How Can There Even Be A Debate About Webb-Hagel?

[babylonsister]

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=BD375A993113042FDF2EF9442264A9CD?diaryId=96

How Can There Even Be A Debate About Webb-Hagel?
by: jamesboyce
Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 11:05:38 AM EDT

So two decorated military veterans who are currently U.S. Senators place a very smart, very good Amendment on a Military Spending Bill, and what happens?

There is a debate between right wing chickenhawks and their media lap dogs on one side, and Chuck Hagel and Jim Webb on the other. What is going on here? This is pure insanity.

Bobby Muller over at Veterans For America wrote a nice post about this and how Webb-Hagel will do so much for our men and women when they serve, and when they are home.

So what part of Webb-Hagel are the Republicans having such trouble with? Believe it or not, it's the part that says after they serve in Iraq, men and women would get an equal amount of time at home before they go back.

In other words, if someone is in Iraq for 15 months, they get to be at home for 15 months before they have to go back.

This seems reasonable and fair. Here's something from The Richmond Times on it.

"Webb is a former Navy secretary, a Vietnam War veteran and father of a Marine lance corporal who was deployed to Iraq.

Webb wants to require that an active-duty service member would get a minimum period at home equal to his most recent deployment. For members of the National Guard and Reserve, the ratio for deployment to a minimum time at home would be 1 to 3.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, criticized Webb's proposal to reporters.

It "is an encroachment on the constitutional rights of the president of the United States and the presidential authority of the president . . . in that he alone is the commander in chief and would set deployments," McCain said."

So will Webb-Hagel pass? It's unclear. But what is absolutely certain is that yet again, the Right is Wrong when it comes to our men and women in uniform. Dead wrong.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Yep--two guys who have "been there" and who don't want to see

our troops being abused like slaves--I can't even BELIEVE this has a chance of not passing. McCain is fucked-up--you'd think he'd have more sympathy for the troops (being a vet and the father of one of them) than for the whims of the Commander In Chief, but nope. This definitely tells me he is unfit for the office--glad he's imploding.

[babylonsister]

3. I'm astonished the rethugs are pulling this, too. Funny way they have

of supporting the troops.

[Mass]

2. Good question - However, last time I checked, Hagel was still the lone Republican to co-sponsor this

among 32 Democrats and 1 Independant (Sanders, not Lieberman).

[TwilightGardener]

5. Hagel might be to blame for that--first off, Repubs do NOT want to

be associated with him, which is why they won't sponsor. Second, this amendment is kind of an offshoot of the "Murtha Plan", which the Repugs called "slow bleed" because it may have impacted the troops available for the (permanent) Surge. Hagel was publicly interested in Murtha's plan, and that may have hurt Webb's amendment purely by association.

[blondeatlast]

4. So now, the RRRepublicans SUPPORT the Constitution but not the troops?

It "is an encroachment on the constitutional rights of the president of the United States and the presidential authority of the president . . . in that he alone is the commander in chief and would set deployments," McCain said."

I think I've figured out the RRRepublicans--they simply NEVER actually think out what they say and do. I know my life would be a lot easier if I could do that, but far less rich.

Assholes--and my Senator, McCain, is king of them all.

My apologies, America--I've done what I can to stop the bastard.

[Tesha]

6. It would force Bush's hand on his abuse of the military.

Right now, Bush is abusing the military and getting
away with. Like the colonels in Catch 22, he's
ordering ever-longer deployments and bringing more
and more of our non-Army/non-Marine forces into the
ground war so that he can keep the battle going with
the paltry numbers now enlisted in our Armed Forces.

If the grunts were ever granted real leave from the
battle, there wouldn't be enough cannon fodder to
do the job so Bush would be forced into calling for
a draft or some other means of greatly-enlarging
our forces.

Tesha