Dems split on Iraq resolution: The Swamp
The Swamp
Posted February 1, 2007 2:36 PM
The Swamp

Posted by David Lightman at 2:36 pm, updated at 4:15 pm CST

In the debate over the Democratic-led resolution to oppose President Bush's new troop deployment in Iraq, at least two Democrats complaining that it does not go far enough are planning to vote against it.

Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut today split with most of his Senate Democratic colleagues, saying the carefully-crafted bi-partisan resolution expressing opposition to Bush's Iraq troop surge is not strong enough. This made him the second to break ranks: Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) also opposes the resolution expected to be debated in the Senate next week.

Feingold has introduced legislation ending funding for U.S. troops in Iraq six months after its adoption. Dodd and others are attempting to cap troop levels.

Dodd calls the non-binding resolution meaningless.

It will no send a message to the White House, he said -- "They intend to ignore whatever we do.''

And it will not have any practical effect on the conduct of the war -- "Why not force them (the administration) to pay attention to what we do?" Dodd asked. "This is the U.S. Senate. This is not a City Council somewhere."

Dodd and Feingold aren't the only Democrats questioning the resolution: Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent Democrat, says the president already is carrying out his new plan.

"Contrast the world of reality with the world of Senate resolutions," Lieberman said at a Capitol news conference today. In the "real world," he said, "American forces are beginning to implement a new plan for success in Iraq."

But in the Senate's world, Lieberman noted, "Nothing that will come before the Senate next week will stop the implementation of a new plan for success in Iraq."

The resolution, the product of a week of negotiations among top senators on key committees, would criticize Bush's Jan. 10 plan to add 21,500 U.S. troops in Iraq and urge the administration to set benchmarks for the Iraqi government to follow.

But to gain Republican support for the resolution, it also makes clear that Congress "respect(s) the constitutional authorities given a president," and that "it is not the intent of this act to question or contravene such authority."

Dodd had four specific objections to the measure:

--It says the new level "far exceeds the expectations of many of us…and led many members of Congress to express outright opposition to augmenting our troops by 21,500." Dodd wants a stronger, more specific statement of opposition.

--It does not provide for a phased redeployment of American forces. "Quite the contrary," Dodd said.

--It would "abdicate Congress' power of the purse. "The resolutions says Congress should not take any action that would endanger U.S. troops in the field, "including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field."

--It does not address strongly enough the need for dialogue with Iraq's neighbors. The resolution does call for th U. S. to "engage selected nations in the Middle East to develop a regional, internationally sponsored peace-and-reconciliation process for Iraq." Dodd thinks the word "selected" indicates a reluctance to engage Syria and Iraq.

David Lightman is Washington Bureau chief for the Hartford Courant, a Tribune Co. newspaper.


Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo


Just what the White House wants a fight

Dodd thinks the word "selected" indicates a reluctance to engage Syria and Iraq.

I'ld say that on half of this statement it is already too late. Wouldn't you?

Actually, I applaud the Democrats who are willing to break with thier party and not sign on to this worthless resolution. Look at Feigold...he's making good on his rhetoric by introducing legislation to cut off funding of the war. I don't agree with him, but at least he's showing the courage of his convictions to push this forward.

Of course, the cynic in me says Feingold is really not risking much, since the Democratic majority appears to be highly unlikely to pass this legislation. Feingold can then claim he stood for principle while shifting the blame to other Democrats. Perhaps Obama is thinking the same way with his plan. Shrewd.

hey Dale, I never saw a response from you about Josh Sparling, an Iraqi War Vet, who lost part of his leg, being spat on by your left wing buddies. Is that how we should treat our Vets? Spitting on them or at them? I thought you lefties "were for the troops" but "against the war"?

Anyway, Dodd, Feingold and the rest are nothing more than weak cowards who favor victory for the terrorists rather than their own country. I mean Dodd is good buddies with Castro and Chavez, right?

John McCain claims to be breaking from the war when speaking to the Generals in public.

To bad he already backed W.'s "Stay the Course Part 2." strategy.

Everybody is trying to be commander-in-chief in the democrat party.If it was up to the dems we'd be fighting the war against terrorism on our soil vs.their own.
I wish Dodd and Feingold would concentrate more on the global warming myth and leave the business of warfare to to military experts and people that want to win wars.

John D so you do use Fox Noise talking point. The Story was fake. If it was not I would of been the first one to jump on it. Fox now has been cought in nine fake stories. John watch some other news this one gets you in trouble.

Paulo, you'll beleive Global Warming when the Cal-Sag overflows and wipes out your tenants!

Dale, how is the story fake? Are you saying that Josh Sparling is lying? Are you calling a Disabled Vet a liar? I saw him speak of being spat on? What proof do you have that Fox News or that Mr. Sparling are lying?
And what are the NINE fake stories from Fox News? Are they fake like CBS's National Guard memos? Or Jayson Blair's articles in the NY Times?
Imagine this, Mr. Alleged Big Vet Supporter Dale Peters is calling a Disabled Vet a liar!!!! Of course, all Vets who disagree with Dale are liars in Dale's mind, huh Dale? That makes most Vets then doesn't it, Dale?

Dale P.,

Don't bite on little Johnny's Rush Limpbag talking points.

The Vet these rightwing hacks are referring to is said to be from a long line of hard core Republican family members,hence the "story".

A meaningless resolution is a fitting gesture for the new Democrat-led senate. Next on the Democrat's agenda: non-binding resolutions asking the terrorists to be nicer people; non-binding resolutions deploring snow in winter and rain during daylight hours; and non-binding resolutions wishing that every golfer could shoot under par.

John D....Your running out of gas in your "SWIFTBOAT". Your trying to belittle one vet over another because you chose to believe who you wish to believe means so very little to me and many, many others. I you chose to believe Sparling that is your right. I, on the other hand
knows there is more to the story than your little mind can grasp. Sparling has been on Faux News more times than Bush. PUUUUUULEASE!

I hate to break it to you Brucie but the Nancy Pelosi led Democratic Congress has already done more in less than a month than the former lockstep Republican led Congress did during the last 6 yrs.

Welcome to life in the Minority Party, Brucie!

John D MSNBC , CNN and other proved no such thing happen

Guys, there's video of this guy saying this on both CNN and Fox News. Dale, are you saying you take the media's word over a disabled vet's? First it was endorsing the idea of spreading lies about decorated vet John McCain and now it's this. Wow, Dale, you've really put partisan politics above the principles you claim to hold so dear.

There is a tape guys . The Kid went phhh phhh nothing came out the guy was not spit on. Like I said if he was I be the first one to blast the kid. Ask why the Free Republic drove him there. Just like the Swift Boat Veterans showed to be a liar on tape. End of Story

Feingold and Liberman, although on opposite ends of this debate, are the only two dems that have testicles and are willing to stand up for what they believe.

Non-binding resolution - why waste the time?

Is there anything more pointless than a nonbinding resolution? Once again the Ds are rolling over and playing dead. Why do they even bother to show up?

Oh, right... it's easy money.

Leo T-
Good point on the dems rolling over and playing dead.
It seems like it's taking forever to get the minimum wage increase passed through The Senate and JohnE. needs that raise bad,since he's not getting combat pay anymore.

Jeff bemoaning Dale's partisan politics; it is to laugh, really.

Leo T-
Good point on the dems rolling over and playing dead.
It seems like it's taking forever to get the minimum wage increase passed through The Senate and JohnE. needs that raise bad,since he's not getting combat pay anymore.

Posted by: Paulo | Feb 1, 2007 9:21:16 PM

Paulo has forgotten that the republican congress could do nothing with this. For 6 years! They decided that they could not pass this without tacking on death tax reform. What would the poor do without some reform to the death tax?

I find it rather intersting that this topic generates so few comments, and even half the comments on this thread are sniping between bill r., John E., Dale and Jeff about something off-topic. Admit it you guys, you just love the Democrats no matter what and are as robotic and mindless as you accuse conservatives of being. Can't you see that all the Democrats have done is to appeal to your anger about Bush so they could regain the majority? Have they really accomplished anything regarding Iraq?

"Have they really accomplished anything regarding Iraq?"

Yes, they have. They have at leasrt forced Bush to acknowledge that the war has gone badly wrong. They have started an open and candid debate about the war, and our future actions that has been sadly midsiing for the past almost 4 years under complete Republican control.

Have they solved the Iraq problem in their one month of partial control of the situation? No, of course not. Could they be doing more? Maybe. probably.

noname....I'm not sure that a reply to a post can be off topic, do you? I also notice that conveniently you have left out mentioning that
Paulo and john D as well as others also do their share of sniping.
Why the oversight? You claim this independent view yet continually wish to point out how the democrats are the ones lock-step. I might also point out that I have in the past voted for republicans but "this" republican party has done so much damage it does not deserve a pass on criticism.

Dale, even the NY Times in its article said Sparling was spat at "but it hit the concrete." Sparling said he was spit on. Regardless of whether the spit hit him or not, even the NY Times article said Sparling was spat at.

Dale, I no longer believe your nonsense. What, did Keith Olbermann say Sparling was not spat at? But Dale, you continually boast of your support for War Vets, but it seems your support ONLY goes as far as whether they follow your beliefs or not. I read the VFW magazine and the American Legion, two organizations soly made up of Veterans. I have donated to the Wounded Warrior Project. I know Vets, Iraq War Vets and current members of the military and the National Guard, one of whom served in the first Gulf War. I show them your stuff and to a man, they all snicker and say you're just a left wing loon.

I'll take Josh Sparling any day over the lies, deceit and half-truths you dish out on a daily basis.

My apologies bill r. I did mean to include Paulo and John D., although I tend to dismiss Paulo just as I dismiss John E. I probably shouldn't have bothered to mention either one of them, really.

The issue here isn't about giving GOP a pass. Personally, I am glad to see they lost the majority because they had strayed way too far from the conservative ideals that prompted me to vote for them. However, the issue here is the Democrats' refusal to stand on the principles for which they were elected. Kind of reminds me of the previous majority. And, my mention of "robots" is only in response to previous posts from you and others because from my point of view that's exactly what's going on with the lefties I encouter these days. When I bring up issues such as this with my lefty friends, I basically get responses that shows me they feel there's no room for discussion or disagreement with the Democrats, period! I see the same here in the swamp.

John D:

This vet Sparling said "he was spat on", the NY Times story says Sparling was spat at "but it hit the concrete." There's a BIG DIFFERENCE between being spat AT versus being spat ON. And in an earlier Swamp thread you said that he was spat ON.

So which is it?

Sparling said he was spat on. The NY Times said he was spat at but it hit the concrete. Some Loony Lefters say he wasn't spat at all. I would tend to believe Mr. Sparling over the NY Times or members of the loony left.

However, whether the spit reached him or not, he was still spat at. A Vet. A Disabled Vet. Whether it hit him or not, I find that appalling. What about you BC and the rest of the hateful Left? I mean didn't you folks keep saying "support the troops, but not the war?" What happened to the supporting the troops part, eh??

John D,

Spitting on veterans (or anyone else for that matter) is wrong. This from a Lefty. Will you quit yelling now?

Spit at or on is wrong. Lying about what happened is wrong also John D. Ultra conservative Michelle Malkin only goes as far to say he was spit at.

"John D,

Spitting on veterans (or anyone else for that matter) is wrong. This from a Lefty. Will you quit yelling now?

Posted by: Bryan | Feb 2, 2007 3:49:18 PM"


No they won't stop. They must be spit on. They must be victims.

no name,

You just don't get it. Of course Leftist mindless robots are superior to Rightists mindless robots, because... umm, well just BECAUSE!


You said, "[Ds] have at leasrt forced Bush to acknowledge that the war has gone badly wrong."

I'd say it's clear that the people who did that, and the Ds are going along for the ride.

You said, "[Ds] have started an open and candid debate about the war, and our future actions that has been sadly midsiing for the past almost 4 years under complete Republican control."

Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but there has been an ongoing debate about the war in America since day one. The Ds were (with few exceptions) pretty quiet for most of that time, and entirely ineffectual, though.

And they remain ineffectual. They can't even get a useless nonbinding resolution passed.


Loyalty is a good thing. To a certain degree, that is. When loyalty becomes blind and unthinking and precludes any kind of criticism to a political party (in this case) then it becomes counter productive.

People, if you refuse to see the flaws of your party, then you're not helping the party, you're hurting it. Blind, unthinking loyalty becomes, in effect, disloyalty.

This perversion of the concept "loyalty" is coloring most of the debate here. I often chide the Dem pols for being weak kneed, indecisve or hypocrical. However, I do not then hold up the Reps as examples of good governance. People like Tony then assume I must be a Republican. (I don't mean to pick on him, but he's a typical example.)

Nobody here has figured out the self evident: that is, that I WANT THE DEMOCRATS TO BE EFFECTIVE. (Not emphasizing, just shouting.)

But you can't grasp constructive criticism because for you argument is simply "[Fill in the blank] sucks."

Bill and Juanito would agree.

Bill and Juanito don't agree with you "phony Leo",that's why they aren't on here anymore.

Their honest guys and they aren't going to continue to parrot the Repubs talking points the way morons like you do.

"They can't even get a useless nonbinding resolution passed."

Due to McCain and the Republicans having the votes to block the Democrats from even bringing it to a vote. Exactly the point theat multiple people have been making to you - The Democrats simply do not have the numbers to be able to make the kind of sweeping changes you demand.

But keep living in your fantasy world where the Democrats could clean up the Iraq mess in a heartbeat if they wanted to.

Lets hear you balst McCain for standing in the way of a vote. Oh, that's right, McCain is acting on "principle" and can't be criticized

Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "n" in the field below: