Passed 95-2: Sense of the Senate that Iraq War has increased security

Since I couldn't fit the full purpose into the subject line....

Graham (SC) Amdt. 1806 to S. 1689 (Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004), to express the sense of Congress that the removal of the Government of Saddam Hussein has enhanced the security of Israel and other United States allies.

:puke:

Yeas 95 (I won't bore you with the list)

Nays 2: Bingaman and Chafee.

Not Voting 3: Edwards, Kerry, and Lieberman (big suprise).

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00384

Major kudos to Bingaman and Chafee for voting against this. I really don't see how the Iraq War helps Israel or any other U.S. ally.

ON EDIT (following post #10): The amendment's text is as follows:

On page 39, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 3002. (a) Congress finds that--

(1) Israel is a strategic ally of the United States in the Middle East;

(2) Israel recognizes the benefits of a democratic form of government;

(3) the policies and activities of the Government of Iraq under the Saddam Hussein regime contributed to security concerns in the Middle East, especially for Israel;

(4) the Arab Liberation Front was established by Iraqi Baathists, and supported by Saddam Hussein;

(5) the Government of Iraq under the Saddam Hussein regime assisted the Arab Liberation Front in distributing grants to the families of suicide bombers;

(6) the Government of Iraq under the Saddam Hussein regime aided Abu Abass, leader of the Palestinian Liberation Front, who was a mastermind of the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, an Italian cruise ship, and is responsible for the death of an American tourist aboard that ship; and

(7) Saddam Hussein attacked Israel during the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War by launching 39 Scud missiles into that country and thereby causing multiple casualties.

(b) It is the sense of Congress that Operation Iraqi Freedom promotes the security of Israel and other United States allies.

all the other Senators? And why did these men vote "no"?

Saddam had a tendency to harass other countries, and he was sponsoring those Palestinian suicide bombers, and he did at one time invade Kuwait, so such an assesment is not with out merit. The real question is, did it protect the security of the US? That is a complete negative, in fact it made it worse, but I could see how one could argue this.

had done not one thing to anyone outside his borders for over twelve years!! Your argument is crap. And our Senators are traitors trying to remain in denial-land. The rest of the world KNOWS it was a crock of shit. And guess what...we will pay with lost trade.

12 years ago? First of all, Saddam was funding suicide bombers, so yes he had been doing things for 12 years. Naturally this would make the text of the ammendment accurate, getting rid of a source of funds for sucide bombers thus make Isarael a bit safer. Secondly, getting rid of a bad guy who was known to cause trouble is def. a security enhancement for others around him. Note that I opposed the war but that I am not naieve enough to think saddam wasn't a bit of a thorn to the other states around him. Hell, is someone asked me if I toguht the Iraqui people are better off now I would vote yes too, Saddam was a despotic tyrant. In fact while most Middle Eastern people opposed the war most leaders publically opposed it but were glad to get rid of Sadam Hussein because he was always viewed as a threat. So on the merits, one could say they are safer. This vote was not whetehr the war was good or not. It is essentially meaningless. Also, please do tell me when this lost trade is coming? I would figure that we would have infractions placed on us by now, it would seem really stupid for people to put them on now.

And give us a replay of the grounds for the invasion, as told to the american people by Bush.

And leave out all the OTHER THINGS that you listed since they weren't used to bamboozle the american public into war.

This resolution is a travesty ----- they just gave Bush a 'free and clear' pass on his unjustified war.........

He did give money to the familes of the suicide bombers in some cases to help the families whose homes were destroyed by the Israelis.

The Sharon government and Zionists will be the downfall of this country.
At lease 2/3 of our problems with the rest of the world are grounded in our biased policies and immoral support of Israel terrorism. It it were only about Israel's right to exist...which Arafat over 10 years ago publicly agreed to...it would be something different. The problem is that Israel believes that no one else has the right to exist and certainly they do not believe that the Palestinians have a right to a homeland...Nevermind that the scriptural promise was to ALL of Abrahams seed.

he supported charities that supported thier relatives. This is another dumb bill none of them bothered to look at.

I tell ya, they won't be happy until they've given every last taxpayer penny to Haliburton, et. al. :grr:

:-)

No taxes, please. Just say "charge it"

I would have expected Lieberman to have introduced the silly thing.

I notice Edwards and Kerry are again shying away from doing anything seriously to stop the madness. Oh, excuse me, Edwards will do a one man non-vote on the $87 billion, knowing it will pass and not trying to get it stopped by lobbying other senators. whooptido..

I see it as a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

I notice Edwards and Kerry are again shying away from doing anything seriously to stop the madness.

So the vote would've been 95-4, yeah, that'll stop the madness.

I'm glad they didn't bother to vote on this drivel.

Let's just get everyone out to vote. THAT will stop the madness!

:kick:

To "stop the madness" as you put it so well, we should have our representatives in government JOIN IN THE MADNESS???????

Not following this logic.

A leader would make speeches and treat with his colleagues to suggest that the madness should stop and that there are alternatives. NOT simply look to short term political survival and the next election.
Statesmen are in short supply and with the low bar we are setting for Dems, they will shortly become extinct.

These times CRY OUT for congresscritters standing up and telling the truth and voting against insanity. Instead, we are giving them a pass.

I, for one. DO NOT.

These are our "liberal" senators from the Democratic state of California.

but Edwards, Kerry and Lieberman were all out campaigning today. Those who criticize them for campaigning instead of participating in this bogus Republican charade of a vote -- aren't you forgetting that the point here is to defeat Bush? Is that goal better pursued by being out there getting their message across or participating in a vote that is nothing but a Republican setup to make them look bad to some voting bloc no matter what they do? Don't fall for the Repub propaganda.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_108_1.htm

This is just one of the lowlights.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00381
Question: On the Motion (Motion To Waive CBA Corzine Amdt. No. 1811 )

Statement of Purpose: To amend title 10, United States Code, to reduce the age for receipt of military retired pay for nonregular service from 60 to 55.
Vote Counts: YEAs 47
NAYs 49
Not Voting 4


Nothing else that was voted on today could have been affected by the three candidate-Senators voting.

It required 60 votes to pass.

But in principle, I think Senators should show up for Senate sessions.

To represent their constituencies, whether the vote "matters" or not?

In planning their schedules, the Democratic candidates try very hard to be in Washington for important votes. However, the Republican leadership often schedules these votes at the last minute with little or no notice to Dems in order to ensure that the Democratic candidates cannot get back in time for the vote. Often, regardless how hard they try, they just can't be here for the ones that count.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00378

Yeas: 47
Nays: 48

Not voting: Dayton, Edwards, Kerry, Lieberman, Miller

If they had shown up then the Bingaman amendment would have passed.

Boxer is a disappointment.

Interesting choice and order of words. Looks like they've summed it up in a nutshell what this whole thing is really about. Over 300 Americans killed so far not to protect America, but rather to enhance Israel's security. I wonder if the kid's who have been in Iraq for over a year, know the real reason why they are there?

their positions regarding Israel. I am so damned sick of this. Add in the Syrian Sanctions bill, money for Israel, the $87B for Iraq, and the Dems are just as bad as the Repukes. Every vote they give like this, and any supporting the present government of Israel, makes Bush's hand stronger, and will help his "re-election" efforts. Sharon/Likud back Bush, and they are going to try to help him stay in office. Our party is shooting itself in the foot. Why?

Further, these Dems, in giving support for all of this, are enabling PNAC/Bush/Sharon in their wars and imperialism. Face it, we have no opposition. A great many Dems are apparently owned by Israel and corporations. There simply is no other explanation for these votes. I can't wait to see the Syrian Sanctions bill.

It is against our Constitution to allow an outside nation to influence our affairs in the manner that Israel is doing. It is illegal, immoral, and traitorous. As it is, vis-a-vis PNAC and AIPAC, Israel is running our foreign and military policy, and greatly impacting our political processes. Is this what most Americans really want? Of course not, but they won't read about it in the pro -PNAC/Bush/Israel media!

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

Missed this vote?

Perhaps he had something more important to do.:shrug:

We have been subsumed.

misses another one....hahahahaahahahahahahahahah

I shouldn't be but I am. At this point, I would have expected at least 1/3 to 1/2 of the Senate to vote against this resolution.

Geesh, I must be getting too optimistic. Gotta watch that!

I am so ashamed lg is from my state. He is among the slimiest of the slime.

How could LG be elected to the Senate?

I cringe at what this says about my state - even though it might be true.

This is the final straw. I'll never do another thing to help him, I don't care whose caucus he votes with.

A disgusted Montana Democrat says: :puke:

by making some fucking "declaration" that they can change the facts and change reality into what they dreamed it would be.

Disgusting, crumbling empire group-think insanity.

Makes me want to toss my cookies.

Isn't that how this Iraq thing started - as a wedge issue for the 2002 elections. :puke:

that was a big issue as it, hopefully, will keep the spending of the $87B in the open. Of course they will redact as much as they possibly can in the name of National Security. Ted Stevens argued that it was not Congress's business to have them report but he voted for the ammendment anyway.

This result shocks me, but I'm more shocked that I'm still shocked.

On what? Debate? Are you kidding me?

There is no debate. There's just a bunch of evil, greedy bastards sinking our ship.

For the first time, I am going to say this: REVOLUTION.

Isn't that what this, if not blatantly says, at least stongly insinuates?

:grr:

... and there are PACs with money out there. There will be more loyalty test-like votes such as this one on other issues. It won't actually change who gets what money from whom, but most of these people aren't going to take the chance of throwing it away.

Cheers.

or maybe this was just a 'unity' marketing strategy :shrug:

peace

Feingold, how could you vote for such a piece of propagandistic trash!?!:argh: I'm not surprised Kohl voted for it, he rolls over for everything...just like a rotting alewife on the Lake Michigan shore.

Well, I'll never be sicker than when they voted for the war itself.

I cant argue with the text of the amendment shown here. Saddam was funding palestinian suicide bombers. Israel is a lot safer without that funding.

I think this clearly lays out our gpovernments motivations for this war.
It had nothing to do with US security.

At least they are being honest

Glad to hear it.

And real pleased to know that Halliburton oil profits had nothing to do with the war. Yes, indeedy.

Bush destroyed the stability of the world to help the Jews. Well, of course he did.

You always knew he would, didn't you, you clever thing?

Israel.

They are not synonymous.

No the suicide bombings havent stoped. Do you expect them to?

Destroyed the stability of the world is a little over the top wouldnt you say?

As much turmoil as there is presently in Israel and Iraq the worlds stability is not destroyed.

Saddam was funding palestinian suicide bombers. They were Israelies. Eliminating that funding increases security in Israel.

Does it stop them ?
No

They will never stop as long as Israel continues its policy of absorbing palestinian land through settlements.

I am not trying to say what bush did was good by any means. Only that ocupying Iraq helps in a pretty feeble way Israels security. While on the flip side it does nothing but decrease ours.

families. This is dumb neocon propaganda, that helps them make war. Just admit it.

Hussein was a *marginal, tiny* threat to Israel, which is the military super-power of the area. So technically, getting rid of the tiny threat makes them safer. That is, unless the war causes more resentment of Israel among Arabs and Muslims, which seems likely. So perhaps they are wrong in this case.

But I certainly agree, at least they are being honest.

A ray of sunshine from the Land of Enchantment.....

We should call him and thank him for his vote.

Are Republican pollsters forcing legislation through now?

I'm surprised by Bingaman's vote which makes virtually no sense because he usually falls pretty much right in the middle of the Democratic party in the Senate.

But, I come to like Lincoln Chafee more and more everyday. Even though he is a republican (I think he would switch if the senate was 50-50) he has been more anti-war than virtually any other senator. I don't know why he stay with the republicans since I can't think of one opinion that he has that the republican party shares.

Does THIS ever explain a lot.

And the votes -- how utterly and completely disappointing. So what's new.

Eloriel

Tomorrow, they'll vote that the world is flat.

:grr:

This is nothing but the worst kind of pandering. It is also full of lies!

Why didn't traitor Zionist Leiberman vote in favor of that? Is he losing touch with his fundamentalist mindlessness??

what hipocrasy for that antidemocratic body of plutocrats to purport support for democracy.

It is a blight on america that the government is bought and paid for... that they only have time for legislation protecting the interests of who bought them and not the american people.

In the interests of democracy, it stands one person, one vote, not one land mass, one vote... but i guess such obvious logic is beyond the institutionally corrupt.

The House of Representatives is all that we need. They have been doing a great job countering Bush and pushing the Democratic agenda.

That is completely wrong. Even though Democrats in the House may yell at the president a lot more than democrats in the Senate, the republicans get virtually everything they want in the House. The democrats have stopped numerous Bush policies like ANWR. It cut the tax package by 375 billion dollars in 2003. The senate is better than the House because it is less partisan than the House and I guess I'm the only one here who doesn't like extreme partisanship.

I have no problem with the principal of an upper house, and agree that partisanism should not dominate that institution if it is to exist. In this regard, the senate is a very bad example based on the video clips i remember during the impeachment hearings for clinton when these demonic egotists spoke waxingly about their ugly convictions.

The model i see is the original model the founders looked to when they wrote the constitution.. the unelected british house of lords that has acted as a "british" house rather than as a partisan house of pissing dogs trying to win the next election.

I would propose perhapse 50% appointed for life terms like the supreme court.. and 50% elected to 12 year terms. The upper house needs to weigh against the short term partisan thinking of the lower house (commons)... and only if the impending election is not the foremost issue in one's mind, can this be possible.

The house of lords has experts in many fields including poetry and religion that would never be elected in a system like the american senate where only professional politicaians hold the jobs. Also the british house of lords has a deep bed of expertise in lawmaking that is non-partisan and blocking the short term partisan lawmaking adgenda of whatever administration. Too bad they did not stop the war... but they have, throught the hutton inquiry, brought about a tremendous weakening of the blair lie administration. That does not happen in america because the senate IS PARTISAN. come on. I can't believe you say it is not. :-)

being an ally of Israel even though I think the Likud party and Sharon are responsible for the step up in violence as well since the current intifada began in response to Sharon. That being said, I wonder when we (if ever now) will seek real peace (other than Pax Americana) and if the U.S. will ever have a foreign policy again that is truly independent and US centric and totally organized around the welfare of its citizens.

I love Santa Claus.

My suggestion for their next "sense of congress":

"It is the sense of the Senate that the national debt is now paid off, considering that we've spent the money to bomb, blow up and otherwise harrass people who disagree with the U.S. or otherwise just piss us off, all of which has made the world a safer place and made all its neighbors get along with each other and created peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, and we've done such a great and wonderful job in going along with anything Dick Cheney tells Bush to do that we cancel all debt and end all taxes and hereby decry and decree that our work is done and we hereby abandon, end and abolish Congress as superfluous, our job having been completed."

Praise the Lord

hey guys, saying it don't make it so!

Saying...oh, this war was to protect Israel.

What the fuck happened to that 45 min imminent threat that justifies preemptive strike.

95 to 2..... So, Sen. Clintin voted yea. Among others...hell, among ALL of them.

This is worse than that absurd post-invasion Kudos letter to the Bush Admin that everyone signed......(that Pelosi pushed through)

Conquer the M.E. to help Israel re-draw its historical map.

Why do many muslims hate us? Why, they hate our freedoms, of course!

/sarcasm

1. Israel is always going to be paranoid and inclined to exaggerate any perceived threat.

2. Saddam did not possess weapons to seriously threaten Israel. Israeli intelligence likely knew this was the case.

3. Other nations in the region did not feel threatened by Saddam-in-a-box.

What's the point?

And it did overwealmingly.

opinion.

WHy would they so blatantly outline the war as a protection of Israel...and why wasn't this told to the people of the United States..

Why don't the dems bring this up as deception...or mistruths...and here they all basically say "this is for Israel"...

I know corporations own our politicians...the silence of truth

The only difference between DU and the rest of the world is we know about this stuff. Watch out, because we are learning to network. Look at the Dean campaign.

were simply uninformed?

Israel. Does this admit that Israel is running this country. Why the hell is the whole preamble (so to speak) about Israel??? Gee, Bush has used every excuse in the book BUT he hasn't used the "we did it for Israel" excuse yet. This is disgusting----and we know that Saddam was obviously no more a threat to Israel than he was to the US of A. What shit....I mean what 87B and counting shit. Who owns our government----well, I guess this just answered our question. Glad I'm being billed for Israel.....send the bill to them.

has been lied to....

Will be our undoing, and Israel's as well, in the long run.

Wake up folks! The Dems are not on our side.

Or at least not on any side I'm on.

And the Democratic Party is fundamentally committed to Isreal's sucurity.

...is that the war in Iraq was justified, since they all agreed that it 'enhanced Israel's security' right? (of course, it's a very easy argument that it did NOT enhance Israel's security, since it further deepend bitterness in the Middle East).

And THAT's the stupid thing that the Democrats in the Senate did by signing on to this 'purely symbolic' measure. They handed Bush his war justification on a platter.

Again.

I can't believe that they all signed onto this. Kennedy? Byrd?

:wtf:

Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Not Voting
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Not Voting
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Not Voting
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00384

Hence my disappointment and my :wtf:

"in securing the realm". Like it or not, a lot of Dems in power are really on board the "redraw" ship.

NT!