All the Republican hypocrites who voted against the Webb amendment who are up for re-election (folks like Dole, McConnell, Domenici, Stevens, Sunnunu, Collins, etc.) have just made their reelection a lot harder. Democrats are going to hang this around their neck, and take them down. Winning 9 seats for a filibuster proof 60 seats in the Senate is becoming more, not less, likely. To end the war we must end Republican rule of the Senate! That may be the best outcome of yesterday's disappointing Senate vote.

and this is what I wanted this diary to be about. The Republicans voted NO because they are not driven by justice, charitableness, nor fairness to the troops and their families.

So when they vote NO such as they did yesterday, Democrats need to "go to the streets" (electorate) immediately with the "argument".  It needs to be simple, clear, evidenced, and logical.

In this case the thesis (soundbite) is Republicans do not support the troops and their families.

The background is the incontrovertible evidence of their NO vote on Webb's amendment.

The reasons to prove they do not support the troops are listed in 1 thru 5 above plus other evidence such as the Walter Reed scandal, improperly armoured vehicles in a war zone, stop loss orders on military personnel, the overuse of the national guard, a broken military that possibly could not support us in a new front.

If Republicans really supported the troops and this Iraq War, there would be a war tax to pay for the proper armament and costs and a conscription to get the necessary number of troops in order to win.  That is what is required. 

So the bottom line: Republicans are willing to  allow these troops to be whipped to death, literally, or be monstrously wounded because of poorly armoured vehicles.  God forgive us.

To put a fine point on it, "c--kteasers" was the word used by men of my generation to categorize girls who acted as Warner just did.

In a previous comment I went into Warner's background, and yesterday's vote is an example of this "distinguished icons" usual crapola.  It is an perfect example of why our reps should not cave in when they have a chance to attack Republicans.

None of those who Webb hoped to turn voted for his bill, not surprising after Warner, the Icon, screwed him.  What could the Generals have told Warner that changed his mind?  Was there any argument that he, at this stage, could not have known they would present?  Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote today that pressure was applied by the White House, and to this Warner caved.  Which is why, at the end of the day, we cannot believe the Republican teasings that the naive always fall for.

After all those noble promises have been made by the Republicans that they will armor our brave, fighting troops, feed the hungry young, guard our nation's borders against those Hispanics who are roofing our homes and cutting up the Colonel's chickens, and bring democracy to the now reduced-in-size Iraqui families, we will always find, as we now do, that our troops were not properly armored, and who gives a damn ("We fight with the army we have"--Rummy), that funds have been cut off for feeding hungry schoolkids who depend on school food for their one decent daily meal, that less than 20 miles of border fencing has been erected and few additional border guards hired, and that the Iraquis would rather have had their wives, sons and daughters alive under Saddam than dead under Bush (and jam democracy where the sun doesn't shine!

Don't  believe Republicans.

Why the Dem.s can get this simple and pure point out is beyond my knowledge level:

IF YOU SUPPORT THE TROOPS, YOU WANT THEM TO BE WELL RESTED BOTH PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY; OTHERWISE YOU ARE AGAINST THE TROOPS, PERIOD!

Nothing is difficult about this concept. 

I am still not convinced that Reps do not support the military anymore than I am convinced all Dems support the message of MoveOn against Petreaus and the military. What I am unclear on is why it is so many act as though we are not at war or feel this whole war on terrism is a farse. In speaking with members of my community that were stateside during WWII and lived through both Korean and of course Vietnam these measures in their view have little to do with the soldiers themselves as they do for political gain. These folks have seen it before. These measures are simply perceived as a method to end the war and its disingenius to believe otherwise. I have to admit they may have a point. I was informed that soldiers in Europe would be over in WWII "until victory" and some stayed overseas two or more years. Now I realize that was entiely different time, but in those folks minds today in the era of telecom, internet, etc families are more in contact with the military soldiers than ever and again they are simply struck by the sheer lack of support for the entire endeavor. In 1944 it could take months for a letter to get home and know the internet has instant messaging. I love older folks, brutally straight forward and no BS and it appears the ranks of independents are growing with this demographic more than any other thanks to dividewefail.org.In the beginning I was really following the line concerning the Vietnam and Iraq, but it seems at least politically in Washington it is turning that way. By the time Abrams had begun to shape the war and move positively it was too late because the polticians had lost the will during Westmorelands tenure. It may be a mute point since we do not have the ability or number to sustain levels or deployments come Spring, but it sure would be a great read if an historian drew the parallels for us.

Republicans go on and on about how much they honor the troops. And they do, as long as honoring the troop is all about moving their jaws.

However, as soon as they are asked to walk their talk, as soon as they are asked to vote on giving them more rest, which they have earned and deserve, they show how much contempt they have for them by denying them rest and time with their families.

Republicans in congress have proven that they would much rather support their lame duck president than side with justice and give the troops a deserved rest.

This is what the issue is about: Republicans denied our soldiers deserved rest and time with their families when asked to do so.

Republicans denied our soldiers the chance to hold in their arms the babies that they haven't met.

Republicans denied our soldiers the chance to toss a football with his oldest children in their yards in the afternoons.

Republican denied our soldier the chance to save their marriages by being able to look at their spouses in their eyes, hug them, and tell them, 'I love you'.

Because all what Republicans care about is "winning" a war they can't explain or justify, or even describe how we can win it.

In the mean time Republicans will happily sacrifice  the families of our soldiers, the health of our soldiers, and the lives of our soldiers.

May God warm their heartless, warmongering hearts, and spare them from the punishment that they so richly deserve for the pain that they cause to the families of our troops.

First, the sacrifice was being asked across the board of all Americans, and rich and poor were in the ranks both as draftees and the enlisted. 

Second, most of the young soldiers did not have spouses and children.  And with the larger, more extended families of those days there tended to be more support for those who did.  The spouses and children would move in with the grandparents or other relatives and most of them were from the same town.  In addition, the children didn't feel like the odd ducks out in their schools because everyone knew or had someone in the military.

Third, there were clear, definable, and observable objectives in WWII.  A stateside civilian could follow the progress of our military across the globe with the maps and accounts published in the papers.  The bad guys were in uniform, the tactics and strategy were for the most part conventional, and we really were the liberators for most of the places we went, right up until we got into Germany and Japan.  We weren't trying to occupy all those countries, and when we made it to Japan and Germany we didn't pretend that we weren't an occupation.  We also didn't blunder in our administration of either country as this administration has.

The fact is that without the draft we are using the same people over and over and over for combat operations, and when they're in combat they don't come out of it for hundreds of days at a time.  This is in stark contrast to the policies of WWII where we usually took our combat people off the line after a month or two and rested them in the rear for weeks or months before sending them forward again.