DEMOCRATS DETERMINED ON RESOLUTION
Yesterday the Republicans stood up and were accountable. Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid attempted to force a vote on the stiff version of the non - binding Iraq resolution that called for the possibility of cutting funds among the many provision in the Resolution. The majority of Republicans stood firm and did not allow the Resolution to come to the floor thus stalling debate on the Senate floor. This Resolution was a slap in the face to our men and women in Iraq and many Republicans made it clear that Democrats were non - supportive of the troops when condemning their mission. This does not get certain Republicans off the hook for their support of a lesser version of the Resolution but it at least temporarily stops the momentum in the Senate to push for any resolution.
Democrats attempted to counter this by crying and even chanting that they support the troops but the attempt looked more like they were trying to convince themselves more than anyone else. It came across like one who brags about their prosperity only to find that the truth was just the opposite. When asked about the defeat of the vote on the Senate floor and comments made by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the GOP move Reid angrily stated only that, "they are not in charge, " referring to the GOP and his power hungry lust as Majority Leader. I suppose that with his new status Reid expects every Senator to bow to his whims and fancies but that did not happen yesterday.
Determined to force a Resolution Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced immediately that the House would pass a Resolution next week. With the Democrat majority in the House greater than that in the Senate, passage is likely.
Their determination to pass a Resolution against Iraq policy even according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates emboldens the enemy and it is a fact that as troops listen to this debate it effects their morale. This though does not matter nor will it detract from the Democrat determination to push this defeatist, morale busting, enemy supporting and ultimately security threatening Resolution.
Ken Taylor
Democrats attempted to counter this by crying and even chanting that they support the troops but the attempt looked more like they were trying to convince themselves more than anyone else. It came across like one who brags about their prosperity only to find that the truth was just the opposite. When asked about the defeat of the vote on the Senate floor and comments made by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the GOP move Reid angrily stated only that, "they are not in charge, " referring to the GOP and his power hungry lust as Majority Leader. I suppose that with his new status Reid expects every Senator to bow to his whims and fancies but that did not happen yesterday.
Determined to force a Resolution Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced immediately that the House would pass a Resolution next week. With the Democrat majority in the House greater than that in the Senate, passage is likely.
Their determination to pass a Resolution against Iraq policy even according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates emboldens the enemy and it is a fact that as troops listen to this debate it effects their morale. This though does not matter nor will it detract from the Democrat determination to push this defeatist, morale busting, enemy supporting and ultimately security threatening Resolution.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 10:47 AM
46 Comments:
So much for the principle of having an "up-or-down" vote. It just proves how hypocritical the Republican senators are now that they are in the minority.
But on the issue of the escalation, it is pretty clear that the majority of Congress - Dems and Republicans alike - are against increasing our involvement in Iraq.
Just watch what happens in the House next week. We still have to see the language for the House resolution, but it is very likely that there will be bi-partisan support when the vote takes place. Because they don't have the same rules as the Senate which allow the minority party to hold up votes, I suspect that many House Republicans will vote against the escalation. If they have to go on record, they will vote with the American people. I wouldn't be surprised if 50 Republicans (if not more) vote with the Dems in the House.
I vaguely recall a survey (can't find it, now) done just before the '06 elections that found that the majority of Americans favored a withdrawal from Iraq that included victory versus just getting out. The Dem's have interpreted their "mandate" to be get the Hell out of Iraq now. I believe a current survey that asks Americans if they favor pulling out or exiting after victory; the majority would prefer victory.
The majority of Dems are not calling for immediate withdrawal. There are some differences of opinions, but the overwhelming majority believe in a phased redeployment over a 6 month to 1 year period - not an immediate withdrawal. I am quite confident that there are many Republicans who feel the same way.
Old Soldier we have our differing opinions, but we'll be able to see what happens next week in the House. That will be the first true measure of where both Dems and Republicans in the House stand on the issue.
Putting a timetable on a withdrawal would be a gross mistake. The insurgency would just sit and wait it out, then flood into Iraq by the thousands! I can't believe everyone doesn't understand that.
Thank goodness the GOP held it's ground this time, Ken! :)
Off topic regarding your comment on MRB: I have both Firefox and IE browsers and both of them load the pictures on MRB fine, so I don't understand why they aren't loading for you. It's another computer mystery! :(
So much for the principle of having an "up-or-down" vote. It just proves how hypocritical the Republican senators are now that they are in the minority.
No Rob: What it proves is "what goes around, comes around." Dems were warned this would come back to bite them on the ass.
Like I said, Republicans don't have a principled approach.
"What goes around comes around" is not an excuse for not having principles.
It's not binding. Who cares? Let them vote. It makes them happy. They can't change anything with a non-binding resolution. They really don't want to change anything. They only want to bitch.
In the end, nothing they are bloviating about will ever get done because the only thing the Democrats are really very good at is talking. They will talk until they are back in the minority and nothing will be changed.
Let them vote. They are nothing but a joke anyway.
The purpose of the non-binding resolution is to see where Congress is on the issue. It will send a message to the President that he needs to work with Congress to change his failing strategy.
If he chooses not to change, then Congress will be forced to make changes for him - including defunding the war.
It is just the first step of the process to save Bush from his incompetence and get the country out of the mess he is responsible for.
It will send a message to the President that he needs to work with Congress to change his failing strategy.
No. It sends a message to the troops that Congress voted unanimously to have David Petraeus promoted to commander in Iraq, knowing full well his part in pushing forth the new strategy in Iraq (including the troop surge); and at the same time, is expressing no confidence and no support for the new way forward? If they didn't believe in the plan, they should not have promoted Petraeus. It is sheer politics to push forth a resolution of irresolution, that solves nothing.
And who else does it send a message to? Tehran. And the rest of our enemies. They see the handwringing and the weak-kneed leadership of the American people, and it emboldens them to keep doing what they've been doing, because it's having an effect on the American people and its weak leaders. Robert Gates said as much. David Petraeus said as much.
If he chooses not to change, then Congress will be forced to make changes for him - including defunding the war.
What are you going on about?! President Bush has changed his secretary of defense and commander in Iraq, along with a change in strategy. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. But you don't sabotage the plan, after voting to have the plan carried out.
Of course you sabotage the plan, if you're a Democrat.
The Democrats' entire policy regarding Iraq, like their policies regarding everything else, have nothing to do with what they may believe is right or wrong for the U.S. and the American people -- everything they do is purely politically motivated and will always come down exactly opposite of whatever Bush is doing, even if they were for whatever it was before Bush adopted it.
In this way, the Dems are so extremely transparent that only the totally obtuse could possibly give creedence to anything they claim to believe.
Realclearpolitics.com has a tracking poll that averages available polls. A few weeks ago, they showed that 40% of democrats WANTED the plan to fail.
That's the modern demunist party.
Changing leadership is not a change of strategy. All we are getting is more of the same - which is why there is strong bi-partisan opposition to the President's troop escalation for his failing strategy.
Practicing democracy does not hurt troops. Here is what Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace said yesterday while testifying before the House Armed Services Committee:
"There's no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy. Period."
When the resolutions come to the House floor (next week) and the Senate floor (the letter by Warner which was signed by him and 6 other Republicans will eventually lead to a Senate vote), just watch how many Republicans join in slapping down the President's foolish troop escalation.
Robert, please show me a link to the poll you are citing.
How about these polls:
Only 35 percent of active military approve of the way Bush is handling the Iraq war.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2006/12/tns.troopspol06l1229/
Fox News poll shows that 57 percent of Americans oppose Bush's troop escalation plan.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/020107_Iraq_rls_web.pdf
(Just copy and paste the links to your web browser).
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244584,00.html
Great Post Ken,
Our Troops are watching and getting pretty darn sick of this crap.
The Troops have enough to worry about without having to worry about what is going on back home.
Our Troops deserve better than they are getting out of this new Congress.
Robert, from the Fox poll you cited, it is pretty obvious the American people view Bush's escalation strategy as a mistake, as more of the same failed strategy as before, and not worth funding. Thanks for proving my point that the country is against the troop escalation. Quoting from your link:
"By 59 percent to 36 percent, Americans oppose sending more U.S. troops to Iraq."
"About one in four voters (24 percent) thinks the plan announced by Bush last week represents a "real change" in U.S. strategy in Iraq, while a majority — 61 percent — rejects that idea and says it is not a change in strategy at all."
"A clear majority of Americans — 57 percent — says if they were in Congress they would vote against funding the troop increase; 38 percent would vote for it."
The poll results are exactly why there is bi-partisan opposition Bush's war escalation.
Marie, based on the most recent Army Times poll of active military, it looks like our troops expect better than they are getting out of this president.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2006/12/tns.troopspol06l1229/
Sorry folks, the link I have put up seems to get cut off. Here is the link again:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/
2006/12/tns.troopspol06l1229/
If you still cannot cut and paste the link, just go to
www.armytimes.com
and type in Iraq poll in the search bar.
Media Silent on Clark's 9/11 Comments
Gen. says White House pushed Saddam link without evidence
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1842
6/20/03
Sunday morning talk shows like ABC's This Week or Fox News Sunday often make news for days afterward. Since prominent government officials dominate the guest lists of the programs, it is not unusual for the Monday editions of major newspapers to report on interviews done by the Sunday chat shows.
But the June 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press was unusual for the buzz that it didn't generate. Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks-- starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence.
Here is a transcript of the exchange:
CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."
RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"
CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."
Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not."
Despite its implications, Martin's report was greeted largely with silence when it aired. Now, nine months later, media are covering damaging revelations about the Bush administration's intelligence on Iraq, yet still seem strangely reluctant to pursue stories suggesting that the flawed intelligence-- and therefore the war-- may have been a result of deliberate deception, rather than incompetence. The public deserves a fuller accounting of this story.
If you'd like to encourage media outlets to investigate this story, please see FAIR's Media Contact List.
For some reason you seem to think that I don't think that the polls oppose the measure. I know that they do.
If I had it my way, we would grant everyting west of the Rockies to liberals, and they could all move to Camelot and leave the rest of us to ourselves.
Democrats including John Kerry called for more troops or to use liberal vernacular an "escalation". Even Ted Kennedy called for more troops when he was supporting Kerry's presidential campaign. Now they want a resolution rebuffing the increase in troops, which would mean keeping the number of troops static (Senator Clinton's proposal). The critique of troop levels can be summarized as follows: to few troops to get the job done, too many troops to get the job done, keep the same number of troops to get the job done, but we will cut off funding before you we get the job done.
Robert, I'm glad you recognize that you are in the ever shrinking minority of Americans who support the President and his foolish escalation plan.
It is a good thing you cannot have your way. If you could, you would destroy America just so you could live in a country free of people who don't share your political views. Do you have a name for your new, ideal country?
I have a simple question for you. If you don't believe that conservatives and liberals should live together here in the United States, then why do you want to send American soldiers to their deaths in Iraq to force Sunnis and Shia to live together in Iraq?
Good point Rob. Right wingers claim to love America, but in reality they hate Americans.
From the Military Times Poll:
While approval of Bush’s handling of the war has plunged, approval for his overall performance as president remains at 52%.
The poll also found that while the personnel believe the public has a positive view of them, they are convinced the media do not — only 39 % said they think the media have a favorable view of the troops.
“Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of those surveyed said the senior military leadership has the best interests of the troops at heart. And though they don’t think much of the way he’s handling the war, 48 percent said the same about President Bush… And only 23 percent think Congress is looking out for them.”
Rob, CJ of A Soldier's Perspective emailed me his opinion of the Military Times Poll (the military Times is not part of the military). I blogged his response here:
I honestly don't believe that the majority of troops are against the war. I think the majority of the troops are against the WAY the war is being fought. The administration has recently lifted a lot of what was preventing us from doing our job. In the past two years, the insurgents and terrorists have been able to regroup and rearm because of our policies following everything that happened with Abu Ghraib and Haditha. While I was against the surge initially, now that I know we don't have as many restrictions, I think it will help in the long run. But, I digress.
I think a lot of the negative opinion about the war has to do with two factors: 1)media and political opinion and 2) battlefield restrictions. The media and left has done a SUPERB job of making this war a political hot potato and lost cause. Our politicians have done NOTHING to encourage the American people with facts and the Soldiers hear this from all angles. It's no wonder the troops don't feel we can win this when their own politicians are saying so. They say they support the troops yet don't have the confidence in us to believe we can win.
Patriot wrote a little about this, but didn't go into too much detail at the time for some reason. My thought is that poll is being misinterpreted to think that the troops are anti-Iraq war, and I don't think that's accurate.
One of the poll questions asks "Should the U.S. have gone to war in Iraq?" Of the 944 troops polled, 199 either had no opinion or declined to answer. 390 said yes, while 355 said no. So, if you look at it with the raw numbers, the media's claim that "only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place" in not correct. In actuality, almost 52% of that answered think we should have gone in the first place. we can't speculate on what the 109 respondents would have said had they answered.
When asked "We currently have 145,000 troops in Iraq and Kuwait. How many troops do you think we should have there?" only 121 answered "0". Yet, surprisingly 363 of the 584 troops (62%) said that we need more troops in Iraq. Only 125 said we need between between 1 and 144,000.
Those numbers weren't touted in the media. I wonder why. For the record, I got all this information from the publicly available raw data. Here's something else staggering. Under many columns, there were a lot of soldiers who simply didn't answer at all. However, under the "how does the media view the military" question, only 14 of 954 left that question empty. Of those, 207 said that the Media views the military VERY UNFAVORABLY while only 57 said that the Media views the military VERY FAVORABLY. So, when you only factor in those extreme opinions about the media, over 78% of them think the media is against us. That's very telling.
I know this was long and boring, but there is a lot in the raw data that wasn't covered and analyzed. And I think I've said enough.
Rob also wrote:
Robert, I'm glad you recognize that you are in the ever shrinking minority of Americans who support the President
I love it! I'm more concerned that President Bush do the RIGHT THING, even when it may appear to be the unpopular thing to do. He's a strong leader, and history will judge him as such for not handwringing over opinion polls.
Just because you think Bush is doing the RIGHT THING, does not mean it is the RIGHT THING. In fact, given this President's long string of errors and incompetence with respect to the occupaton, there is little reason to believe he knows what he is doing.
Of course, we will see what happens over the next couple of months. Sending a few thousand troops into a city of 6 million will not do anything except get more Americans killed.
A 52% approval rating for Bush by members of the military is supposed to be good? It is down 20 points from two years ago, and in a time of war, it is ridiculously low.
Thanks for letting me know that CJ (whoever he is) thinks the poll numbers are wrong. Why should I care what CJ thinks? By the way, his discussion of the "Should the U.S. have gone to war in Iraq?" question is just inane. No legitimate statistical analysis would ever eliminate the folks who had no opinion.
There is, of course, one other factor to be considered when examining public opinion polls re Iraq: The fact that the American public is not supplied with the objective data necessary to form an informed opinion -- rather, the majority depend upon the MSM for their news, so they are only given politically driven disseminations that consist of liberal spin, omissions and inaccuracies meant to mislead the American people in a leftist, anti-Bush and anti-war direction.
Therefore, all the polls indicate is that the left is prosecuting a successful propaganda campaign.
Yes, the Fox News poll is biased. As is the Military Times poll of active military. It couldn't possibly be that Americans fully understand the disaster Bush has created in Iraq.
It tickles me heart that I have made you glad about something.
how in the world is the FoxNews poll biase? They provide the raw data on their website for all of their polls, not just report some analyzed results.
What is apparent is that a majority of Americans get their news and "analysis" from people such as William Arkin, and they get it in 30 second blurbs between commercials of "American Idol." I would like to see a poll where people are asked to explain the difference between Sunni and Shia Muslims, or the difference between a "dirty bomb" or a nuclear detonation.
History does not always prove the majority was right. A majority of people wanted to stay out of World War II, yet if we had entered the war early we may have prevented millions of Jewish deaths, and we eventually entered the war after being attacked. A majority of the people refused to confront slavery until the mid 1800's because of what it might do to the union at the time.
I am appreciative of a leader who doesn't waffle with polls. My leadership lessons from the Marine Corps always included the fact that leadership is not a popularity contest.
Good morning Ken. I've been reading through the comments here and it's quite apparent that the left will never admit the duplicity or hypocrisy of the MSM nor anything good about Bush, including the fact he's been keeping their sorry butts safe since 9/11. Mudkitty makes the moronic statement that rightwingers hate Americans. LOL! That has to be the all time dumbest comment I've ever read from her.
Mudkitty, right-wingers love America and Americans. What we hate is traitors! Try to focus.
Robert, I was being sarcastic in my response to Seth and his claims that the MSM is biased. I simply pointed out that the polls you and I had been talking about are from Fox News and the Military Times.
You are right that history does not always prove the majority right - but that certainly doesn't mean that Bush is right now. You can make excuses for his mistakes all you want, but the fact is that we have 4 years of evidence to show that he has been utterly incompetent in Iraq.
By the way, what is the name of the country you want to create and live in that would banish all folks who don't think like you?
Did anyone mention to moonbat Rob that the Democrats are preventing an "up or down" vote on the Gregg resolution.
And they are still preventing an "up or down vote" on President Bush's judicial nominees.
Furthermore, is Moonbat One aware that filibusters against judicial nominees was unprecedented until the Dems invented the tactic?
I'll be happy to post Robert Byrd's defense of minority rights for any moonbats who have flipped on a dime as usual and forgotten.
Mike and his name calling are here. That should elevate the discussion.
Three points Mike. First, it was Republicans under Clinton that started the practice of blocking judicial nominees. Please do a little bit of homework before you go off proving how ignorant you are.
Second, all of those Republicans who cried about Dems not being fair and holding up votes are proving they weren't complaining from a principled position, just a political one.
Third, aren't you glad Frist didn't impose the nuclear option? Man, then Republicans would really be up a creek.
Just because you think Bush is doing the RIGHT THING, does not mean it is the RIGHT THING.
Well, no sh*t. And conversely, just because YOU think that Bush is doing the wrong thing, doesn't mean it's the wrong thing. I recognize I was stating an opinion. What did you think I was stating?
In fact, given this President's long string of errors and incompetence with respect to the occupaton, there is little reason to believe he knows what he is doing.
And that's YOUR opinion. There have been successes and there have been failures. It's not all one way. And that's what I resent the most from people on your side: You fail to acknowledge any good. Successes are downplayed, and the failures are magnified. That's fine. I'm partisan, pro-victory. You're partisan, pro-defeat. Just realize that you have been a Bush-hating pessimist, every step of the way. A Bush defeat is more important to you than an American victory in Iraq.
Of course, we will see what happens over the next couple of months. Sending a few thousand troops into a city of 6 million will not do anything except get more Americans killed.
Yeah, that's the spirit. Geez...that kind of attitude should really help push things along, swimmingly.
Thanks for letting me know that CJ (whoever he is) thinks the poll numbers are wrong. Why should I care what CJ thinks?
Why should you think any Iraqi war veteran thinks, unless he's a Sheehanite?
CJ is the milblog owner at A Soldier's Perspective. I consider him a friend. He is a good family man, and a good patriot. Everything you could wish for in an American soldier. He has served and fought in Iraq (including at Fallujah). He's volunteered to return at least 3 times, but it's been difficult for him to get clearance, due to the fact that he suffered a back injury from having been thrown into a ravine by an explosion.
Wordsmith, you are right, that we just have our opinions. But the fact is that the majority of Americans now share my opinion. That is not an inconsequential fact.
Sorry I don't live in the world of fairy dust and dreams, and neither do the American people. Most of us (the American people) are just fed up with Bush's failures and ongoing incompetence in Iraq. A year from now when more soldiers are dead and buried and Iraq's civil war worsens, you can shrug your shoulders and say, "We tried" or "But, what about all the great things." If that makes you feel better, that's fine with me. We'll see who is right in the end.
Thanks for telling me about CJ, I'm really moved. My cousin served in Iraq as a sniper. He is a friend, a good family man and a good patriot. Everything you could wish for in an American soldier. Let's just say that he does not share your views, or CJ's views about Iraq. There, now we both have soldiers on our side - does it really make any difference?
Rob, YOU need to do your research. The republicans never refused an up or down vote on a Clinton nominee. Several of them never made it out of committe due to republican votes, but that is normal and has been done by both parties. Until Bush, there has bever been a denial of a confirmation vote on the floor itself once a committee has approved a nominee.
I wish that most of your people would be just as fed up with violence and hatred toward America, but then that would take away your reason to egt up in the morning, would it not?
And I am pondering the name of my new country....something like "The Republic of Lackofidiocy" or "The United States of Commonsensia" or something like that.
Wordsmith, you are right, that we just have our opinions. But the fact is that the majority of Americans now share my opinion. That is not an inconsequential fact.
You love repeating yourself, don't you? What ever on earth would you and Clinton do without opinion polls and popularity contests? I haven't denied you the majority opinion; but that being said, I have seen many of these polls that are biased, overpooling democrats, or misrepresenting the actual results.
Sorry I don't live in the world of fairy dust and dreams, and neither do the American people.
What is it with you and "the American people are on my side" statements? It's like you feel so insecure as to need to reassure yourself with a security blanket statement.
Most of us (the American people)
There you go again!
are just fed up with Bush's failures and ongoing incompetence in Iraq.
And I'm fed up with you defeatists who have been nothing but a ball and chain since day one.
A year from now when more soldiers are dead and buried and Iraq's civil war worsens,
There's your sunny optimism again...
you can shrug your shoulders and say, "We tried" or "But, what about all the great things." If that makes you feel better, that's fine with me. We'll see who is right in the end.
Yes, and in a hundred years from now, you can hang your head in shame and see that you were on the wrong side of history.
Thanks for telling me about CJ, I'm really moved.
Only because you asked, junior.
My cousin served in Iraq as a sniper. He is a friend, a good family man and a good patriot.
I'm grateful for his service.
Everything you could wish for in an American soldier.
Thanks for sharing!
Let's just say that he does not share your views, or CJ's views about Iraq. There, now we both have soldiers on our side - does it really make any difference?
It does when you cite the Military Times poll (another demonstration of your obsession with feeling like everyone is on your side); and when I try to point out the flaws, you throw a bitchy tantrum, rather than address the points CJ brought up. Up until this comments thread, I thought you were more mature than this. I know I haven't behaved in this myself, but I usually lower myself to the standards of who I am arguing with.
Thanks for yet another book to read Wordsmith. I got a real kick out of the "bitchy tantrum" remark.
First, we have been talking about the Fox News poll and the Military Times poll. So your unsubstantiated claim about biased polls is not really relevant.
Second, if you think I am insecure about my positions, then you clearly are not a regular here on Ken's blog.
Third, what you call being a defeatist, I call being a realist. You are a Bush cheerleader and cannot admit he has been incompetent. Standing on the sidelines and waving your pom-poms is not going to make Bush's escalation strategy work. Rather than argue about it, let's see who is right in 6-months or a year.
The "Everything you could wish for in an American soldier" comment I copied directly from your post about CJ. Or did you forget that you were the one who first wrote it?
I provided my analysis of CJ's statistical capabilities above (they are clearly very weak), and the key Military Times numbers. Since you want me to go point by point, tell me specifically what numbers you want me to discuss and I will do that for you.
Robert, so you agree that Republicans blocked "up-or-down" votes on Clinton's judicial nominees in committee. By definition, that prevents an "up-or-down" vote in the full Senate.
Are you seriously arguing that you believe in "up-or-down" votes, but certain procedural methods of blocking the vote are OK?
I think that you are a moron. There is a reason that we have committees. Especially when it comes to vetting judicial nominees. The refusal to allow a vote on the floor is from a filibuster. It has nothing to do with anythign except for obstruction. Committees are different. They are there to keep the fulls enate from wasting their time.
Otherwise, why not just bring every peice of legislation straight to the floor? By your rationale, an attempt to add an amendment to a bill is refusing to allow an up or down vote on the original bill.
Thy didn't block the casting of a vote, they voted NO and the nominee's name never made it to the floor.
Robert, please do a little bit of research. Clinton's nominees were not properly vetted. In 1997 and 1999 the Republican Senate Judiciary Committee did not even hold a single hearing on Clinton nominees. This prevented dozens of Clinton nominees to get killed by inaction. Also, look up how many Clinton nominees were killed by single Republican senators using there arcane "blue-slip" powers. (If you don't know what that means then you don't know anything about the ridiculous procedural tactics the Republicans used when they were in power). To my knowledge not a single Democrat has ever used a blue slip to kill a nominee. The Republicans didn't vet and vote on candidates when Clinton was president, they didn't even bother to hold hearings.
We could quibble about procedural rules in the Senate, and what constitutes obstruction all day. But, I don't think we really want to do that.
I will say that I find it interesting that you will now support Dems if they don't allow another Bush nominee to ever come before the full Senate. Now that Dems are in charge of the Senate Judiciary Committee and have the majority of votes, you believe that inaction, blue-slips, and just straight party-line votes are appropriate procedural methods for killing nominees.
I also find it interesting that you support Dems who want the minority Republicans to quit their stalling techniques and allow the Senate debate and vote on Bush's troop escalation plan for Iraq.
Good for you - at least you aren't a hypocrite like all of those Republicans who have changed their mind on filibusters now that Republicans are in the minority.
I don't support any tactics which obstruct a vote on judicial nominess. You will find nothing that I have said that indicates such. My point was simply that the republicans did not block a senate vote, they utilized tactics acceptable to both parties. My understanding of the consitution is that the President nominates judges, and the Senate votes to confirm. That is the way it should be. I may not approve of he nominee or their philosophy, but that is the way it is supposed to work.
I don't have a problem with filibusters in general. It is an accepted parliamentary procedure that has been in use for centuries. It is part of the protections afforded the minority party. I do, hoerver, think that filibusters are inappropriate when used to obstruct consitutonal duties, regardless of the party exercising it. To protest a budget item? Fine. To protest an earmark or something? Sure. To deny the Senate the opportunity to fulfill an consitutionally required duty? I find it reprehensible. Should the republicans decide to do this, I will speak out against it just as loudly.
I don't have a problem with the stalling of the Iraq resolution. It is meaningless except to olster a political fight. It has no bearing on the exercise of specfically delegated duties. Surely you would agree that if the dems can waste time and resources on meaningless legislation, then the republicans can waste time to preserve their interests? It seems that both parties should drop it and move on.
I am still waiting for the dems to put forth the "change" to Iraq hat was promised after the elections.
Thanks for yet another book to read Wordsmith. I got a real kick out of the "bitchy tantrum" remark.
I can tell. You're still in a bitchy mood.
First, we have been talking about the Fox News poll and the Military Times poll. So your unsubstantiated claim about biased polls is not really relevant.
???? That's supposed to be a "first" point? How substantive.
Second, if you think I am insecure about my positions, then you clearly are not a regular here on Ken's blog.
Semi-regular. But I've also posted with you over at MDConservative's blog. And I thought you were rather ok, like Rook. Someone I disagree with, but not entirely disagreeable.
Third, what you call being a defeatist, I call being a realist.
What you call being a realist, I call being a quagmirist.
You are a Bush cheerleader and cannot admit he has been incompetent.
He hasn't. You cannot acknowledge that he has done some things right. I at least can admit that he has done some things wrong. Name me any world leader who has never made mistakes and missteps. A partisan hack like you, however, will believe the worst of this President before you ever give him a fair shake.
Standing on the sidelines and waving your pom-poms is not going to make Bush's escalation strategy work.
Why don't you shake the sand out of your vagina, and quit being in such a bitchy mood?
Rather than argue about it, let's see who is right in 6-months or a year.
Rob, from the very beginning, I have never thought that this would be a quick "fight". This is going to be a long "war". One that may stretch across generations. That's the reality.
The "Everything you could wish for in an American soldier" comment I copied directly from your post about CJ. Or did you forget that you were the one who first wrote it?
Scroll further back, sunshine. I only wrote about CJ because you tossed your nose in the air, asking "who's CJ?", "Why should I care?", and then being dismissive of him in an indignant way.
I provided my analysis of CJ's statistical capabilities above (they are clearly very weak), and the key Military Times numbers. Since you want me to go point by point, tell me specifically what numbers you want me to discuss and I will do that for you.
Go ahead. You certainly seem to have a lot of time on your hands. So type away, whatever inane drivel you care to illuminate us with.
Rob --
When the MSM collectively B-esses the public with anti-Bush spin, we don't hear any dissent from your ilk, it's totally acceptable.
OTOH, because FOX is one of the few media venues that endorses conservatism, it's the epitome of evil and the left's attitude is "What do you expect from FOX?"
By not acknowledging that the liberal media, which constitutes more than 90% of America's information sources, has become more a propaganda tool for the left than a collection of accurate news sources, you demonstrate that you are either not as smart or well informed as you purport to be or that you are as dishonest as the rest of those on your side of the political spectrum.
You further demonstrate your single-minded political bias by finding room to disagree with every single conservative POV that comes down the pike -- basically, you are a more eloquent version of Mudkitty.
Robert, I am not really clear where you draw the line on acceptable procedural methods in the Senate to block votes. Let me ask you two specific questions. Do you support the Republicans' use of blue slips to kill the nominations of dozens of Clinton nominees? Do you think it was wrong for the Republicans to not hold ANY hearings on dozens of Clinton's nominees in 1997 and 1999? Do you believe those were appropriate procedural maneuvers or were they obstructionism?
I love it, we get yet another compelling edition of The Chronicles of Wordsmith and he accuses me of having a lot of time on my hands.
Seth, I don't disagree with every conservative POV - I only post on issues that I disagree with. You can find plenty of Ken's posts where I don't post. In addition, when the whole illegal alien issue popped up a couple of months ago, Ken and I were largely in agreement. I am sure we could find common ground on shrinking government spending - it is clear that Bush's economic policies are far from fiscal conservatism.
basically, you are a more eloquent version of Mudkitty.
*snicker*
I have to agree about the lack of fiscal conservatism under the republicans. The blamce, however, isn't on the President. It is on the Congress.
Rob, I have no problem killing a niomination in commitee. That is a rule that applies to both parties from what I understand. It is a feature that protects the minority party and is a balancing measure. I have no problem with what happened to Clinton nominess. Their nominations never reached the floor of the Senate.
I think this iѕ one οf the most impоrtant info for me.
Anԁ i'm glad reading your article. But want to remark on some general things, The website style is wonderful, the articles is really nice : D. Good job, cheers
Look into my page ; loans for bad credit
Post a Comment
<< Home