a majority for a cloture vote

if they use the power of the purse and cut the damn funding. That is the only way out right now aside from impeachment. Putting these "strategy change" measures up for vote is a waste of time and lives. :mad:

[NewJeffCT]

43. they need 60 votes for cloture

no way that gets through the Senate. It sucks, but until the Dems can actually get the votes of Chuck Hagel and 9-10 others, cutting off funding is not going to happen.

[bigtree]

46. they can't cut it from the Senate. republicans will raise a point of order

because spending bills must originate in the House before moving on to the Senate. After the point of order is raised, 60 votes are required to move forward

[Mr. Ected]

10. Why Don't the Dems Tell Joe to Go F Himself

With friends like Joe, who needs enemies?

Joe will never support a bill that does anything less than imperil American troops indefinitely and with no endgame in sight.

When it comes to Iraq, it's Joe Lieberman-R.

[Beelzebud]

11. It's starting to really piss me off they just keep capitulating to him...

They give this neo-con fuck the Democratic radio address, so he can come out and stab them in the backs the very next fucking day...

Joe Lieberman, and anyone that supports him, is a sorry piece of shit.

[bigtree]

12. the Democratic response to Bush's radio address?

who heard it?

[fooj]

17. LIEberman did the Dems radio address this weekend?

What a bunch of BULLSHIT!

I want answers. I want to know why Harry Reid hasn't let us in on this little piece of info...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702240001

Media ignore Lieberman's pledge not to switch parties

Several media outlets, including The Politico, ABCNews.com, Fox News' Special Report and The Washington Times, reported on Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's (CT) statement in the March 5 issue of Time magazine that there is a "very remote possibility" he will stop caucusing with Senate Democrats, but failed to note Lieberman's repeated pre-election promises to the voters of Connecticut that he would caucus with Democrats. Additionally, The Politico and Special Report inaccurately reported that Lieberman's decision to caucus with the other party would "give control of the back to the Republicans." In fact, in order to change the makeup of committees and their chairmen, as well as the president pro tempore, the Republicans would have to pass new organizing rules, which could be filibustered by the Democrats.
<snip>

If this is correct, WTF is Harry up to? Why hasn't he come clean with us re: the Democratic Majority? We WON'T lose the majority...EVEN if Judas Joe switches parties. This is complete and utter bullshit. I e-mailed Reid. I haven't gotten a response yet...:eyes:

[Beelzebud]

18. It's totally true. Lieberman did the Democratic radio address this weekend...

Harry Reid is a spineless wimp, and we deserve better.

[bigtree]

21. Harry Reid is a strong Democrat with a less than strong hand

He deserves better

[Beelzebud]

22. Harry Reid is an ineffective wimp. We deserve better.

[bigtree]

23. sticks and stones break bones

but do very little when working legislation through the narrowly divided Senate

[coalition_unwilling]

30. Dump Reid - replace with Boxer or Feingold (up with the matriarchy,

down with the patriarchy)

[bigtree]

38. All of the bluster in the entire blogosphere couldn't undo the political realities in the Senate

all of the bravado and bluster of the critics is no substitute for actually passing anything in the body. There is still NO effective vehicle for their opposition to Bush in Iraq in the Senate. All of the talk about courage is nonsense if it just intends to butt up against the same opposition and obstruction that the bipartisan approaches have faced.

[fooj]

33. Why hasn't he come clean with us re: Lieberman?

Did you see my previous post? Why are we pandering to Joe? Why have we given him the power? It is inconceivable to me how the Senate Majority Leader would allow the members of his party to believe something that was patently false.

[bigtree]

34. maybe, like me, he thinks the entire debate about Lieberman's Senate perks is

a load of nothing

[fooj]

36. How so?

Seriously, I don't understand what you are saying.

Doesn't one of his "Senate perks" result in him being Chair for Homeland Security? IMO, that's a BIG deal. Ask the residents of the Gulf Coast. He's blocking Senate hearings re: Katrina, yes? Good thing we've got the House moving forward with THEIR hearings.

It is inconceivable to me how the Senate Majority Leader would allow the members of his party to believe something that was patently false.

Why does Harry pander to Joe? Why would Harry give Joe the radio spot this weekend when he (Joe) refers to himself as an Independent. Joe's voting record as of 2007 shows him to be nothing but a fraud. A liar. A traitor. He DOES NOT represent the values and ideals of the Democratic Party. Why, then, was Joe Harry's choice? Doesn't that seem odd to you?

[bigtree]

37. didn't Lieberman sponsor the Homeland Security Bill before he became a pariah?

and the 9-11 commission? I don't know if it would have been prudent to keep attacking Bush for ignoring the 9-11 legislation and bury the man who was a leader in the fight for the WH to accept the commission in the first place. Or how Reid was supposed to strip him of the post when he needed his vote to organize around the slim majority in the initial leadership vote.

The rest of the stuff, like letting him speak on behalf of the stalled 9-11 bill which contains the recommendations of the committee is small potatoes.

[fooj]

47. Joe hasn't voted WITH us since November.

Or how Reid was supposed to strip him of the post when he needed his vote to organize around the slim majority in the initial leadership vote.

I guess I'm not understanding the "leadership vote" part of this...

[dkofos]

14. Quit screwing around with peoples lives and just

DON'T FUND THE WAR

[bigtree]

16. the funding legislation has to, by law, originate in the House.

If a funding bill is brought up in the Senate it's subject to a point of order, requiring 60 votes to overcome.

[dkofos]

20. It's up to Nancy to not move it forward

[BlooInBloo]

15. Neither does the choice made by the Connecticut electorate (shrug) wutrya gonna do?

[cascadiance]

19. I think he meant to be saying "It doesn't make cents!"

For him and his neocon buddies and their corporate cronies! It sure the hell makes sense! Just doesn't make cents for them!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

25. Senile

how old is Joe

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. They're still tiptoeing around the fact that it's a defeat and a disaster.

Still willing to "sacrifice" more GI's and Iraqis in the vain hope that they can achieve some sort of "peace with honor" that doesn't acknowledge the obvious.

Shameful.

[bigtree]

35. I think their concerns are more complicated than that

if we listen to what they are saying, and give them the benefit of their convictions, they reveal a plethora of concerns. I fear that the critics don't always bother to stick around to hear them out.

[w4rma]

42. I think they're trying to make the foreign policy bipartisan, but the Repukes are either

brainwashed or up to their life wasting games.

[Zorra]

29. Just what does make sense to Lieberman?

Killing another 100,000 Iraqis and losing another 3,000 troops while we bankrupt our country?

Looks like that's what he wants to me.

[meldroc]

39. Fuck Connecticut for reelecting that Quisling.

[Dammit Ann]

40. Nice vocabulary!

;-)

[HuffleClaw]

41. surprisingly he's correct

its a half-assed piece o' crap on a stick. they aren't going to REALLY act because they are too damned scared of being labelled as 'non-troop-supporters'.

[bigtree]

45. even if they were to move forward in an aggressive partisan way, they still wouldn't prevail

without republican votes in the Senate. There are plenty of members with proposals for immediate withdrawal who haven't figured a way past the republican obstruction. Seems all some can do is rail against the leadership's efforts to strike a bipartisan compromise. Still haven't heard how folks like Feingold plans to get his proposal through the body. Even if he had all of the Democrats unified behind his proposal he would still fall well short of enough votes to overcome the republican filibuster, making the entire effort as moot as Reid's efforts have been so far.