Official Feingold-Reid discussion (Thread #1)

[Enrique]

C-span stream here:

http://c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan2_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2

[rodeodance]

1. Truth to POWER (repugs have their earplugs in)

[rodeodance]

2. REC

[Enrique]

3. some background on this legislation

WASHINGTON - September 19 - The Senate is expected to debate and vote as early as today on revised legislation by Senator Feingold to end the open-ended military mission in Iraq. Feingold’s legislation, cosponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, would use the power of the purse to force the President to redeploy U.S. troops out of Iraq by June 30, 2008, with a few narrow exceptions, after which funding for the current military operation would end. The legislation, which would require that redeployment begin no later than 90 days from enactment, is similar to the bill Feingold introduced earlier this year with Majority Leader Reid and which received the support of most Senate Democrats. The legislation would ensure US troops are redeployed from Iraq in a safe and secure manner.


“Over and over, we have heard members of Congress saying we should wait until September before finally changing course in Iraq,” Feingold said. “Now, the President, and some members here in Congress, still want to keep a large number of our brave troops bogged down in Iraq indefinitely, while al Qaeda continues to strengthen and regenerate itself in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. The American people are as determined as ever to end this disastrous war. If Congress fails to end this mistake, it won’t be because we don’t have the power -- it will be because we don’t have the will.”

Under the Feingold-Reid legislation, funding for the current mission would not be terminated until after troops have been safely redeployed out of Iraq by June 30, 2008. During a congressional hearing earlier this year, former U.S. Solicitor General Walter Dellinger testified that “there would not be one less penny for supplies or support” under this approach and that it would simply result in the redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq. In order to make absolutely clear that the safety and security of U.S. troops is paramount, the new legislation stipulates that it will not prevent troops from receiving training or supplies “to ensure, maintain, or improve their safety and security.”

The new legislation also includes narrower exceptions than the previous version to prevent the President leaving substantial numbers of troops in Iraq. In particular, the legislation permits U.S. troops to continue training Iraqis but only if that training does not involve U.S. troops taking part in combat operations with, or being embedded with, Iraqi forces. The legislation also allows targeted U.S. counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda and its affiliates.

full text of bill at link

[againes654]

7. Just to make sure I understand correctly

Are they trying to set a firm date for the troops to come home (except for those there in training purposes)?

[Enrique]

10. june 30, 2008

keep in mind, this is a war that potentially could last decades more.

[againes654]

4. Nevermind

[Enrique]

5. see post #3

posted simultaneously to yours. :-)

[Enrique]

6. Dodd rises in support of Feingold-Reid!

how will the other candidate-Senators come down?

[Enrique]

8. Petraeus's "I don't know" might be the "epitaph of the Iraq war"

good line by Dodd.

[bdamomma]

9. Dodd up now.

[bdamomma]

11. where is everyone here, did everyone stop listening or watching?

[Enrique]

12. Bush mentioned "al Qaeda" 12 times in his 15-minute speech.

it's no coinicidence, Dodd says. Bush is using al Qaeda as an excuse to broaden the mission.

[bdamomma]

13. * wants to kick a$$

someone needs to kick his.

[babylonsister]

14. Great speech by Dodd! nt

[bdamomma]

15. they won't listen to Dodd either.

[Enrique]

16. "this will be the only hope, I suspect, before January 2009"

[bdamomma]

17. Durbin up now.

how many more???

x 3,787....3,791 all this death for lies.

[Enrique]

18. talking about 2002 IWR

should be good.

and uncomfortable for Clinton and Edwards to listen to.

[bdamomma]

19. Senators who keep on continuing this invasion don't they a

conscience?? complete denial is correct Durbin. Complete denial.

DURBIN HAS HAD IT, WE HAVE TOO.

[Enrique]

20. Schumer up now

[Enrique]

21. Menendez is on fire!

literally!

[Enrique]

22. Susan Collins up now

sounding shaky as always.

[Enrique]

23. Harry Reid up now

don't believe me, look at this story from "Rooters news". :rofl:

[bdamomma]

24. Brown up now.

[bdamomma]

25. calling roll now on Feingold-Reid Amendment.

anyone watching or listening?

[againes654]

27. I am

with dwindling hope

[bdamomma]

26. .....hey where are the Senators to vote on this amendment?

[TwilightGardener]

28. Levin, no. Ben Nelson, No. Murray-aye Vitter-shitter no.

[spanone]

29. A year from now the repigs will be hailing this kind of legislation like they just thought of it.

[TwilightGardener]

30. Reid, aye, Hagel, no, Stabenow aye, Kerry aye, Dole no, Johnson no.

[TwilightGardener]

31. Durbin aye, Gregg no, Reed no, Casey no. Lot of Dems voting no.

[bdamomma]

35. why did Reed vote NO.

what is the meaning of this? they both voted the right way for the Move on.org. Why NO now?????

[TwilightGardener]

37. Jack Reed is a military guy. So are Webb and Hagel--the military

guys will never vote for immediate withdrawal or cutting funds.

[TwilightGardener]

32. Gordon Smith--no.

[pinto]

33. Text of Amendment:

(a) TRANSITION OF MISSION.--The President shall promptly transition the mission of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq to the limited and temporary purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) COMMENCEMENT OF SAFE, PHASED REDEPLOYMENT FROM IRAQ.--The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of members of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq who are not essential to the limited and temporary purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall be carried out in a manner that protects the safety and security of United States troops.

(c) USE OF FUNDS.--No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after June 30, 2008.

(d) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED AND TEMPORARY PURPOSES.--The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the following limited and temporary purposes:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and affiliated international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States government personnel and infrastructure.

(3) To provide training to members of the Iraqi Security Forces who have not been involved in sectarian violence or in attacks upon the United States Armed Forces, provided that such training does not involve members of the United States Armed Forces taking part in combat operations or being embedded with Iraqi forces.

(4) To provide training, equipment or other materiel to members of the United States Armed Forces to ensure, maintain, or improve their safety and security.

[flpoljunkie]

36. Remember Reid/Feingold went down 67-29 on May 16th. Dems voting for Reid/Feingold below.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00167

YEAs ---29
Akaka (D-HI)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

[bdamomma]

49. thanks for those results, this is just sickening.

[bdamomma]

38. why vote NO for this????

[TwilightGardener]

41. Cuts funding.

[harun]

47. Funds withdrawal only, doesn't completely cut funding (n/t)

[flpoljunkie]

50. Juan Cole's sober take on the Democrats' predicament in Iraq...

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Republicans vote Down Webb Plan for Troops;

Republican senators succeeded in blocking the Webb plan to give US troops off as much time between deployments as they spent in Iraq. The Bush administration managed successfully to lobby Senate Republicans to defeat the measure, which would have resulted in a reduction of the number of US forces in the field (or a big increase in the use of National Guard units). The Dems needed 60 in the Senate to get a consensus, and could only muster 56. They could not, in any case, have over-ridden a presidential veto, which veto Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had urged on W.

This sort of outcome underlines my point last week that the Democrats in Congress are unlikely to be able to force significant troop drawdowns before Bush goes out of office. See below for an important argument that at least they should try to mandate preparations for troop withdrawals (preparations that appear not to have been made, much to the annoyance of a lot of endangered Americans in Iraq, including those in the Green Zone). I know some readers favor a sort of Democratic Gingrichism, using power over the budget to shut down the Defense Department, but realistically speaking such a strategy would likely boomerang big time and might well cost the Democrats the next election. The Republicans would blame every American death in Iraq on them from now to the election, on grounds of their 'irresponsibility.' They would be accused of being allies of 'al-Qaeda in Iraq,' helping kill US troops by defunding them in the face of a vicious enemy. Sitting Democrats in Congress are just not going to go this route, folks, and if they did they likely wouldn't be sitting there much longer. (All of the House of Representatives has to face the voters every two years!) I don't know why proponents of this tactic don't recognize that the war will actually be much prolonged if the Democrats act in ways that may rehabilitate the electoral chances of the Republicans in '08. At the least, it is a chance that has to be taken into serious account.

My guess is, the Republicans will go on standing up for an increasingly unpopular war until November, '08 and will take a bath. And then the new Democratic administration will swiftly move to draw down the troops, with most out by the end of 2009. This scenario contains extreme dangers for the Democrats, since 2010 could then be a very, uh, interesting year in the Middle East.

http://www.juancole.com/2007/09/republicans-vote-down-w...

[pinto]

55. Good points.

[bdamomma]

43. Barbara Boxer was on Ed Schultz, and she said * has the money

to do whatever he wants. I just don't know, they are screwing us all.

[TwilightGardener]

34. Kohl--aye, Whitehouse aye, Obama aye.

[TwilightGardener]

39. Boxer aye, Nelson No (FL), Inouye--aye, Kennedy aye, Menendez aye, Carper no.

[spanone]

40. snowballs chance in hell.

[TwilightGardener]

42. Yes, but it gives them something else to do today besides whine about stupid ads.

[TwilightGardener]

44. Baucus and Tester--no. Lieberman no.

[TwilightGardener]

45. Webb--no.

[budibudinski]

46. fuckin Conrad - No..what good are he & Dorgan

both ND Senators are a disappointment today. I am ashamed.
I've always seen them on the side of common sense. After today, I'm not so sure.

ND is my home state & these two are heros in that place. I am running low on fightin spirit right about now.

Oh well, Bush will veto this anyway.

[TwilightGardener]

48. 70-28, amendment withdrawn.

[harun]

52. Depressing (n/t)

[annabanana]

51. DO IT AGAIN TOMORROW

And Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday. . .

[bdamomma]

54. so what next?? put impeachment on the table, cause * this

sick SOB will be beating the drum for Iran. Very dismal indeed.

[bdamomma]

53. oh shit.

May 16th vote Yeas 29 Nays 67

Now Yeas 28 Nays 70,

just sickening :mad:

[spanone]

56. yea, but this was really a victory......

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

war without end amen.