Bush manages to unite the Senate...Senate urges Bush to outline Iraq plan.

Senate Urges Bush to Outline Iraq Plan By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

Wed Nov 16, 3:48 AM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051116/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq;_ylt=Ah0mctzqAin9omB6yJxl_Xas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

WASHINGTON - The GOP-controlled Senate rejected a Democratic call Tuesday for a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq but urged President Bush to outline his plan for "the successful completion of the mission" in a bill reflecting a growing bipartisan unease with his Iraq policies.

The overall measure, adopted 98-0, shows a willingness to defy the president in several ways despite a threatened veto. It would restrict the techniques used to interrogate terrorism suspects, ban their inhuman treatment and call for the administration to provide lawmakers with quarterly reports on the status of operations in Iraq.

Bush, traveling in Japan, said he is happy to keep Congress informed of his plan to bring democracy to Iraq.

"It is important that we succeed in Iraq ... and we're going to," Bush said during a press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. "The only way that we won't succeed is if we lose our nerve and the terrorists are able to drive us out of Iraq by killing innocent lives."

The bill was not without victories for the president, including support for the military tribunals Bush has set up to try detainees at the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Yet even that was tempered, with language letting the inmates appeal to a federal court their designation as enemy combatants and their sentences.

The Senate's votes on Iraq showed a willingness even by Republicans to question the White House on a war that's growing increasingly unpopular with Americans.

Polls show Bush's popularity has tumbled in part because of public frustration over Iraq, a war that has claimed the lives of more than 2,000 American troops.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the outcome was "a vote of no confidence on the president's policies in Iraq." Republicans "acknowledged that there need to be changes made," he said.

But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., trumpeted the chamber's rejection of the Democratic call for a withdrawal timetable.

"It is an absolute repudiation of the cut-and-run strategy put forward by the Democrats," Frist said.

Bush also highlighted the rejection of the withdrawal amendment, calling it a "positive step."

"The Senate did ask that we report on progress being made in Iraq, which we're more than willing to do," Bush said. "That's to be expected. That's what the Congress expects. They expect us to keep them abreast of a plan that is going to work."

The fate of the legislation is uncertain. The House version of the bill, which sets Pentagon policy and authorizes spending, doesn't include the Iraq language or any of the provisions on the detention, interrogation or prosecution of terrorism suspects.

The measure faces a veto threat from the administration over a provision that imposes a blanket prohibition on the use of "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of terrorism suspects in U.S. custody.

Even so, the Senate's political statement was clear

As the late Supreme Court Justice William Brennan pointed out:

The concept of military necessity is seductively broad, and has a dangerous plasticity. Because they invariably have the visage of overriding importance, there is always a temptation to invoke security

I thought this was hilarious considering how the Senate is so split along party lines, that even they got together and have asked him for the same thing...

Speaks Volumes...

Speaks volumes about liberal pussies.

Let

Speaks volumes about liberal pussies.

 

Let

The whole point of this post is that its not just the Democrats but the Republicans as well who want to know when we're getting out of Iraq, they are saying they want it too be in 2006 and that Iraq should be left to deal on their own...Thats pretty harsh, how many men and women do we have over there and little more then a year to pull out???

Well, the Democrats are stirring a pot of shit to see if it will stink more...and pots of shits stirred always seem to stink more... The Republicans break out the deodorant to weaken the stirring but support the stink. I think the Republicans should have, as they did voted down the Democratic amendment to cut and run and then voted down their own counter measure, the watered down version of cut and run... The politics places soldiers in a position of...if I get killed tomorrow will I be a hero or will I be as welcome as a recruiter in San Francisco school? A soldier may ask him/herself are these dick licking politicians and voters worth defending?

If we stay there for ten years it still won't be any better then it is now. As soon as we leave, whether it be neek week or 10 years from now, the different factions throughout Iraq will fight like mad to decide power, and it won't be by way of democratic election.

Good point, a better point would be if we are serious about solving the terror problem then why not invade Syria and Iran? We need to kill the people who are supporting the deaths of our soldiers, or not? If we don’t kill those who send people to kill our family then when we leave they get stronger.

Personally, I think cut and run is a great policy if we nuke Iraq, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia when the troops are there no longer. Democrats suck turtle dicks!

Well, the Democrats are stirring a pot of shit to see if it will stink more...and pots of shits stirred always seem to stink more... The Republicans break out the deodorant to weaken the stirring but support the stink. I think the Republicans should have, as they did voted down the Democratic amendment to cut and run and then voted down their own counter measure, the watered down version of cut and run... The politics places soldiers in a position of...if I get killed tomorrow will I be a hero or will I be as welcome as a recruiter in San Francisco school? A soldier may ask him/herself are these dick licking politicians and voters worth defending?

 

Good point, a better point would be if we are serious about solving the terror problem then why not invade Syria and Iran? We need to kill the people who are supporting the deaths of our soldiers, or not? If we don

Your missing the point of what has happened in the congress if your sitting there pointing the finger at Liberals here.

"The overall measure, adopted 98-0, shows a willingness to defy the president in several ways despite a threatened veto. It would restrict the techniques used to interrogate terror detainees, ban their inhuman treatment and call for the administration to provide lawmakers with quarterly reports on the status of operations in Iraq."

Please note that 98-0 would seem to include BOTH sides.

"The Senate then voted 79-19 in favor of a Republican alternative stating that 2006 "should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty," with Iraqi forces taking the lead in providing security to create the conditions for the phased redeployment of U.S. forces."

These kinds of numbers are evidence that Bushs Republican Senators are turning on him...You can hate Bush and not be a Liberal...

No some of the Republicans are changing their opinion based on bias polls and media to the left on this issue. After all they are politicians.

What do you think the insurgents will do if they know we have a cut of time established to cut and run? They