REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTIONISTS BETRAY THE TROOPS

Bush & Domenici:Let's stick Together

Yesterday I asked an important question: How can someone claim to be for the troops against yet vote against the Webb Amendment that would guarantee that they would have sufficient rest before being sent back into battle? It seems impossible. Yet this morning 45 die hard reactionary Republicans plus Lieberman declared they would filibuster the amendment to death. Of the 60 votes needed to shut down a filibuster, Reid could only must 56. Although several frightened and desperate Republican incumbents who have supported the Bush Cheney war agenda flip flopped over to the Democrats-- Collins and Coleman, most notably-- some of the Republicans who have been wailing the loudest about how bad the occupation is going-- Pete "Sneaky Pete" Domenici (R-NM), Dick Lugar (R-IN), and George Voinovich (R-OH) showed their true colors and voted against the troops. Yep, when push came to shove, there was Domenici-- who is probably counting on a Bush pardon when he's thrown in prison for his role in the U.S. Attorneys scandal-- voting to protect Bush instead of protecting our soldiers.

I don't know if Reid expected to pull 60 votes or not and I don't know if he ever thinks about how he and Schumer sabotaged Ned Lamont's campaign against Lieberman, but he made a common sense statement after the Republican minority again obstructed what the vast majority of Americans want. It's as though McConnell and Sununu and Domenici and the rest are daring the voters to fire them.

I am discouraged that the Republican leadership chose to block this troop readiness amendment. If Republicans oppose troop readiness, they are entitled to vote against it. If Republicans don't believe that our courageous men and women in uniform deserve more rest and mental health, they can vote no on this amendment. If they don't agree that constant redeployments and recruiting shortages are straining our armed forces, they can vote no on this amendment.

But to block this amendment-- to not even give it an up or down vote-- shows that some of my Republican colleagues are protecting their president rather than protecting our troops. But just because some in the minority party are choosing obstruction does not mean that all Republicans must follow in lockstep. I urge all of my colleagues who believe we need a new course to support this amendment. It is a crucial first step on the path toward a responsible end to the war.

Here's the answer the Republicans gave Reid-- and the American people:



Last night CNN's correspondent in Baghdad, Michael Ware, tried to convey a sense of on the ground reality after all the patently false hope being bandied about by warmongers McCain, Bush, Graham and, worst of all, Lieberman.

COOPER: Is the enemy on the run in Iraq, Michael?

WARE: No, certainly not. And I think we need to be aware that it's enemies. I mean, America doesn't face just one opponent in this country, but a whole multitude, many of whom are becoming stronger, the longer the U.S. occupation here, or presence here, in Iraq continues. So, unfortunately, I'm afraid that Senator Lieberman has taken an excursion into fantasy.

No more proof is needed that Lieberman and the Republicans don't give a damn about our troops than the vote this morning on Webb's amendment. With the exception of Olympia Snowe, the only Republicans to vote with the Democrats-- and every single Democrats voted yes on this, even the Nelsons-- were Republicans on the verge of electoral defeat. Vitter didn't bother to show up to even vote. I don't know which Madam he's hiding out with this week.

Interestingly, this morning's Washington Post has a piece that drops a little bombshell on Bush and his Republican lackeys. General BeTrayUs' chief security advisor is Stephen Biddle and he had some words that don't sound like they were cleared by either Cheney or Rove.

"If the surge is unacceptable, the better option is to cut our losses and withdraw altogether. In fact, the substantive case for either extreme-- surge or outright withdrawal-- is stronger than for any policy between. The surge is a long-shot gamble. But middle-ground options leave us with the worst of both worlds: continuing casualties but even less chance of stability in exchange. Moderation and centrism are normally the right instincts in American politics, and many lawmakers in both parties desperately want to find a workable middle ground on Iraq. But while the politics are right, the military logic is not."

If the American people get to make the choice the Post poses-- Go Deep Or Get Out-- there is little guess work which way it's going to go down.