I do believe this will be rich. - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

dude1394 · 02-05-2007, 08:29 PM

Remember all of the filibusters against real judges and how it wasn't "really" a filibuster. Well of course that kind of crap was going to come back to haunt the dems.

Quote:

"It's obstructionism," said Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "This is not tolerable in a situation where it's the number one topic in the nation, and the Republican party prevents the Senate of the United States from debating."

Cry me a river.

Motofoto · 02-05-2007, 10:07 PM

I would argue this shows that both political parties are being hypocritical.

Democrats- They are complaining about something they were not doing so long ago

Republicans- They are doing something that they were complaining about not so long ago

Sigh....Oh well, im sure both parties will reverse their positions once the makeup of the senate favors the republicans.

dude1394 · 02-05-2007, 10:39 PM

When the rules change (i.e. filibusters on UN nominees, lower level judges) you just got to play the game. Seeing as how the dems elevated filibusters to an art form, I'm glad the republicans aren't getting all noble and letting them slide.

FishForLunch · 02-05-2007, 11:49 PM

No one cares what upsets politicians they can go f... themselves. Just sit there and pass no laws, as long as there is grid-lock the country is better off.

dude1394 · 02-06-2007, 04:10 AM

Some still have political courage and integrity..

Quote:

Not Joe Lieberman, however. In a stirring speech to the Senate tonight, Lieberman made clear his distaste for the efforts to force a non-binding op-ed through the upper chamber:

Quote:

For the Senate to take up a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle is unprecedented, but it is not inconsequential. It is an act which, I fear, will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies, and showcase our disunity. And that is why I will vote against cloture.

If you believe that General Petraeus and his new strategy have a reasonable chance of success in Iraq, then you should resolve to support him and his troops through the difficult days ahead. On the other hand, if you believe that this new strategy is flawed or that our cause is hopeless in Iraq, then you should vote to stop it. Vote to cut off funds. Vote for a binding timeline for American withdrawal. If that is where your convictions lie, then have the courage of your convictions to accept the consequences of your convictions. That would be a resolution.

The non-binding measure before us, by contrast, is an accumulation of ambiguities and inconsistencies. It is at once for the war but also against the war. It pledges its support to the troops in the field but also washes its hands of what they are doing. It approves more troops for Anbar but not for Baghdad.

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in General Petraeus, but no confidence in his strategy. We cannot say that the troops have our full support, but disavow their mission on the eve of battle. This is what happens when you try to wage war by committee. That is why the Constitution gave that authority to the President as Commander in Chief.

mcsluggo · 02-06-2007, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

... Seeing as how the dems elevated filibusters to an art form, I'm glad the republicans aren't getting all noble and letting them slide.

the funny thing is that I actually think you were serious with this rant!

dude1394 · 02-06-2007, 09:07 AM

That's a rant?

mcsluggo · 02-06-2007, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

That's a rant?

No, its not. Poor choice of words. "statement" is better.

Mavdog · 02-06-2007, 09:24 AM

business as usual, to believe that the recent dem filibusters were novel or unique is ignoring the history of our legislature.

every minority party leverages the vote to stop debate, it's one of the few tools they have against the majority party.

those that railed in the past against the dems use of this tool are surely railing against the repubs use of the same tactic, right?

Usually Lurkin · 02-06-2007, 09:58 AM

how far back in history can we trace the use of filibuster against judicial nominees?

Mavdog · 02-06-2007, 10:35 AM

abe fortas in 1968 comes to mind...

kg_veteran · 02-06-2007, 10:40 AM

Quote:

This is what happens when you try to wage war by committee. That is why the Constitution gave that authority to the President as Commander in Chief.

Lieberman is one of the few Democrats who gets it.

jacktruth · 02-06-2007, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Lieberman is one of the few Democrats who gets it.

And technically, he was not put into office by the democratic party. He ran as an independent in 06.

mcsluggo · 02-06-2007, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Lieberman is one of the few Democrats who gets it.

Well, not by that quote. The constitution also explicitly weakened the ability of the commander in chief to wage war, by ensuring that the purse for the war would be held by entirely seperate branch of government.

The current wave of neo-cons (or perhaps we should say the "recent" wave, at this point )really like to (correctly) trumpet the role of democracy in ensuring peace globally. That was a key reason cited for moving into Iraq, no?

well, that effect doesn't happen magically. It happens because in a truly functioning democracy a government has a tough time maintaining a war that is unpopular at home. IN the case of the U.S. (a truly functioning democracy) that pressure is currently coming to bear primarily through the legislative branch, because it has more frequent elections.

Frankly I WANT it to be difficult for a president to wage war. I WANT the executive branch to be pressured to hold this diplomatic policy lever a bit further back than the others. Future president's should rightfully look at the many faceted costs of war. Both the traditionally recognized costs: the men and women who lose their lives or some portion of their health, and the monetary costs... but also the opportunity costs of the administration's overall policy agenda and national phsyche costs.

An unpopular war divides the nation, and absorbs the executive branch's policy focus. This isn't a neccessary concequence of war, just a war that loses the public's support. In time of war for the most part the public WANTS to unite and give a unified front against a shared enemy. Witness the support durring WWII, a conflict that was MUCH more costly by any measure, and directly impinged on the general public at home (rations and wage controls and such), and also the support "W" enjoyed early in the war.

Unfortunatley, that "war-support" has some serious drawbacks. First of all it is tempting. "W" would NEVER have seen the levels of popular support he enjoyed right after invading Afghanistan without the "war-effect". NO president would EVER see those levels of support under usual circumstances. The unifying factor is strong, and I think it has an addictive "narcotic" effect. (this is, of course, up for debate) I don't think our country would have rushed into war in Iraq without the elevated popularity of the W administration from the Afghan war. Second, problem with "war-support" polularity is that it is not permanant, or even long lasting. (I actually view his as a GOOD thing, but I'm sure that most of you do not). An administration that brings the country into war better damn well take care of business fairly rapidly, or do a damn-good job of justifying the virtue of the war on a solid, long lasting basis.

The "W" admin did neither. First, they oversold the war early on GUARANTEEING an eventual pendulum swing the other way. Second they blundered badly on the international stage, isolating and alienating international support for the war, making our job in Iraq much much MUCH more difficult. (there were other problems, but those were some MAJOR ones) When things take a bad turn in Afghanistan right now, the Canadians, and the Dutch and the Danes and the Germans, and the ... are there WITH us both in spirit, and with boots and checkbooks. We have the biggest footprint there (because 9-11 happened HERE, and we are the only superpower) but the rest of the world is largely committed along side us in Afghanistan. In Iraq, if things go bad the rest of the world moons us. The different reactions are not by coincidence.

anyway, bla bla bla... I babble on. But my point is, it is difficult to wage war in a democracy BY DESIGN. And this is a design feature, not a design flaw. A leader of a democracy better only wage wars that he/she will be able to continue to convince the public of the justification for the duration of the war, or he/she will suffer the concequences. Afghanistan has lasted longer than Iraq (we went there first) but the level of support there has not fallen as precipitously. There are reasons for that.

kg_veteran · 02-06-2007, 01:10 PM

I think you've misconstrued what Lieberman said.

mcsluggo · 02-06-2007, 01:38 PM

I was actually just going from your one sentence. The overall quote is more elegant, more nuanced, but still wrong.

Why do senators have to either take the nookular-option of denying funding (which most would agree is extreme) or give 100% support? Usually when a debator/speaker tries to pidgeon-hole a spectrum of choices into two limited, specific options... one of them is a "straw man" loser, by construction.

kg_veteran · 02-06-2007, 03:11 PM

Why, then, are they proposing a non-binding resolution instead of simply voting against Bush's plan?

Mavdog · 02-06-2007, 03:22 PM

the only way to actually vote "against bush's plan" is to vote to stop the funding.

I do not believe ANY legislator would vote to deny money to pay and equip our troops.

a non-binding resolution is a convenient way to express their displeasure with the bush plan but doing such in a manner which does not harm the soldier.

it's easy. it gives them the ability to say to the voters "Hey, I heard you". it also gives them the ability to do that and still say they support the servicemen.

quite the nuance, eh?

Usually Lurkin · 02-06-2007, 03:36 PM

couldn't they have refused to confirm Patreaus?
Isn't it weird to hire a guy then tell him that you don't agree with why you hired him, but that you're not going to do anything about it anyway?

Mavdog · 02-06-2007, 05:16 PM

should they withhold their consent for patreaus based solely with a disagreement with bush's agenda, or confirm him based on his capabilities as a professional soldier?

after all, patreaus may still be in command after bush leaves office.

Usually Lurkin · 02-06-2007, 05:55 PM

are you asking me?? I think they should actually support the troops.

Are you asking me if that would've been another way to "vote against bush's plan" then I say yes. They knew exactly what Petraeus was being put in place to do. If they had spine enough to stop this troop increase then they have plenty of methods. If they are just playing politics without wanting to commit to any kind of actual leadership, then a non-binding agreement is exactly the way they should "vote against bush's plan"

Mavdog · 02-06-2007, 07:12 PM

there are varied opinions on the best way to support the troops...

the legislature can't dictate policy of the armed forces. bush's plan would be implemented irregardless of petraeus being confirmed.

the legislature can only stop the funding at this point (after consent to invade was given). nobody, no matter what their view on iraq is, wishes to stop funding the soldier's needs.

even with the sentiment against bush's war, the vote to turn off the money would be disaster.

dude1394 · 02-06-2007, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

even with the sentiment against bush's war, the vote to turn off the money would be disaster.

It would be a political disaster. As far as militarily, I assume that the troops would have to return, there wouldn't be the bucks to continue.

What do you think would happen if the latest request for bucks were turned down? I expect an immediate withrawal would occur. But you obviously are thinking something else, what?

Mavdog · 02-06-2007, 08:55 PM

it would be a disaster on multiple fronts.
militarily, a retreat.
politics would be completely impossible, with a pervasive hostile environment.
finger pointing all around on who "lost the war".
our soldiers would feel abandoned, let down.
cracks in american might, reducing the effectiveness of our foreign policy, at a time when having strength is needed.

the failures in iraq won't take us that far. the votes will continue to be there to pay for the war.

dallas_esq · 02-07-2007, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Lieberman is one of the few Democrats who gets it.

1. Lieberman is no longer a Democrat. He lost in the primaries and ran as an independent.

2. My reading of the constitution indicates that the Congress has the power to declare war. Article 1, Section 8.

Mavdog · 02-07-2007, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dallas_esq

1. Lieberman is no longer a Democrat. He lost in the primaries and ran as an independent.

2. My reading of the constitution indicates that the Congress has the power to declare war. Article 1, Section 8.

they gave the authority in 02.
the famous "did you vote to start this war" resolution

dude1394 · 02-12-2007, 09:43 AM

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...ves/009148.php

Well, this is about as pithy as it gets:

Several potential Republican presidential candidates, including Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as well as Giuliani, have supported Bush's plan to add more than 20,000 troops to U.S. forces in Iraq.

The major Democratic candidates have opposed the move. Several are senators who have advocated a nonbinding resolution condemning the buildup.

"In the business world, if two weeks were spent on a nonbinding resolution, it would be considered nonproductive," Giuliani told the lunch crowd, setting off a burst of laughter.

He called the concept "a comment without making a decision." America, he added, is "very fortunate to have President Bush."

"Presidents can't do nonbinding resolutions. Presidents have to make decisions and move the country forward, and that's the kind of president that I would like to be, a president who makes decisions."

That's the difference between legislators and leaders. Leaders have to make decisions, not engage in self-indulgent whining about them. Giuliani, McCain, and Romney all understand this. Too bad more GOP Senators do not.