Hagel-Webb amendment

[Aquatic]

I'm surprised this isn't getting more attention here or in the media in general. I actually thought the Hagel-Webb amendment would pass! I'm shocked! And very angry. I have never written to a Congressional representative before, but I wrote to John Warner on Friday. For those who don't know, the amendment sought to let troops have as much time to rest at home as they sacrificed during deployment. It didn't pass. I just can't see how someone could honestly oppose this, let alone say this amendment's supporters aren't patriotic.

[sammi jo]

I'm surprised this isn't getting more attention here or in the media in general. I actually thought the Hagel-Webb amendment would pass! I'm shocked! And very angry. I have never written to a Congressional representative before, but I wrote to John Warner on Friday. For those who don't know, the amendment sought to let troops have as much time to rest at home as they sacrificed during deployment. It didn't pass. I just can't see how someone could honestly oppose this, let alone say this amendment's supporters aren't patriotic.

"Why do the Senate Republicans hate our troops?

[@_@ Artman]

I'm surprised this isn't getting more attention here or in the media in general. I actually thought the Hagel-Webb amendment would pass! I'm shocked! And very angry. I have never written to a Congressional representative before, but I wrote to John Warner on Friday. For those who don't know, the amendment sought to let troops have as much time to rest at home as they sacrificed during deployment. It didn't pass. I just can't see how someone could honestly oppose this, let alone say this amendment's supporters aren't patriotic.

It is sad. They're having a hard time trying to stay awake during deployment.

Fatigue cripples US army in Iraq (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2147052,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12)

Lieutenant Clay Hanna looks sick and white. Like his colleagues he does not seem to sleep. Hanna says he catches up by napping on a cot between operations in the command centre, amid the noise of radio. He is up at 6am and tries to go to sleep by 2am or 3am. But there are operations to go on, planning to be done and after-action reports that need to be written. And war interposes its own deadly agenda that requires his attention and wakes him up.

When he emerges from his naps there is something old and paper-thin about his skin, something sketchy about his movements as the days go by.

The Americans he commands, like the other men at Sullivan - a combat outpost in Zafraniya, south east Baghdad - hit their cots when they get in from operations. But even when they wake up there is something tired and groggy about them. They are on duty for five days at a time and off for two days. When they get back to the forward operating base, they do their laundry and sleep and count the days until they will get home. It is an exhaustion that accumulates over the patrols and the rotations, over the multiple deployments, until it all joins up, wiping out any memory of leave or time at home. Until life is nothing but Iraq.

Hanna and his men are not alone in being tired most of the time. A whole army is exhausted and worn out. You see the young soldiers washed up like driftwood at Baghdad's international airport, waiting to go on leave or returning to their units, sleeping on their body armour on floors and in the dust.

The only surge these troops are getting is from the cans of Red Bull they drink from.

'They are scraping to get people to go back and people are worn out,' said Thomas Grieger, a senior US navy psychiatrist, told the International Herald Tribune in April.

'Modern war is exhausting,' says Major Stacie Caswell, an occupational therapist with a combat stress unit attached to the military hospital in Mosul. Her unit runs long group sessions to help soldiers with emerging mental health and discipline problems: often they have seen friends killed and injured, or are having problems stemming from issues at home - responsible for 50 to 60 per cent of their cases. One of the most common problems in Iraq is sleep disorders.

'This is a different kind of war,' says Caswell. 'In World War II it was clear who the good guys and the bad guys were. You knew what you would go through on the battlefield.' Now she says the threat is all around. And soldiering has changed. 'Now we have so many things to do...'

'And the soldier in Vietnam,' interjects Sergeant John Valentine from the same unit, 'did not get to see the coverage from home that these soldiers do. We see what is going on at home on the political scene. They think the war is going to end. Then we have the frustration and confusion. That is fatiguing. Mentally tiring.'

'Not only that,' says Caswell, 'but because of the nature of what we do now, the number of tasks in comparison with previous generations - even as you are finishing your 15 months here you are immediately planning and training for your next tour.' Valentine adds: 'There is no decompression.'

The Army has raised enlistment bonuses (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,85630,00.html) for those who "fast track" their way to Iraq. They have also raised their bonuses to unheard of levels.

A new law will allow the Army to give larger financial bonuses for enlistments and re-enlistments - doubling the maximum payment to new active duty recruits from $20,000 to $40,000, and from $10,000 to $20,000 for reservists. It also will let older recruits sign on by raising the top age from 35 to 42. And the top re-enlistment bonus for active duty soldiers would increase from $60,000 to $90,000.

They have also doubled the amount of soldiers they will accept at the lowest level of aptitude to pad their recruiting figures.

[Jubelum]

They have also doubled the amount of soldiers they will accept at the lowest level of aptitude to pad their recruiting figures.

Hopefully John Kerry will teach them all so they "won't end up in Iraq."

http://dedicated.goofball.com/goofball/photos/2006/JonKerry.jpg

[Northgate]

Who would've thought that the Republican Reality Distortion Field could be so effective that they could SPIN an ammendment that literally supports the troops into an "anti-troop" campaign.

No shame.

[SDW2001]

Who would've thought that the Republican Reality Distortion Field could be so effective that they could SPIN an ammendment that literally supports the troops into an "anti-troop" campaign.

No shame.

Could someone please post the comments alluded to concerning supporters of the bill being unpatriotic and anti-troop? I know the amendment didn't pass, but I'd like to see what our lefty peanut gallery is talking about.

Now, the amendment itself. I can understand voting against it, and here's why. While supporters have focused on the rest and readiness provision, there are others, such as:

1. Limitations on Extending Deployments: The amendment says that the President cannot extend the tours of duty beyond 365 days. In my opinion this limits the powers of the Commander-in-Chief in unconstitutional fashion.

2. Marine Limits: Same as above, but the limit is 210 days. I oppose it for the same reason. Right or wrong, this is the President's prerogative.

3. Reserves: Cannot be re-deployed if they have been used within 5 YEARS. I feel this is not reasonable. 5 years? If we're going to do this, we need to increase our active duty forces first, which I happen to support.

I understand the desire to provide rest for troops. However, troop deployments are under the President's charge as Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces. Just my opinion. I understand others disagree.

Here's the last point: This is not a troop rest amendment. Not primarily. It's an amendment to force withdrawal by attrition, all dressed up to LOOK like a "rest" amendment. Keep in mind, Hagel does not support the war and neither does Webb.
The above provisions sound wonderful to the public, but severely limit the military's ability to conduct operations.

[Northgate]

I'm utterly speechless.

[Jubelum]

You see SDW, "Commander in Chief" does not really mean "Commander in Chief." If you think it does, your some old fashioned fuddy duddy crackpot candy-eating winger. Kinda like "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" does not mean what it says either, excpecially with problematic words like "People", "keep" and "bear." :smokey:

Congress can cut off funding. That is their prerogative. Other than that, they are no better than Bush when it comes to maintaining separation of powers.

[Jubelum]

Good one, counsel.

However, reasonable people disagree about what powers the Constitution actually vests in designating the President as "Commander-in-Chief." It's not enough to justify an exercise of power under Section 2 just because of the language of that section (which is silent on what "Commander-in-Chief" actually means) designates the President as the leader of the military. I'm interested in what the legal argument is on this one in a bit more detail than merely referring back to the language of Section 2.

Alrighty... can you point us toward some scholarly interpretations of Section II that will illuminate this for us? The president commands the military, the congress funds it. I did not like it much when Clinton was CIC, with Somalia/Bosnia etc, but that was his prerogative under Section II.

[Jubelum]

Heh.

Section 2, scholar. You don't get brownie points for using Roman numerals where the drafters didn't use them. No, I don't have the slightest idea what the constitutional controversy would be. That's why I'm asking SDW since he raised the issue. I'm presuming he's, unlike you, going on more than referencing the language of that section.

Has it come to that? How we choose to express the quantity more than one but less than three. (I vs III) :lol: I think the controversy is that there is a lot of back-and-forth over Bush taking powers beyond Executive Branch jurisdiction, and Congress, by some interpretations, may be moving to cross some of those same lines. They do not want to use their tool, the power of the purse. That, to me, is just as much of a problem as the fuzzy Constitutional territory in which some of the administration's power assertions have been.

[tonton]

You see SDW, "Commander in Chief" does not really mean "Commander in Chief." If you think it does, your some old fashioned fuddy duddy crackpot candy-eating winger. Kinda like "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" does not mean what it says either, excpecially with problematic words like "People", "keep" and "bear." :smokey:

Congress can cut off funding. That is their prerogative. Other than that, they are no better than Bush when it comes to maintaining separation of powers.

Just because you're the President and CEO of a company doesn't give you the right to abuse your workers. Why should being "commander in chief" give you the right to abuse your conscripts?

Being Commander in Chief doesn't mean being military dictator. You still need to answer to the people. And the people speak through congress. Congress *is* allowed to pass laws related to the terms of military duty, and as far as I know, they do so frequently.

We have something in this country called "checks and balances" and that applies to the military as well.

[Jubelum]

We have something in this country called "checks and balances" and that applies to the military as well.

In typical tontontone... :lol:

Go back. Reread. The power of funding is the tool- the check and balance as we call it in this country. ;)
Democrats do not have the spine to use that power.

[trumptman]

So let me see if I have this right through the haze here.

Congress passed previous laws related to troops and their terms of deployment.

Bush uses those terms today.

Congress attempted to modify those terms of deployment and could not muster the votes to do so.

Thus Bush is an asshole.

Wow....wow.....wow.

Nick

[@_@ Artman]

...zzzzZZZZZzzzzzz...

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2007/08/11/falluja10c.jpg

[Northgate]

So let me see if I have this right through the haze here.

Congress passed previous laws related to troops and their terms of deployment.

Bush uses those terms today.

Congress attempted to modify those terms of deployment and could not muster the votes to do so.

Thus Bush is an asshole.

Wow....wow.....wow.

Nick

No. The Republican members on Congress threatening a "filibuster" are the assholes. You remember that "F" word, right? The one Democrats were assholes for using or threatening to use back when you guys controlled EVERYTHING.

[trumptman]

Hey more power to the Republicans. If the Democrats want to change the rules of the Senate or even threaten to do so, they are more than welcome to do so. The reason why no one does this is clearly because it is politically palatable to keep it the way it exists today.

I mean seriously grow some spines. Where is the outrage about "meanwhile soldiers are dying" when the Democrats won't even make the Republican go through the motions of a filibuster in order to vote as they do. Why not make them talk on CSPAN for a week or two. Why not threaten to change the terms of cloture votes and so forth. We heard plenty of this in the past when there were not even lives on the line. Why is there silence now when action was what was promised?

Nick

[SDW2001]

I hadn't considered that the amendment raises a constitutional question.

You're probably talking about Article II, Section 2. But since that only says "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states," it isn't really all that helpful. In light of the modern interpretation of that section, did you read anything that was more specific in terms of what constitutional question it raises?

Good one, counsel.

However, reasonable people disagree about what powers the Constitution actually vests in designating the President as "Commander-in-Chief." It's not enough to justify an exercise of power under Section 2 just because of the language of that section (which is silent on what "Commander-in-Chief" actually means) designates the President as the leader of the military. I'm interested in what the legal argument is on this one in a bit more detail than merely referring back to the language of Section 2.

Heh.

Section 2, scholar. You don't get brownie points for using Roman numerals where the drafters didn't use them. No, I don't have the slightest idea what the constitutional controversy would be. That's why I'm asking SDW since he raised the issue. I'm presuming he's, unlike you, going on more than referencing the language of that section.

Being "Commander-in-Chief" carries with it the implication that the President controls all aspects of the armed forces, including troop deployments and even battlefield decisions if need be. In fact, past precedent shows this to be the case. A President ordered D Day. a President ordered the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A President ordered the bombing of Libya and invasion of Grenada.

If Congress limits the President's ability to fulfill those duties (after voting to fund the operation(s) repeatedly), it could easily be seen as Unconstitutional. Congress controls the funding, certainly. But what it's doing in this case is basically legislative extortion. It's basically telling the President...if you exercise your legitimate Constitutional authority by deploying troops, we will withhold funds.

There's at least a good argument there.


Just because you're the President and CEO of a company doesn't give you the right to abuse your workers. Why should being "commander in chief" give you the right to abuse your conscripts?

Being Commander in Chief doesn't mean being military dictator. You still need to answer to the people. And the people speak through congress. Congress *is* allowed to pass laws related to the terms of military duty, and as far as I know, they do so frequently.

We have something in this country called "checks and balances" and that applies to the military as well.

That's nice, but you're actually completely wrong. The military is not a democracy and its members are not civilians. They do not work for Coca-Cola. The President decides where they go and what they do pursuant to his Constitutional powers and in this case, Congress's explicit approval of the war.

Furthermore, Congress does have and always will have the ability to end the war, thereby exercising "checks and balances" as you put it. They can cut off all funds and vote to de-authorize the war completely. This is really the only explicit power they are granted over the Armed Forces. They can cut off the funding. What they cannot do is what I mentioned above....they cannot tell the President that if he exercises his legitimate powers, they'll pull the plug.


No. The Republican members on Congress threatening a "filibuster" are the assholes. You remember that "F" word, right? The one Democrats were assholes for using or threatening to use back when you guys controlled EVERYTHING.

Well, for the record I've never opposed filibusters in wholesale fashion. What I've opposed is the use of judicial filibusters. Filibusters in general are a useful tool for both parties. They can delay votes for various political reasons.

My problem was when they used it to prevent a nominee from being confirmed that clearly would have had the votes to be confirmed. My problem is when it's used to permanently thwart the will of the majority...especially when it results in federal judgeship positions going unfilled for years on end.

[Northgate]

So I just read in the Washington Post that the Army does not believe 15-month troop rotations are sustainable. Huh? Didn't all of our Republican friends just get done mocking and ridiculing Democrats and the Webb-Hagel amendment for addressing this same exact issue?

Here's the article I'm referring to. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092502139.html)

Here's what we've learned. Army officers are gods. They must not be questioned or have newspaper ads purchased about them. Therefore, I must conclude that when General Casey thinks our troops need more time at home then he is an authority on the matter.

[EDITED OUT] Because I'm a spineless Democrat who can't be allowed to fight fire with fire [/EDITED OUT]

[Jubelum]

To bad our Republicans in Congress and a handful of spineless Democrats support Al Qaeda and their efforts to murder our kids over there.

:wow: :err:

[Northgate]

Yeah, um, let's not emulate the rhetoric of the right, Northgate.

Fair enough.

But I bet you a Republican wouldn't erase the comment.

[Northgate]

No, it's not about "fighting fire with fire."

It's about not acceding to the Republican terms of the debate.

"acceding" Man, I had to look that one up. ;):lol:

[trumptman]

Turns out I've been ghostwriting for The Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/6048.html)

But it’s a simple truth, whether you support the war or not: There is a lot more Democrats could do to change, or at least challenge, the politics of the war in Washington, even if they do not have the numbers to impose new policies on President Bush.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could force a vote a day over Iraq. She could keep the House in session all night, over weekends and through planned vacations.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could let filibusters run from now till Christmas rather than yield to pro-war Republicans.

Such tactics might or might not be politically sensible, but in their absence, anti-war lawmakers can hardly say they have done everything possible to challenge the war and bring attention to their cause.

Lawmakers over the past generation have threatened and sometimes carried out such extreme parliamentary maneuvers over less consequential matters than dying soldiers.

Republican leaders a few years ago warned they would pursue the “nuclear option” and rewrite Senate rules if Democrats tried to block Bush’s judicial nominees.

In the 1980s, some Republicans contemplated chaining themselves to pillars of the Capitol to protest a disputed congressional election in Indiana.

Democrats, in on-the-record and on-background interviews, said they do not do these things because they would be bad politics. Democrats in the House and Senate would splinter over such extremist measures.

Bad politics > dead soldiers.

Nick

[tonton]

Al Qaeda Operative #1: "But Osama, how do we get back at those heathen infidels after the towers fall? Won't they just rebuild? They must suffer for their aggression against Allah!"

Al Qaeda Operative #2: "We don't have the manpower or the resources to fight them in America!"

Osama: "Easy. We get them to come over here. Better to fight them here then over there."

Al Qaeda Operative #1: "But Osama, if we fight in Afghanistan, we may lose everything!"

Osama: "First, we move to Pakistan. Then we link the threat to Saddam Hussein. The Americans are just looking for an excuse to fight in Iraq. Let's help them find it. Send rumors that I met with Saddam personally. Also, send notice to that guy we have working there in Baghdad to report to the Americans that Saddam is pursuing nuclear and chemical weapons, and has stockpiles of weapons. Then the Americans will be too tied up in guerilla warfare in Iraq to concentrate on killing us off."

Al Qaeda entourage: "Osama, you the MAN, yo!"

[franksargent]

Turns out I've been ghostwriting for The Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/6048.html)



Bad politics > dead soldiers.

Nick

Pleeeeeeeeeeeease, enough of your broken record schtick already! :\

This must be your 666th post with respect to the "do nothing" D's.

If they did as you are perpetually wishing them to do, you guys would just parrot the "O" word, you know the "O' word don't you, it's perminately burned into your mindsets.

But incase you've forgotten, it's spelled O-B-S-T-R-U-C-T-I-O-N-I-S-T-S :p

This is your political wet dream, this is your political wet dream, ... :rolleyes:

[Northgate]

I'd rather my party be referred to as "obstructionist" than Republican ass-lickers.

[trumptman]

Pleeeeeeeeeeeease, enough of your broken record schtick already! :\

This must be your 666th post with respect to the "do nothing" D's.

If they did as you are perpetually wishing them to do, you guys would just parrot the "O" word, you know the "O' word don't you, it's perminately burned into your mindsets.

But incase you've forgotten, it's spelled O-B-S-T-R-U-C-T-I-O-N-I-S-T-S :p

This is your political wet dream, this is your political wet dream, ... :rolleyes:

I'd response to you, but I was too busy ghostwriting (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h6VGzavLVgZNMJ4kmzEKB7mr98Bw) for AP so you will just have to read that instead.

The Oct. 1 deadline for completing the 12 annual spending bills funding next year's budgets for 15 Cabinet departments is just a week away, but the Democratic-controlled Congress has yet to send him a single bill. The last time Congress failed to clear a single spending bill by the Oct. 1 deadline occurred in 2002.

Nick

[@_@ Artman]

The U.S. Senate approved 53-42 a bill to raise the national debt limit to 9.815 trillion dollars. (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-09/28/content_6806725.htm)

The limit of the national debt has been raised several times since President Bush took office in 2001. The last time was in March 2006 when Congress agreed to raise the debt ceiling by 781 billion dollars.

Let's look at this in all ways...

As a proportion of GDP, debt's been worse in the past than it has now. However, what's changed is the willingness to use surplus money to pay down debt - the Republicans want to buy guns (benefits the rich and well-connected), the Democrats want to buy butter (benefits the poor and/or lazy), but no one wants to buy stability (benefits the middle class).

This too (http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=NYBOT_DX&v=i)...

http://www.winstonsmith.com/images/gallery.big/moneytree.jpg

:rolleyes:

[franksargent]

I'd response to you, but I was too busy ghostwriting (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h6VGzavLVgZNMJ4kmzEKB7mr98Bw) for AP so you will just have to read that instead.



Nick

When has Congress ever passed all spending bills prior to the start of the fiscal year? From what I've found so far, it appears that if the Congress/POTUS has ever done so, it was sometime prior to FY 1976!

Now you'd think that with the R's controlling the two branches (executive and legislative) of the federal government, FY's 2002 thru 2007, the party of "fiscal responsibility" could have at least tried to get things done on time without continuing resolutions.

NOPE! :lol:

[SDW2001]

Your examples relate to obvious powers that no one would deny the President legitimately has.

It's significantly less clear to me whether Congress lacks the power to do what the Hagel-Webb Amendment attempted. I'd hoped you had some idea of the constitutional controversy in greater detail than that conjecture you've put forth.



"Extortion" is a characterization for, in this case, a perfectly constitutional practice.

But I digress.

All I'm saying is the point could be argued. I'm certainly not qualified to take it much further. It would just seem to me that there is at least an interesting question there.