Amazing, you’d think that we wouldn’t need a law to enforce something like this:
With bipartisan support, the House is expected today to take up legislation that would make it clear that U.S. laws apply to all armed private contractors hired for overseas missions.
Of course, the Bush-republicans can’t even support something as common sense as that:
However, the White House, backed by some of its allies in Congress, expressed "grave concerns"
Oh, this is just rich… Rush “disqualified from the Vietnam draft due to a pilonidal cyst” Limbaugh calls American troops that oppose the Iraq war “phony soldiers”:
LIMBAUGH: “Save the — keep the troops safe” or whatever. I — it’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER: No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
Here you have Rush, who got out of serving in Vietnam ’cause he had a boil on his ass, calling American war veterans “phony soldiers” because they oppose a war that Bush-republicans support and, of course, there’s no one in the traditional media calling Bush-republicans out on their hypocrisy.
Remember, this week Bush-republicans forced a vote in Congress condemning the MoveOn ad that, rightly, pointed out how General Petraeus acted as a political operative for the Bush administration when the General appeared before Congress.
Well, I think John Amato has it right:
I’m calling on the Senate to pass an amendment or uphold their latest one and condemn Rush Limbaugh’s cowardly acts on our troops! Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne in Iraq wrote a NY Times op-ed — criticizing the war in Iraq, and had the bravery to suggest that it was time to develop an exit strategy. Two of them just died. Are they phonies, Rush? Where’s the “sense of the Senate” on this outrage?
UPDATE: This is more like it… from Congressman John Hall:
Dems ARE condemning Rush Limbaugh for his repeated attacks against our service members. Enough is enough.
I know that there is a back and forth about whether another condemnation is worth the time. I happen to believe it is in this case. Therefore, I’m introducing a resolution that shows emphatically that Congress will not condone ad hominem political attacks on U.S. troops. On Monday, I’m introducing legislation to express the Sense of Congress that this body rejects and condemns Limbaugh’s heinous remarks, and will continue to engage in a debate on ending our involvement in Iraq that eschews character-based attacks on our Armed Forces. Hopefully, this will end the back and forth so we can focus our efforts on ending the war.
Looks like Senator Lieberman and his fellow neo-conservatives are not happy with just one war, they’ll like to start another, right smack in the middle of the powder keg that’s the Middle East:
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) spoke forcefully this afternoon on the Senate floor against the Lieberman-Kyl amendment. Durbin described the “sense of the Senate” legislation as a “dangerous effort to put us on the record for the use of military force in Iran.”
Noting that the language of the amendment suggests the use of “military instruments,” Durbin said:
What does that mean? Does that mean we are supporting the invasion of Iran? That we are supporting military tactics against Iran? Shouldn’t we be extra careful in the language of these resolutions when we find that the authorization for force for Iraq has dragged us into a war now in its fifth year, a war longer than World War II with bloody and deadly consequences for the United States and innocent Iraqis.
Looks like Petraeus’s direct boss doesn’t think much of the General:
WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) – In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus’s superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.
Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickenshit” and added, “I hate people like that”, the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.
[...]
The policy context of Fallon’s extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus’s agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration’s effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.
In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush’s troop increase. According to a report in The Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell’s office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.
Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus’s role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia — the area for which Fallon’s CENTCOM is responsible.
The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region.
Maybe the ad isn’t far off the mark, after all.
UPDATE: Here’s a great point-by-point take on the whole MoveOn ad and today’s successful Senate resolution against the ad — which passed with too many Democrats voting against their base.
I’m a huge fan of this guy. Here’s his take on Petraeus’s sales job of Bush’s Iraq escalation…. seems about right to me.
