Kohl supports more Bush wars . . .

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Will Kohl's support for Bush's war affect your vote in November?

Yes, but I was going to vote Vogeler anyway.
4
15%
Yes, I'm now leaning Vogeler because of it.
3
12%
Yes - I'm now up in air.
2
8%
Yes, I'm looking forward to seeing Kohl knocked out by Ben Masel in the Democratic primary.
7
27%
No, I support President Bush because I "support the troops."
1
4%
No, I hate Bush but support his war.
0
No votes
No, I hate Bush and oppose the war, but will vote for Kohl anyway because I'm a Democrat, and that's what we do.
9
35%
 
Total votes: 26

Ben Manski
Forum Addict
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Contact:

Kohl supports more Bush wars . . .

Postby Ben Manski » Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:11 pm

It looks like WI Rep. Obey (D) and Rep. Kind (D) were joined by Sen. Kohl and Feingold (D) in voting to renew Bush's blank check for empire. See http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/inde ... 50&ntpid=0 . . . . Note that two Wisconsin Republicans - Petri and Sensenbrenner, voted against the blank check.

Additionally, all but seven Democratic Senators voted to kill withdrawal from Iraq. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... vote=00174 Feingold voted "yes to withdrawal," Kohl voted "no").

This going to affect your November vote?

Ben Manski
Forum Addict
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Contact:

Postby Ben Manski » Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:27 pm


massimo
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1825
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:52 pm
Location: Madison

Postby massimo » Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:51 pm

Ben Manski wrote:http://www.VoteRae.org

I'm reminded of a certain sea creature...

eriedasch
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2925
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2001 4:05 pm
Location: east side of Madison
Contact:

Postby eriedasch » Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:07 pm

I agree Kohl is pretty much a lost cause and would expect him to support Bushie and the war, but what is going on with Feingold and Obey? I thought they were dead-against it?

Of course I'll still vote for Russ and if I was still in his district Obey as well, but what is going on? Have the "sometimes progressive" Dems really given up?

white_rabbit
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7487
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:44 pm

Postby white_rabbit » Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:40 pm

Even though it's fiscally irresponsible to give coke addicted alcoholic with no impulse control a blank check for anything, I think this one probably falls under, "I'm against this war, but I support our troops".

Paco
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7533
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2001 11:41 am
Location: Whoville

Postby Paco » Fri Jun 16, 2006 5:42 pm

Obama and many other liberal dems voted the same way Kohl did. Seeing as how 93 voted this way, I don't see how his vote is that atrocisous. I'm very sure there are some people, especially here, that will be offended by it, but I think it adds up to a big 'meh'.

They know there's another resolution coming out next week, maybe they think that one will be better, and carry more weight.

pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6637
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Postby pjbogart » Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:26 pm

I guess I was under the impression that the Senate vote was different from the House vote. You're confusing two separate issues (or I am). The House vote you're referring to had to do with yet another emergency appropriations (which, of course, wasn't included in Bush's annual budget... again) and the Senate vote was to table a resolution calling for the withdrawal of all troops from Iraq by year's end.

First off, the Senate does not have the power to recall the troops. Bush is Commander in Chief, like it or not. The Congress holds the purse strings so they can effectively recall the troops, but the subtle difference is significant nonetheless. Politically, voting against funding the war is tantamount to "not supporting the troops," and no one wants to get accused of that. If you already know that the measure will fail, why bother voting on it? The troops are there and the operation costs money. The Senate lacks the political will to force the President's hand, and even if they had the will, they'd never get it through the House, which is nuttier yet.

The votes of Kohl and Feingold were on a motion to table the resolution calling for withdrawal, which was pretty much just senseless political grandstanding anyway. Not surprisingly, many Democrats went along with Republicans and voted to table the motion, essentially voting not to vote on the measure.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Dodge
Forum Addict
Posts: 486
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2002 8:15 pm
Contact:

Postby Dodge » Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:07 pm

And the Dems wonder "how we got into this mess?" . . .

massimo
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1825
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:52 pm
Location: Madison

Postby massimo » Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:26 pm

Yes, I often ask myself,
"How we got into this mess?"

Wait, no I don't. I know damn well how we got into this mess, but it's not even remotely important anymore. "How we get out of this mess?" now seems relevant, but fuck that. "How we keep homos from makin' babies?" is where it's at.

Jay Allen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:54 pm
Location: Fitchburg, WI
Contact:

Postby Jay Allen » Tue Jun 20, 2006 8:54 am

Paco wrote:They know there's another resolution coming out next week, maybe they think that one will be better, and carry more weight.
If it's not sponsored by a Republican, it will not make it to a vote.

btw...if anyone wants to know why I hate the two parties so much, it is because of crap like this.

This resolution actually had a line in it that says,
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--

(1) on June 7, 2006, the United States Armed Forces conducted an air raid near the City of Baquba, northeast of Baghdad, Iraq, that resulted in the death of Ahmad Fadeel al-Nazal al-Khalayleh, better known as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of the al-Qaeda in Iraq terrorist organization and the most wanted terrorist in Iraq;

(2) Zarqawi, as the operational commander of al-Qaeda in Iraq, led a brutal campaign of suicide bombings, car bombings, assassinations, and abductions that caused the deaths of many members of the United States Armed Forces, civilian officials of the United States Government, thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, and innocent civilians of other nations;

(3) Zarqawi publicly swore his allegiance to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda in 2004, and changed the name of his terrorist organization from the ``Monotheism and Holy War Group'' to ``al-Qaeda in Iraq'';

(4) in an audiotape broadcast in December 2004, Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda's worldwide terrorist organization, called Zarqawi ``the prince of al-Qaeda in Iraq'';

(5) 3 perpetrators confessed to being paid by Zarqawi to carry out the October 2002 assassination of the United States diplomat, Lawrence Foley, in Amman, Jordan;

(6) the Monotheism and Holy War Group claimed responsibility for--

(A) the August 2003 suicide attack that destroyed the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad and killed the United Nations envoy to Iraq Sergio Vieira de Mello along with 21 other people; and

(B) the suicide attack on the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf that occurred less than 2 weeks later, which killed at least 85 people, including the Ayatollah Sayed Mohammed Baqr al-Hakim, and wounded dozens more;

(7) Zarqawi is believed to have personally beheaded American hostage Nicholas Berg in May 2004;

(8) in May 2004, Zarqawi was implicated in a car bombing that killed Izzadine Salim, the rotating president of the Iraqi Governing Council;

(9) in November 2005, al-Qaeda in Iraq attacked 3 hotels in Amman, Jordan, killing at least 67 innocent civilians;

(10) Zarqawi and his terrorist organization were directly responsible for numerous other brutal terrorist attacks against the American and coalition troops, Iraqi security forces and recruits, and innocent Iraqi civilians;

(11) Zarqawi sought to turn Iraq into a safe haven for al-Qaeda;

(12) to achieve that end, Zarqawi stated his opposition to the democratically elected government of Iraq and worked to divide the Iraqi people, foment sectarian violence, and incite a civil war in Iraq; and

(13) the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, the intelligence community, and other agencies, along with coalition partners and the Iraqi Security Forces, should be commended for their courage and extraordinary efforts to track down the most wanted terrorist in Iraq and to secure a free and prosperous future for the people of Iraq.

(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that Congress--

(1) commends the United States Armed Forces, the intelligence community, and other agencies, along with coalition partners, for the actions taken through June 7, 2006, that resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of the al-Qaeda in Iraq terrorist organization and the most wanted terrorist in Iraq;

(2) commends the United States Armed Forces, the intelligence community, and other agencies for this action and their exemplary performance in striving to bring freedom, democracy, and security to the people of Iraq;

(3) commends the coalition partners of the United States, the new government of Iraq, and members of the Iraqi Security Forces for their invaluable assistance in that operation and their extraordinary efforts to secure a free and prosperous Iraq;

(4) commends our civilian and military leadership for their continuing efforts to eliminate the leadership of al-Qaeda in Iraq, and also commends the new government of Iraq, led by Prime Minister Jawad al-Maliki, for its contribution to that achievement;

(5) recognizes that the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a victory for American and coalition forces in the global war on terror and a blow to the al-Qaeda terrorist organization;

(6) commends the Iraqi Prime Minister Jawad al-Maliki on the finalization of the new Iraqi cabinet;

(7) urges the democratically elected government in Iraq to use this opportunity to defeat the terrorist enemy, to put an end to ethnic and sectarian violence, and to achieve a free, prosperous, and secure future for Iraq; and

(8) affirms that the Senate will continue to support the United States Armed Forces, the democratically elected unity government of Iraq, and the people of Iraq in their quest to secure a free, prosperous, and democratic Iraq.
That is in a defense spending bill.

Whenever it is that both parties decide that legislation should be for the purpose of making the country run, rather than for political grandstanding, I might decide to support one of them. And don't worry...the Dems (primarily led by Kerry) proposed about 15 amendments, all for the purpose of their own grandstanding.

Ben Manski
Forum Addict
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Contact:

Postby Ben Manski » Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:33 pm

massimo wrote:Yes, I often ask myself,
"How we got into this mess?"

Wait, no I don't. I know damn well how we got into this mess,


Ok, I'll bite. How did we get into this mess?

but it's not even remotely important anymore. "How we get out of this mess?" now seems relevant


Withdraw from Iraq.

Elect people who will vote and campaign to withdraw from Iraq.

but fuck that."How we keep homos from makin' babies?" is where it's at.


To the extent that's true, it's only because people like Kohl are representing "the opposition" in the Senate.

Ben Manski
Forum Addict
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Contact:

Postby Ben Manski » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:57 pm

From Medea Benjamin . . .

We want to alert you to a new and very important schism that is growing between the U.S. and Iraqi governments regarding the withdrawal of U.S. troops. When George Bush visited Baghdad on June 13, Iraq's vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, asked him for a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq. The following day, President Jalal Talabani released a statement expressing his support for the vice-presidentââ?¬â?¢s request. Then in an op-ed in the Washington Post on June 20, Mowaffak al-Rubbaie, the Iraqi national security adviser, called for a significant reduction in US troops this year, with most leaving next year. ââ?¬Å?We envisage the US troop presence by yearââ?¬â?¢s end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007,ââ?¬? wrote Dr. Al-Rubbaie.

Al-Rubaie said that Iraqis now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than the liberators, and that their removal will strengthen the fledgling government by legitimizing it in the eyes of the Iraqi people.

Asked about the article by the Financial Times, the State Department official reaffirmed the US position that withdrawal would be based on conditions, not timelines.

The Bush administrationââ?¬â?¢s refusal to set a timeline for withdrawal puts it on a collision course with the Iraqi government, which is increasing trying to ââ?¬Å?gain its independence from the United States,ââ?¬? as Dr. Al-Rubbaie said in his op-ed.

Below is a copy of Dr. Al-Rubbaie�s op-ed.

Thank you.
Medea Benjamin
Global Exchange

The Way Out of Iraq: A Road Map

By Mowaffak al-Rubaie
Tuesday, June 20, 2006; A17
The Washington Post

There has been much talk about a withdrawal of U.S. and coalition troops from Iraq, but no defined timeline has yet been set. There is, however, an unofficial "road map" to foreign troop reductions that will eventually lead to total withdrawal of U.S. troops. This road map is based not just on a series of dates but, more important, on the achievement of set objectives for restoring security in Iraq.

Iraq has a total of 18 governorates, which are at differing stages in terms of security. Each will eventually take control of its own security situation, barring a major crisis. But before this happens, each governorate will have to meet stringent minimum requirements as a condition of being granted control. For example, the threat assessment of terrorist activities must be low or on a downward trend. Local police and the Iraqi army must be deemed capable of dealing with criminal gangs, armed groups and militias, and border control. There must be a clear and functioning command-and-control center overseen by the governor, with direct communication to the prime minister's situation room.

Despite the seemingly endless spiral of violence in Iraq today, such a plan is already in place. All the governors have been notified and briefed on the end objective. The current prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has approved the plan, as have the coalition forces, and assessments of each province have already been done. Nobody believes this is going to be an easy task, but there is Iraqi and coalition resolve to start taking the final steps to have a fully responsible Iraqi government accountable to its people for their governance and security. Thus far four of the 18 provinces are ready for the transfer of power -- two in the north (Irbil and Sulaymaniyah) and two in the south (Maysan and Muthanna). Nine more provinces are nearly ready.

With the governors of each province meeting these strict objectives, Iraq's ambition is to have full control of the country by the end of 2008. In practice this will mean a significant foreign troop reduction. We envisage the U.S. troop presence by year's end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007.

The eventual removal of coalition troops from Iraqi streets will help the Iraqis, who now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than the liberators they were meant to be. It will remove psychological barriers and the reason that many Iraqis joined the so-called resistance in the first place. The removal of troops will also allow the Iraqi government to engage with some of our neighbors that have to date been at the very least sympathetic to the resistance because of what they call the "coalition occupation." If the sectarian issue continues to cause conflict with Iraq's neighbors, this matter needs to be addressed urgently and openly -- not in the guise of aversion to the presence of foreign troops.

Moreover, the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of its people. It has taken what some feel is an eternity to form a government of national unity. This has not been an easy or enviable task, but it represents a significant achievement, considering that many new ministers are working in partisan situations, often with people with whom they share a history of enmity and distrust. By its nature, the government of national unity, because it is working through consensus, could be perceived to be weak. But, again, the drawdown of foreign troops will strengthen our fledgling government to last the full four years it is supposed to.

While Iraq is trying to gain its independence from the United States and the coalition, in terms of taking greater responsibility for its actions, particularly in terms of security, there are still some influential foreign figures trying to spoon-feed our government and take a very proactive role in many key decisions. Though this may provide some benefits in the short term, in the long run it will only serve to make the Iraqi government a weaker one and eventually lead to a culture of dependency. Iraq has to grow out of the shadow of the United States and the coalition, take responsibility for its own decisions, learn from its own mistakes, and find Iraqi solutions to Iraqi problems, with the knowledge that our friends and allies are standing by with support and help should we need it.

The writer is Iraq's national security adviser.

�© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Smartypants
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 9:45 am
Location: In an office somewhere....
Contact:

Postby Smartypants » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:10 pm

Ben Manski wrote:From Medea Benjamin . . .

We want to alert you to a new and very important schism that is growing between the U.S. and Iraqi governments regarding the withdrawal of U.S. troops.


Screw that, if they don't like it, we'll invade them...and take over their country...or something like that.


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests