Outstanding support for Iraq Vote!!

[sandnsea]

Doncha' think? Aren't you just impressed with the unity from the blogosphere to end the war??

:sarcasm:

Back to regularly scheduled punditry - Ann Coulter and Warner's chocolate fountain. Oh, and the IWR vote and Kerry concession. Wouldn't want to leave that out.

[JohnKleeb]

1. Warner's chocolate fountain?

Is that the sequel to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory?

[sandnsea]

6. lol

Yeah maybe. :rofl:

[ProSense]

2. Check out my post

in this thread:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/6/12/135417/204/337#c337

[sandnsea]

5. hehehe

Good for you!!

[karynnj]

8. Clever

Can we get Edwards to take a real specific stand too.

[ProSense]

3. When are all the people

who say they're against the war going to start opposing the war?

[Mass]

4. Busy fighting over whether Edwards is the frontrunner or not!

and other important threads like that.

[karynnj]

7. Let him be the frontrunner - he likely could not stand

the focus for the next year and a half. I think, in reality, Hillary is likely still the front runner nationwide - but is weaker than she was.

But the good news is that 12% of Iowa caucus voters must really like Kerry - and the WP just told us that no one does.

[Mass]

9. There will be two Iraq War amendments.

Feingold and Kerry are offering each one (that is if the leadership allows them to go to a vote).

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/politics/14802804.htm

By contrast, Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., plan to offer separate amendments to the defense authorization bill, which sets policy for the armed forces, calling for the withdrawal of most U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year.

Kerry rejected long-standing accusations from Republicans that he and other Democrats want to "cut and run."

"They cut and run from common sense," Kerry said. "These people have no record of getting this correct. Every time they've been confronted with a choice about Iraq, they get it wrong."

[wisteria]

10. I really like his comments. They represent my feelings exactly.

Why trust this administration to get it right now?

[JI7]

11. these people don't actually want to stop the war

they just want to show off how much they are anti war .

[JI7]

12. what a bunch of phony ass pricks

i'm seeing some of the threads and some posters are saying they don't want it to be Kerry who does this for whatever stupid reason.

does that mean they don't want Bush to actually get the troops out ? they just want to use the issue to help whichever candidate they support. they don't want to take this issue away from that candidate. pretty disgusting.

phony ass anti war activists. and the wonder why immigration protestors can get the numbers out unlike them. of course they blame some conspiracy for that too.

glad Kerry was a true anti war activist who truly wanted to end the war and whoever was in office at the moment (Nixom) to do it.

[wisteria]

17. You know, I am sick of them all too. They are hypocrites-those that

say they want our troops to come home and then pick and choose who they want to say this for them.They are so concerned about Kerry getting credit for doing this and not "their person" they would rather allow the Republicans to continue to have the upper hand on this issue. Childish, that is what they are,childish and insincere.

[JI7]

13. even in that Edwards thread

a bunch of crap spewed by miserable ass losers.

btw, did you know California belonged to Dean and Kerry wrongly took it away ????????

[fedupinBushcountry]

Delete

double posted

[fedupinBushcountry]

14. Doncha' know ?

nobody cares what Kerry has to say.

Damn shame nobody likes him :sarcasm:

[JI7]

15. that's all part of the skull and bones conspiracy

remember, he lost all the online polls and that proves nobody other than us like him. this picture means nothing when there are online polls that say otherwise.

[fedupinBushcountry]

16. Yep

those online polls did him so bad he won. :crazy:

[Island Blue]

19. That's a great picture.

The man is a magnet - people are just drawn to him. Note that Webb is no where in sight in that photo. It's all Kerry, baby.

Also note that Marvin couldn't hide in a crowd if his life depended on it! :)

[kerrygoddess]

18. Sad statement

on the priorities of the liberal blogosphere. Don't they want out of Iraq?

[Mass]

20. Boxer cosponsors Feingold amendment -

Why do you want the liberal blogoshere to stand for an amendment when it is clear that our leaders cannot sit around a table and bring ONE amendment to the table.

I am sure that both Feingold and Kerry are sincere in what they are proposing, but why could they not find common ground to propose one amendment (and only one). Let Boxer have her name first, if the problem is to know whose name is one the amendment!

[wisteria]

21. What is the difference between Feingold's and Kerry's amendment?

Why would Boxer choose Feingold's over Kerry's?

[Mass]

22. Not sure - Kerry speaks explicitely of Daytonlike negotiation, but

it is implied in Feingold's amendment as well. There are minor differences, that would be important may be if the amendment had a chance to pass, but we all know it does not. (I read the two amendments, but frankly, they seem fairly close).

So I still cant understand why the 3 or 4 people in the Senate who support a deadline for withdrawing the troops cant sit together and show they are united. It seems it may draw some other goodwill if they stopped behaving as if this was a campaign issue and not an important issue. (and may be it would allow the netroots to fight together and not one against the other on this issue).

[wisteria]

23. I agree. This is too important to allow campaigning for your person

or for yourself to interfere.

[Mass]

24. You can judge by yourself.

SA 4192. Mr. FEINGOLD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2766, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle I of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1084. REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES FORCES FROM IRAQ.

(a) Redeployment.--The United States shall redeploy United States forces from Iraq by not later than December 31, 2006, while maintaining in Iraq only the minimal force necessary for direct participation in targeted counterterrorism activities, training Iraqi security forces, and protecting United States infrastructure and personnel.

(b) Report on Redeployment.--

(1) REPORT REQUIRED.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with the Secretary of State, submit to Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the redeployment of United States forces from Iraq by December 31, 2006.

(2) STRATEGY ELEMENTS.--The strategy required in the report under paragraph (1) shall include the following:

(A) A flexible schedule for redeploying United States forces from Iraq by December 31, 2006.

(B) The number, size, and character of United States military units needed in Iraq after December 31, 2006, for purposes of counterterrorism activities, training Iraqi security forces, and protecting United States infrastructure and personnel.

(C) A strategy for addressing the regional implications for diplomacy, politics, and development of redeploying United States forces from Iraq by December 31, 2006.

(D) A strategy for ensuring the safety and security of United States forces in Iraq during and after the December 31, 2006, redeployment, and a contingency plan for addressing dramatic changes in security conditions that may require a limited number of United States forces to remain in Iraq after that date.

(E) A strategy for redeploying United States forces to effectively engage and defeat global terrorist networks that threaten the United States.

SA 4203. Mr. KERRY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2766, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 437, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 1084. UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.

(a) Withdrawal of Troops From Iraq.--

(1) SCHEDULE FOR WITHDRAWAL.--The President shall reach an agreement as soon as possible with the Government of Iraq on a schedule for the withdrawal of United States combat troops from Iraq by December 31, 2006, leaving only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces.

(2) CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESS REQUIRED.--The President shall consult with Congress regarding such schedule and shall present such withdrawal agreement to Congress immediately upon the completion of the agreement.

(3) MAINTENANCE OF OVER-THE-HORIZON TROOP PRESENCE.--The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.

(b) Iraq Summit.--The President should convene a summit as soon as possible that includes the leaders of the Government of Iraq, leaders of the governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, for the purpose of reaching a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that addresses fundamental issues including federalism, oil revenues, the militias, security guarantees, reconstruction, economic assistance, and border security.

[wisteria]

25. Thank you! I do see differences, but nothing glaring.

Feingold says redeployment with minimal troops staying behind and requires a detailed report from Sec of Defense and Sec of State on the total effort.
Kerry calls for the withdraw of troops with minimal troops staying behind. He then goes on to require that the administration work with the Iraq's to come up with a schedule suitable to US and Iraq. He requires a withdraw agreement be submitted to Congress and mentions in some detail and Iraqi summit.

Feingold doesn't include any interaction with the Iraqi's at all. He, I suppose, leaves that up to the administration. Forget about a summit, he apparently doesn't think it is necessary to be bring all parties together for the benefit of Iraq.

Personally, I like Kerry's plan. It doesn't play with words. Withdraw is withdraw. Deployment could mean anywhere. Not necessarily home. I do like the detailed report that Feingold requires. Add that to Kerry's admendment and I think it covers some loose ends and completes the whole package.

Like you said, it is a damn shame our Dem's can't come together on this and produce an admendment that has more than one or two names on it.

[ProSense]

26. That is the main difference I see

Feingold leaves the determination up to the administration:

(1) REPORT REQUIRED.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with the Secretary of State, submit to Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the redeployment of United States forces from Iraq by December 31, 2006.

Kerry wants Congress involved in the entire process:

(2) CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESS REQUIRED.--The President shall consult with Congress regarding such schedule and shall present such withdrawal agreement to Congress immediately upon the completion of the agreement.

[sandnsea]

28. Kerry's is more specific

Feingold's actually leaves the possibility of permanent bases because of the number of purposes troops will perform, including protecting US infrastructure which could mean any damned thing with the size of that embassy and any trumped up counterterrorism stuff they want to use.

I don't like either one of them really because neither of them say no permanent bases and no permanent troops. But I don't really care which amendment people support, they aren't paying any attention whatsoever. Or weren't last time I looked anyway.

[beachmom]

27. I just called Sen. Allen and Sen. Warner to urge them to support

Kerry's amendment. I didn't know there was a Feingold amendment (colliding egos here or what?). That sucks. Obviously, Allen and Warner are not going to vote for Kerry's OR Feingold's amendments, but I thought it best that they know there are constituents in Virginia who do.

I also urged them to support Net Neutrality. Neither of them have taken a position on it. I'm kicking myself now, because I forgot that Allen has a lot of '08 support in the RW blogosphere, and I should have mentioned that. I hope a lot of right wingers call him, and he calculates that his blog supporters are more important than the telecoms. This thing is VERY bipartisan; it's just a sleeper issue for most.