19 Republicans vote to protect terrorists who kill U.S. Troops

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
Shame on them. Especially McCain.

19 Republican Senators think the terrorists who murdered these two US soldiers today deserve amnesty

19 US Senators, all Republicans, voted today to in favor of giving amnesty to terrorists who kill US soldiers in Iraq. You can find their names below - the "nay" votes are the ones who support amnesty for terrorists.

Here's the text of the amendment as submitted:
SEC. 1209. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE GRANTING OF AMNESTY TO PERSONS KNOWN TO HAVE KILLED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The Armed Forces of the United States and coalition military forces are serving heroically in Iraq to provide all the people of Iraq a better future.

(2) The Armed Forces of the United States and coalition military forces have served bravely in Iraq since the beginning of military operations in March of 2003.

(3) More than 2,500 members of the Armed Forces of the United States and members of coalition military forces have been killed and more than 18,000 injured in operations to bring peace and stability to all the people of Iraq.

(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States; and

(2) the President should immediately notify the Government of Iraq that the Government of the United States strongly opposes granting amnesty to persons who have attacked members of the Armed Forces of the United States.

repubsforterrorists-774960.jpg


http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/06/19-republican-senators-think.html
 
He probably screwed up reading the bill. The title makes you believe that its to give amnesty but the actual wording of the bill is the opposite, "should not grant amnesty." Who the fuck wrote this bill anyway? Its obvious that they were trying to trick other senators.
 
Are you assuming that there's a massive reading problem in the U.S. Senate?

That would explain a lot. Not everything, but a lot.
 
Not that there's a reading problem but that the bill was worded oddly. I understood where there could be a mistake.

The fact that 19 anyone would have voted against this is reprehensible. I kinda give up on American politics. Jesus.
 
Isn't attacking soldiers what you're supposed to do in a conflict? I don't see them saying any particular acts done in the process are the problem, simply attacking u.s. troops.
 
I highly doubt that any of the nay votes on this issue were mistakes: several of those senators argued quite passionately on the Senate floor for the granting of amnesty to terrorists:

“If they bore arms against our people," said Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, "What's the difference between those people that bore arms against the Union in the War between the States? What’s the difference between the Germans and Japanese and all the people we’ve forgiven?”

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) likened the granting of amnesty to former insurgents to efforts that earned Nelson Mandela a Nobel prize. "Forgiveness," he said, "has been a major factor in what has been a political miracle in Africa."

Senator Saxby Chambliss argued that forgiveness had already been at work in Iraq, asking: “Is it not true today that we have Iraqis who are fighting the war against the insurgents, who at one time fought against American troops and other coalition troops as they were marching to Baghdad, who have now come over to our side and are doing one heck of a job of fighting along, side by side, with Americans and coalition forces, attacking and killing insurgents on a daily basis?"

Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and John Cornyn (R-TX) each took to the floor to argue that there should be no argument--that debate over whether or not to condemn the actions of the new government were merely distractions from real debate.

“…Might it not just be as useful an exercise to be trying to pass a resolution commending the Iraqi government for the position that they’ve taken today with regard to this discussion of Amnesty?” asked McConnell.
Click to expand...

Most likely the position would have gotten a fair number move votes if it wasn't for the 'unfortunate' timing of the kidnapping/torture/murder of US soldiers.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Are you assuming that there's a massive reading problem in the U.S. Senate?

That would explain a lot. Not everything, but a lot.[/QUOTE]

Regardless of this particular bill, yes I think there is a massive reading problem in the Senate. There's far too many Senators who don't even read the fucking bill they're voting on, they just rely on their aides to read it for them or whatever. The sad thing is that many of them don't seem to be ashamed of that fact either.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Regardless of this particular bill, yes I think there is a massive reading problem in the Senate. There's far too many Senators who don't even read the fucking bill they're voting on, they just rely on their aides to read it for them or whatever. The sad thing is that many of them don't seem to be ashamed of that fact either.[/QUOTE]

The real problem is that they have every reason to not read bills; it's a common tactic to add so many riders for unrelated topics to a given bill that it really is impossible to read everything, and it further obscures what should be straightforward votes, like tacking a rider that makes it legal to punch children in the throat to a bill for funding to take care of sick nuns or something, which political enemies often later use as fodder: "Mr. X voted against helping sick nuns, the rotten bastard!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top