« Previous | Main | Next »

Senate Rejects Mandated 'Dwell Time' for Troops

Share

September 19, 2007 6:03 PM

ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf Reports: Republican Senators were able to hold their line yet again and defeated an amendment to the Defense policy bill that would have mandated the President give equal time stationed at home as deployed to troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The vote on the "dwell time" amendment was thought to have been Democrats best chance to pass any sort of binding policy constrictions on the Bush administration as it prepares to slowly wind down its surge policy, but makes plans to remain in Iraq through 2008 and beyond.

"Put yourself in the mind of a soldier who has just finished a 15 month deployment in Iraq," Webb said to Senators in a floor speech. He said the Senate owed it to the troops serving in Iraq to mandate them time away from the war zone, with their families.

Senators will now vote on a non-binding Republican alternative to the Webb-Hagel amendment offered by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Democrats did pick up support from Sen. Tim Johnson, the South Dakota Democrat who was recovering from brain injury during past votes but lost the important support of Virginia Republican John Warner, who had supported a similar measure just two months ago.

Democrats tried till the last minute to gain more Republican support, but ultimately fell short.

"Just because some Republicans are choosing obstruction doesn't mean all Republicans should follow in lock step," admonished Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just before the vote.

In speech on the Senate floor, Warner said his mind was changed on the vote because there have been some military strides made by the surge and several Generals from the pentagon made an impassioned plea to him today about how the measure would tie their hands in prosecuting the war.

Webb had tried to address these concerns by adding waivers on the mandated dwell time for national emergency into the language of the bill.

September 19, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (14)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Well, I guess the Republicans have proved that they hate our troops. It is such a shame!!!

In sorrow,

Lucy

Posted by: Lucy Geyser | Sep 19, 2007 6:44:48 PM

Lucy, you don't have a clue. Congress has no constitutional authority to micromanage war. The party that despises the military is obviously the democrats, who have proven it time and again. This was just another tiresome political bill aimed at the defeat of the US.

Posted by: DJ | Sep 19, 2007 7:33:55 PM

LIKE THIS IS A BIG SUPRISE...... NOT... It will never happen... no matter which party is in power.... Reid is an idiot, all this was for show, to appease the lefties, to PRETEND the Dems are actually trying to take the Commander’s constitution powers away from him…oh, guess it gives ABC and the rest of the Media something to fill the Air time with….

Posted by: FidoNY | Sep 19, 2007 8:15:29 PM

Why am I not surprised? No one in either party gives a damn. They all have hidden agendas. I care, so do relatives of the troops. When they have served two or three times, come home safely, then are sent back, that's like telling them "it's only your life." Someone has to be reasonable and give these kids a break. Enough is too much!The dems are only making a statement, and Bush is too stubborn. Then the troops come back with all sorts of limbs missing, their minds not working, and no place to get proper care. This is a shameful situation and getting worse, not better. Is anyone awake in Washington?
atticusjo<><>M<><>

Posted by: Marge Griffin | Sep 19, 2007 9:50:22 PM

You guys just continue to blindly follow your party...into ruin. How sad that you think that giving troops more time off is a bad thing. The generals pled with Warner because they know that the troops are spread too thin to have any reasonable time off. SHAME ON YOU!! Support our troops! Don't you think that after 15 months they should have some time to spend with their families?

Posted by: moderateistheway | Sep 20, 2007 6:35:20 AM

People who have nothing to lose talk real big and continue to back a war and president solely because they stand on the same side of the political fence. They don't send their children to die and they would never go themselves. It's safer to sit in front of their computers and reverberate the talking points put out by conservative radio and the white house. They have no mind of their own. They are the real cowards.

Posted by: DK | Sep 20, 2007 7:13:20 AM

DK: Exactly. Unfortunately, these people are running our governement and their supporters continue to vote them in. It amazes me, that even with Gates admitting that the war was probably wrong, they still blindly continue the "stay the course" retoric. 5 years and a trillion dollars later.....

Posted by: moderateistheway | Sep 20, 2007 7:19:49 AM

I will never ever vote for a Republican again.... This Republican adminastration is heartless... Never again will i vote Republican..

Posted by: Sam Williams | Sep 20, 2007 7:33:20 AM

You people who talk about "sending children off to die in war" are idiots! These are adults, not kids. They are volunteers and professional soldiers, not draftees. They have sworn an oath to the military and our constitution by their OWN CHOICE. They believe in their mission, and they want Washington to let them complete it. Grow up!

Webb's and Murtha's "Slow Bleed" strategy was a big bunch of crap. Its purpose was not to give anybody rest, but to deliberately make our military forces less flexible and less capable. Why do you think the commanders pled with Warner to oppose it?

Their commanders care about the troops, know their limits, and know when they need rest. Not Congress.

Slow Bleed is meant to reduce our effectiveness, slow our progress, get more troops killed, and get more civilians killed. That way, the Libs can point to the increased violence and lack of progress, and demand "redeployment." They can get their surrender and still get to blame Bush for the Loss! Win for Dems and MoveOn--defeat for America, the Iraqi people and freedom!

Posted by: children? | Sep 20, 2007 11:17:52 AM

Shame on the Republicans. As more actual journalists report on the tremendous psychological toll this unprovoked war is having on our troops, the Repubs can't let them recover a bit of sanity with their families.
The Iraq situation can not be won militarily. It is a civil war. Our troops signed up to protect our country, not to invade others without provocation, not to settle civil wars.

Posted by: Lydia | Sep 20, 2007 5:42:01 PM

Seems to me most of you idiots don't even understand what a civil war is....fellow coutrymen killing each other on a wholesale level, exactly the opposite of the present situation in Iraq. Your 'civil war' is being waged by Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians, etc., etc. and is planned and financed by Iran and Russia.(Putin was a mid-level administrator my ass!). Remember, in this country we stacked 'em up about 750,000 high to win the freedom for African-Americans and to me, it was worth it!
Furthermore, for those of you that are worried our soldiers aren't getting enough 'rest' remember that during WW II our guys didn't rotate back home every 15 months. My Grandfather spent 27 months (in a row) in combat and didn't complain.

Posted by: Tony | Sep 21, 2007 8:31:59 PM

Tony, if you're so gung-ho about the Iraq war, go do what your grandfather did and go over there for three enlistments and don't come home for several years, if you live that long...quit fighting wars to the last drop of other peoples' blood....and you're wrong, 95 percent of the insurgency are NOT foreign fighters in Iraq...Oh, and I'm always surprised to find a Bush supporter these days still left: like seeing an ostrich with its head stuck fast in the sand).

Posted by: JL | Sep 22, 2007 11:11:43 AM

'We support the troops' but we believe in:
1)grinding them into the dirt with eternal re-deployments;
2)bringing them back home, if they make it alive but wounded, to trashed out VA hospitals with long waiting lines;
3)letting their families pass the hat to make ends meet because they aren't paid enough;
4)denying them adequate rest times between tours of duty
5)court marshalling lower-level troops when they do their duty, so that their superiors can avoid taking responsibility for their lousy policies;
6)deny our troops adequate body armor,vehicles, etc so they are easy prey to IED's....

Oh yeah, if they were truthful Republicans would admit that they really support the President, not our troops...because our president is NOT looking out for our troops..but Bushie-kneejerkers ARE looking out for their president, actually, NOT for the troops.

Posted by: JL | Sep 22, 2007 11:20:45 AM

Sometimes Congress needs to let the MILITARY handle things, such as troop rotation. For one thing, it entails replacing a unit or company with FRESH troops for the length of time the old one was in combat. For another, they don't go home(that's what Rest & Relaxation is for!), they get assigned to a non-combat area.
The President and Republicans refuse to initiate the draft for this purpose, because it MAKES SENSE.
Also, the maximum length of time for a soldier to be in combat is now 200 days.
In Iraq, this translates to serving most of your original 12 month tour before getting R&R, which is 2-3 months. Then when you get back, you go right back into the fray. But only individuals, leave, not units or companies.
Rumsfeld and the scum in the White House set this nasty business up. They call it 'tours of duty' when they go home for a spell.
All they've done is extend the original 12 month tour in 2003 into one, long, drawn-out tour with a few breaks.
I'm sick to death of self-proclaimed Congressional 'patriots supporting the troops' driving our soldiers like mules. Congressional Republicans and Democrats alike should all be horse-whipped and dragged to their local VA's in their home states, to heal their wounds.

Posted by: shortnativetexan | Sep 22, 2007 11:33:06 AM

Post a comment