I'd like to thank these Democratic Senators. . .

[True Democrat]

for doing what's right when it comes to the War in Iraq:

Conrad
Lieberman
Nelson
Nelson
Pryor

Even though I do not like many of these Sentaors (umm, mainly just Lieberman), I have to acknowledge their courage in this vote.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00322

[TheresNoMoney]

for doing what's right when it comes to the War in Iraq:

Conrad
Lieberman
Nelson
Nelson
Pryor

Even though I do not like many of these Sentaors (umm, mainly just Lieberman), I have to acknowledge their courage in this vote.

You're obviously a fan of "stay the course", huh?

[MarkDel]

Lieberman voted his conscience and may be the most decent and honorable person on Capitol Hill, but the rest were just trying to increase their chances for re-election. All four cannot appear to be "anti-American" in their home states.

[TheresNoMoney]

All four cannot appear to be "anti-American" in their home states.

Call me crazy, but having a plan and a flexible timetable to get our troops out of Iraq is anything but "anti-American".

That is just a typical BS Republican talking point.

[Moooooo]

All four cannot appear to be "anti-American" in their home states.

Call me crazy, but having a plan and a flexible timetable to get our troops out of Iraq is anything but "anti-American".

That is just a typical BS Republican talking point.

I think he put in quotes to make a point.  It would look anti-american in their home states, and these senators cannot afford that.

[TheresNoMoney]

I think he put in quotes to make a point.  It would look anti-american in their home states, and these senators cannot afford that.

I don't think so. The amendment wasn't for immediate withdrawal. The amendment was for a phased withdrawal based on conditions being met.

More than half the country doesn't think the war was even worth it, anymore.

[ATFFL]

I think he put in quotes to make a point.  It would look anti-american in their home states, and these senators cannot afford that.

I don't think so. The amendment wasn't for immediate withdrawal. The amendment was for a phased withdrawal based on conditions being met.

More than half the country doesn't think the war was even worth it, anymore.

Reality is irrelevant.  The bill would be easy to spin as being anti-american in some places.  In other places, voting for it would be easily spinable.  See the vote of a certain RI senator.

If an opponent can convince the voters that Senator's X vote was against the troops and anti-American interest, it would be a political liability.

[TheresNoMoney]

Reality is irrelevant.  The bill would be easy to spin as being anti-american in some places.  In other places, voting for it would be easily spinable.  See the vote of a certain RI senator.

If an opponent can convince the voters that Senator's X vote was against the troops and anti-American interest, it would be a political liability.

I'd like to think that Senators could put principle over politics every once in a while, especially in a situation like this. But I guess not. Still, it's good that 39 of the 44 Democrats present voted for the Amendment.

[nini2287]

I like all 5 of them and I like them even more now.

[J. J.]

Reality is irrelevant.  The bill would be easy to spin as being anti-american in some places.  In other places, voting for it would be easily spinable.  See the vote of a certain RI senator.

If an opponent can convince the voters that Senator's X vote was against the troops and anti-American interest, it would be a political liability.

I'd like to think that Senators could put principle over politics every once in a while, especially in a situation like this. But I guess not. Still, it's good that 39 of the 44 Democrats present voted for the Amendment.

It always amazes me when people say that politicians should put principle over politics.

[Jake]

Just for this, the GOP should give Ben Nelson an uncontested race next year. Bigtime kudos to these guys, the rest in their caucus are simple human trash.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why must the Democratic party have Senators who are far to the right of the American people?

[MHS2002]

Interesting thing about Conrad is that he voted against the Iraq War way back when IIRC.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Interesting thing about Conrad is that he voted against the Iraq War way back when IIRC.

Don't tell anyone, but I think that Conrad and Dorgan use a coin to decide how to vote sometimes.

[??????????]

This amendment would have been very bad news. Democrats want to Vietnamize every war we fight and therefore Democrats should be made irrelevant in this country in every election. What horrible people.

[Sam Spade]

I like all 5 of them and I like them even more now.

^^^^^^^^

[The Duke]

As Charles Krauthammer said this week, Timetable=Surrender.  I'm now compelled to replace the doghouse roster with pictures of these brave souls who now face the wrath of Reid, Biden, Kennedy, Schumer, and Clinton in the caucus.

[riceowl]

Liebermann shows just how classy he is again; and that he actually gets it:

 Floor Statement of Senator Joe Lieberman on Iraq Amendments to the FY06 Defense Authorization Bill

Mr. President, this is one of those quiet moments in the Senate with very few people in the Chamber when, in my opinion, something very important is happening. It is happening in good measure because of the two good men, my colleagues from Virginia and Michigan, who lead the Armed Services Committee, of which I am privileged to be a member. They are two gentlemen, two patriots, two people who have known each other for a long time, who work closely together, respect each other, even seem to like each other and, most important of all, trust each other.

Those qualities of personal trust and personal relationship have been too absent from our nation's consideration of the ongoing war in Iraq among our political leadership. We have, I am convinced, suffered from it.

It is no surprise to my colleagues that I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the Senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I look back on it and as I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power – a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face.

I am grateful to the American military for the extraordinary bravery and brilliance of their campaign to remove Saddam Hussein. I know we are safer as a nation, and to say the obvious that the Iraqi people are freer as a people, and the Middle East has a chance for a new day and stability with Saddam Hussein gone.

We will come to another day to debate the past of prewar intelligence. But let me say briefly the questions raised in our time are important. The international intelligence community believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Probably most significant, and I guess historically puzzling, is that Saddam Hussein acted in a way to send a message that he had a program of weapons of mass destruction. He would not, in response to one of the 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions that he violated, declare he had eliminated the inventory of weapons of mass destruction that he reported to the U.N. after the end of the gulf war in 1991.

I do not want to go off on that issue. I want to say that the debate about the war has become much too partisan in our time. And something is happening here tonight that I believe, I hope, I pray we will look back and say was a turning point and opened the road to Republican and Democratic cooperation, White House and congressional cooperation, to complete the mission. As Senator Levin said, no matter what anyone thinks about why we got into the war and whether we should have been in there, it is hard to find anybody around the Senate – I have not heard anybody – who does not want us to successfully complete our mission there. I feel that deeply.

If we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, there will be civil war, and there is a great probability that others in the neighborhood will come in. The Iranians will be tempted to come in on the side of the Shia Muslims in the south. The Turks will be tempted to come in against the Kurds in the north. The other Sunni nations, such as the Saudis and the Jordanians, will be sorely tempted, if not to come in at least to aggressively support the Sunni Muslim population. There will be instability in the Middle East, and the hope of creating a different model for a better life in the Middle East in this historic center of the Arab world, Iraq, will be gone.

If we successfully complete our mission, we will have left a country that is self-governing with an open economy, with an opportunity for the people of Iraq to do what they clearly want to do, which is to live a better life, to get a job, to have their kids get a decent education, to live a better life. There seems to be broad consensus on that, and yet the partisanship that characterizes our time here gets in the way of realizing those broadly expressed and shared goals.

“Politics must end at the water's edge.” That is what Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan said, articulating the important ideal that we seem to have lost too often in our time. I found a fuller statement of Senator Vandenberg’s position, the ideal. I found it to be in some ways more complicated and in other ways much more compelling. I want to read from it. Senator Vandenberg said:

[riceowl]

“To me ‘bipartisan foreign policy’ means a mutual effort, under our indispensable two-party system, to unite our official voice at the water's edge so that America speaks with maximum authority against those who would divide and conquer us and the free world.”

That speaks to us today – the threat of Islamist terrorism, the desire they have to divide us and, in that sense, to conquer us in the free world. Senator Vandenberg continued in his definition of what he meant by bipartisanship in foreign policy:

“It does not involve the remotest surrender of free debate in determining our position. On the contrary, frank cooperation and free debate are indispensable to ultimate unity of which I speak.”

In a word, it simply seeks national security ahead of partisan advantage.

I felt again in recent days and recent months how far we have strayed down the partisan path from Vandenberg's ideals. The most recent disconcerting evidence of this was the lead story from the Washington Post – it was in papers all over the country – last Saturday, November 12. I read from that story:

“President Bush and leading congressional Democrats lobbed angry charges at each other Friday in an increasingly personal battle over the origins of the Iraq war. Although the two sides have long skirmished over the war, the sharp tenor Friday resembled an election year campaign more than a policy disagreement.”

That is from Saturday's Washington Post. Campaign rhetoric over policy debate, and what about? About how we got into the war 2 1/2 years ago, not about how we together can successfully complete our mission in Iraq.

The questions raised about prewar intelligence are not irrelevant, they are not unimportant, but they are nowhere near as important and relevant as how we successfully complete our mission in Iraq and protect the 150,000 men and women in uniform who are fighting for us there.

I go back to Vandenberg's phrase; the question is how Democrats and Republicans can unite our voice “at the water's edge” against those who would divide and conquer us and the free world in Iraq, I add, and beyond.

The danger is that by spending so much attention on the past here, we contribute to a drop in public support among the American people for the war, and that is consequential. Terrorists know they cannot defeat us in Iraq, but they also know they can defeat us in America by breaking the will and steadfast support of the American people for this cause.

There is a wonderful phrase from the Bible that I have quoted before, “If the sound of the trumpet be uncertain, who will follow into battle?” In our time, I am afraid that the trumpet has been replaced by public opinion polls, and if the public opinion polls are uncertain, if support for the war seems to be dropping, who will follow into battle and when will our brave and brilliant men and women in uniform in Iraq begin to wonder whether they have the support of the American people? When will that begin to affect their morale?

I worry the partisanship of our time has begun to get in the way of the successful completion of our mission in Iraq. I urge my colleagues at every moment, when we do anything regarding this war that we consider the ideal and we are confident within ourselves. Not that we are stifling free debate. Free debate, as Vandenberg said, is the necessary precondition to the unity we need to maximize our authority against those who would divide and conquer us. But the point is to make sure we feel in ourselves that the aim of our actions and our words is national security, not partisan advantage.

Now we come to today. After reading that paper on Saturday, I took the original draft amendment submitted by Senator Warner and Senator Frist – it actually wasn't offered, but it was around – and Senator Levin and Senator Reid. I took the amendments back to Connecticut, and last night I looked them over. Neither one expressed fully what I hoped it would, but as I stepped back, I said that these two amendments – one Republican, one Democratic, unfortunate in a way, breaking by parties – are not that far apart.

I like the way in which the Warner amendment recited again the findings that led us to war against Saddam Hussein and, quite explicitly, cited the progress that has been made. I do think Senator Levin’s amendment doesn’t quite do this part enough, about the progress, particularly among the political leaders of Iraq. They have done something remarkable in a country that lived for 30 years under a dictator who suppressed all political activity, encouraged the increasing division and bitterness among the Shias, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. These people, with our help and encouragement, have begun to negotiate like real political leaders in a democracy. It is not always pretty. What we do here is not always most attractive. That is democracy. Most important of all, eight million Iraqis came out in the face of terrorist threats in January to vote on that interim legislation. Almost ten million came out to vote on a constitution, which is a pretty good document, a historically good document in the context of the Arab world.

What happened when the Sunnis felt they were not getting enough of what they wanted in a referendum? They didn't go to the street, most of them, with arms to start a civil war. They registered to vote. That is a miraculous achievement and a change in attitude and action. They came out to vote in great numbers and they will come out, I predict, again in December in the elections and elect enough Sunnis to have an effect on the Constitution next year. So I wish that some of that had been stated in Senator Levin's amendment.

[MODU]

This amendment would have been very bad news. Democrats want to Vietnamize every war we fight and therefore Democrats should be made irrelevant in this country in every election. What horrible people.

I posted it on here last week, but one of the Democrats came out and specificially said it was time to cut our losses and run.  "Cut and run . . ." the worst words to use in regards to a war, and he used them on tv!  *sigh*  What a disappointment.

[David S]

We're in this dumbass war because our politicians do not respect the constitution. They think the US is the world's policeman and can do whatever it likes in any foreign country, even though the constitution makes no mention of such a power, and even though the constitution would require a declaration of war to attack another nation. We did the same thing in Vietnam, only that time it was the Democrats. Now its the Republicans turn. The only way we will ever be able to avoid such conflicts is to throw them all out and elect people who will truly honor their oath to uphold the constitution. Every time one fails to honor that oath we should throw them out ASAP. Unfortunately the American people don't know what's in the constitution and don't give a damn. So politicians can get away with anything as long as they "bring home the bacon" to keep their constituents happy.

[TheresNoMoney]

I posted it on here last week, but one of the Democrats came out and specificially said it was time to cut our losses and run.  "Cut and run . . ."

I highly doubt anyone used those words. Prove it.

[TheresNoMoney]

As Charles Krauthammer said this week, Timetable=Surrender. 

A FLEXIBLE timetable based on conditions being met. This is nothing close to surrender, except to far right-wing pundits like Krauthammer who are nothing more than shills for the Bush administration.

[Democratic Hawk]

for doing what's right when it comes to the War in Iraq:

Conrad
Lieberman
Nelson
Nelson
Pryor

Even though I do not like many of these Sentaors (umm, mainly just Lieberman), I have to acknowledge their courage in this vote.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00322

Yep, and you can sure bet that were I sat in the Senate I'd have joined them. It would have been 59-39 - but then I wouldn't be running for President in 2008. That said, you know me, I'd be confronting the Democratic Party's 'dovish' base not appeasing them. Doves, by and large, don't win presidential elections

To "cut and run" by setting a date for departure would be feckless

I'm not exactly an ardent admirer of George W but I'm with him on Iraq if nowt else

Dave