Webb Plan To Give Troops Greater Time At Home Close To Passage

The New York Times:

Now that President Bush and General David H. Petraeus have charted their course for the Iraq war, Democrats in the Senate say one of their proposals aimed at shifting the president's strategy is finally close to winning enough Republican support for a real chance at being approved.

The proposal, by Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, would require that troops spend as much time at home as on their most recent tour overseas before being redeployed. Top Democrats said the practical effect of adding time between deployments would be to force Gen. David H. Petraeus to withdraw troops on a substantially swifter timeline than the one he laid out before Congress earlier this week, and would protect troops from serving protracted and debilitating deployments.

Read the whole story: The New York Times

Comments

[MagisterLudi]

11:37 PM on 09/15/2007

Troops in Iraq who were sent there by the criminals Cheney and Bush are attacked by Iraqi "Freedom fighters." Fine, BUT WHILE THEY'RE THERE, I hope the troops, and that includes Americans, Ukrainians, Australians, Danish etc use every means and weapons, intimidation and terror tactic at their disposal to kill and intimidate anyone who attacks them or suspected of attacking them.
I fully support the military of all countries who are unfortunate to be stuck in Iraq in that. Shoot and ask questions later. They hate you now and will hate you later.Screw the politics. Politicians don't care about you. Defend yourself and your comrades! Thats the goal. THEN GET OUT ASAP!!!

Usually the American bed-wetters who have never seen real violence can't deal with this kind of reality.
They get their sense of reality and justice from Disney movies.

At the same time I fully support a complete withdrawal of all troops from Iraq within 6 month.

[Dejack]

06:35 PM on 09/15/2007

Dems always gotta go through the "back door".
How lame! Bearing down HARD on obstructionist
Republicans, de-funding, impeachment....everything bold and decisive they just cannot do.

[ajax2]

06:33 PM on 09/15/2007

sen. webb, it's time to give lunatic bush more time at the ranch.

[jeersforfears]

05:58 PM on 09/15/2007

It's political posturing. It'll neve happen. As long as a Republican is in control, there will be a prosecution of the war in Iraq - all serious tactical mistakes can (and obviously have) can take place.

If it weren't for Rumsfeld, the US could have been out of there by now.

And that's Bush's fault.

[reece5309]

05:04 PM on 09/15/2007

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something that I have followed for more than a decade. If he is serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence that I had available, talking to people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation. With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I just do not believe that, given the attitudes of many people in the world community today, that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not the United States leadership, and I'm talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing, and we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. And so I see it somewhat differently. So forgive me for my experience and perspective. Hillary 2003

[JaneC]

05:43 PM on 09/15/2007

Say...MADAM PRESIDENT. ;)

[reece5309]

05:48 PM on 09/15/2007

probably right - what a shame

[reece5309]

05:03 PM on 09/15/2007

left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests in our nation.. Hillary 2002

[reece5309]

05:02 PM on 09/15/2007

The text of NSD 26 blindly ignores the evidence already at the administration's disposal of Iraqi behavior in the past regarding human rights, terrorism, the use of chemical weapons, the pursuit of advanced weapons of mass destruction. Instead, it makes a heroic assumption of good behavior in the future on the basis of an interesting theory, namely, that Iraq would suddenly and completely change its ways out of a fear of economic and political sanctions. Well, it leaps from the page that George Bush, both as vice president and president, had done his utmost to make sure that no such sanctions would ever apply to Saddam Hussein. ... The question is unavoidable: Why should Saddam Hussein be at all concerned about a threat of action in the future from George Bush, the same man who had resolutely blocked any such action in the past? To the contrary, Saddam had every reason to assume that Bush would look the other way no matter he did. He had already launched poison gas attacks repeatedly, and Bush looked the other way. He had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush had looked the other way. He was already deeply involved in the effort to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and Bush knew it, but he looked the other way.
Algore 1992

[reece5309]

05:01 PM on 09/15/2007

Throughout this period, Saddam's atrocities continued. In March of 1988, Saddam used poison gas on the Kurdish town of Halabja, brutally murdering some 5,000 innocent men, women, and children. And none of us can ever forget the pictures of their bodies, of parents trying to shield their infants, even in death that were in our news media and around the world. The Iran-Iraq war then ended in August of 1988, and Iraq had not prevailed, but neither had it been defeated. As a result, you would think that the administration would give our policies a second look to see if they should be altered. But the Reagan-Bush administration never hesitated even when the news became much, much worse.
In January 1989 President George Bush was sworn in. Based on plentiful evidence, he had reason to know that his ongoing policy regarding Iraq was already malfunctioning badly. Just last week we learned of a memorandum written in March of that year, just two months after his inauguration, to secretary of state James Baker, as Baker prepared to meet with a senior Iraqi official in which the author of the memorandum noted that Iraq continued to cooperate with terrorists, that it was meddling in Lebanon, that it was working hard at chemical and biological weapons and new missiles. Algore 1992

[leftLibertarian]

04:04 PM on 09/15/2007

Democrats...cut to the chaise. The war is based on lies started by Bush and Cheney. The best way to end the war is their impeachment.

[reece5309]

03:35 PM on 09/15/2007

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something that I have followed for more than a decade. If he is serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence that I had available, talking to people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation. With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I just do not believe that, given the attitudes of many people in the world community today, that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not the United States leadership, and I'm talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing, and we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. And so I see it somewhat differently. So forgive me for my experience and perspective.
hillary 2003

[JaneC]

04:39 PM on 09/15/2007

That's Madam President to you troll.

[reece5309]

03:22 PM on 09/15/2007

1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996 - military deaths during the clinton administration

[turningpoint]

03:27 PM on 09/15/2007

Natrual causes? You fucking moron.

[reece5309]

03:44 PM on 09/15/2007

wrong

[reece5309]

03:16 PM on 09/15/2007

left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests in our nation..

[turningpoint]

03:21 PM on 09/15/2007

We are human scum, and that is how history will judge us. No redeeming social value. Just whores. Get out of our way, or we'll kill you.

Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

They are the same ones who wanted to have Muhammad Ali locked up for refusing to kill gooks. They speak for all that is cruel and stupid and vicious in the American character.

They are the racists and hate mongers among us; they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the throats of these Nazis. And I am too old to worry about whether they like it or not. Fuck them.-Hunter S. Thompson

[reece5309]

03:23 PM on 09/15/2007

hillary 2002

[reece5309]

03:14 PM on 09/15/2007

The text of NSD 26 blindly ignores the evidence already at the administration's disposal of Iraqi behavior in the past regarding human rights, terrorism, the use of chemical weapons, the pursuit of advanced weapons of mass destruction. Instead, it makes a heroic assumption of good behavior in the future on the basis of an interesting theory, namely, that Iraq would suddenly and completely change its ways out of a fear of economic and political sanctions. Well, it leaps from the page that George Bush, both as vice president and president, had done his utmost to make sure that no such sanctions would ever apply to Saddam Hussein. ... The question is unavoidable: Why should Saddam Hussein be at all concerned about a threat of action in the future from George Bush, the same man who had resolutely blocked any such action in the past? To the contrary, Saddam had every reason to assume that Bush would look the other way no matter he did. He had already launched poison gas attacks repeatedly, and Bush looked the other way. He had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush had looked the other way. He was already deeply involved in the effort to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and Bush knew it, but he looked the other way.

[reece5309]

03:15 PM on 09/15/2007

ALGORE 1992

[reece5309]

03:13 PM on 09/15/2007

Throughout this period, Saddam's atrocities continued. In March of 1988, Saddam used poison gas on the Kurdish town of Halabja, brutally murdering some 5,000 innocent men, women, and children. And none of us can ever forget the pictures of their bodies, of parents trying to shield their infants, even in death that were in our news media and around the world. The Iran-Iraq war then ended in August of 1988, and Iraq had not prevailed, but neither had it been defeated. As a result, you would think that the administration would give our policies a second look to see if they should be altered. But the Reagan-Bush administration never hesitated even when the news became much, much worse.
In January 1989 President George Bush was sworn in. Based on plentiful evidence, he had reason to know that his ongoing policy regarding Iraq was already malfunctioning badly. Just last week we learned of a memorandum written in March of that year, just two months after his inauguration, to secretary of state James Baker, as Baker prepared to meet with a senior Iraqi official in which the author of the memorandum noted that Iraq continued to cooperate with terrorists, that it was meddling in Lebanon, that it was working hard at chemical and biological weapons and new missiles.

[Steamboater]

05:05 PM on 09/15/2007

Bush made his mind to go to war with Iraq before he became president. Nothing would stop him from getting revenge on Sadaam for Sadaam's attemt to kill daddy. The chemical and bio weapons Sadaam may have been working on were no threat to us. That's the bottom line. NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and no threat to us.

[reece5309]

02:26 PM on 09/15/2007

left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests in our nation.. Hillary 2002

[kevenseven]

02:38 PM on 09/15/2007

Downing Street Memo:

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

[reece5309]

03:33 PM on 09/15/2007

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something that I have followed for more than a decade. If he is serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence that I had available, talking to people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation. With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I just do not believe that, given the attitudes of many people in the world community today, that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not the United States leadership, and I'm talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing, and we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. And so I see it somewhat differently. So forgive me for my experience and perspective.