Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

House Passes REST For Troops- - - progress, I hope!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-02-07 02:57 PM
Original message
House Passes REST For Troops- - - progress, I hope!
House Passes Rest for Our Troops
August 2nd, 2007 by Jesse Lee

The House has just passed H.R. 3159, Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act by a vote of 229-194. The bill mandates troop rest times equal to their deployment times, similar to an amendment by Senator Jim Webb, D-Va supported by 56 Senators as an amendment to the defense authorization bill. It would require active duty forces to be guaranteed that their time at home match the length of their deployment. National Guard and reservists would be home for three times the length of the deployments. The bill would allow the President to waive these requirements to meet the national security needs of the country, and allow Service Chiefs of Staff to allow for the voluntary mobilization of members. These requirements would apply to those serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The bill also expresses a sense of the Congress that the goal for the time between deployments for regular components should be one year deployed to two years at home station, and the goal for the reserve components should be one year deployed to five years at home station.

more...

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=653
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-02-07 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. I hope so, too
I have a feeling the Rs will filibust in the Senate, though.

IMHO, this sort of effort is more effective than "end the war" initiatives. Bush can't continue his war if he has to treat our soldiers decently, and it's harder for the Rs to argue that out troops don't need the rest than it is for them to support the war in general.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-02-07 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Their prior behavior when this came up with Webb's bill is not encouraging;
the majority of rethugs wanted * to set the agenda, not the Senate, knowing full well this would put a big crimp in the chimp's war plans. It sure would be nice if they acted like ethical humans and passed this because they support the troops and it would be the right thing to do. But no-o-o-o!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pepperbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-02-07 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. and this is how they support the troops in Republican land.....
Edited on Thu Aug-02-07 03:05 PM by pepperbear
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-02-07 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. FreeRepublic has never supported the troops
Just like the good little Nazis that they truly are they have always supported their Fuhrer George, and they always will.

I'm beginning to truly learn how to hate these people. and it's getting easier all the time!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-02-07 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. They do keep hate alive don't they?
I think they are bored. Fuck the flag waving. Its hard work being a fake patriot. And besides those troops are all volunteers (because thank god there isn't a draft.)

Isn't it a chuckle, you'll never hear a chickenhawk calling for a draft; but what I think is a slow cooking talking point of theres is that "only liberals want the draft."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-02-07 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. There was some Congresscritter at the Tillman hearing yesterday
that actually had the nerve to make the case that Tillman enlisted, so he had to expect the inevitability of possibly getting killed. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-02-07 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Well pardon me Mr Congressman
but CPL Tillman most likely expected competent civilian leadership with a plan and who would provide him with appropriate equipment for the mission. I enlisted too and I knew death was a possibility but I never thought I'd be murdered by my shipmates when they were in the line of duty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pepperbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-02-07 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. maybe so, but not at the hands of his colleagues....
and not under suspicious circumstances that make it look like an assassination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-02-07 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. LOL!
"Why can't these moron Democrats add? March 2003 to now -- the campaign is in the fourth year."

March 2003-2004 = Year one
March 2004-2005 = Year two
March 2005-2006 = Year three
March 2006-2007 = Year four
March 2007-2008 = Year five
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-02-07 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. False Hope
Bush has already said he will veto this bill, besides it didn't get the cloture vote in the Senate when Senator Webb introduced it, so it's pretty much dead in the water.

Let's face it the Repukes don't care about health care for children and they definitely don't give damn about the troops!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-02-07 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. So hopefully nothing will stop Congress from bringing it up again and
again and again; hey, perhaps then, the media might even cover it (though I'm not holding my breath on that one)!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-02-07 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. He will veto but we will be on record -- and so will he. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC