Reid: A Debate Means I Get to Win
Senate iraq debate halted because of uncertain outcome
By streiff Posted in Congress — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Harry Reid explains how being a sore loser is a viable substitute for leaderhip.
Yesterday embattled senate majority leader and real estate mogul, Harry Reid blocked a vote on a non-binding resolution disapproving of the Bush Administration’s plan to surge some 20,000 or so troops into Iraq.
He blocked the vote because he knew that competing resolutions – resolutions supporting the Administration - were most likely to win passage. In the process Reid clearly demonstrated his lack of seriousness and lack of leadership by stopping a senate debate on the Iraq War simply because he could not preordain the outcome of the vote.
Read on.
Four separate resolutions were submitted for consideration yesterday:
At issue are four separate measures. The main resolution, worked out by Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), would put the Senate on record as opposing the additional troop deployment while calling for a diplomatic initiative to settle the conflict. It would oppose a cutoff of funds for troops in the field of battle.
The Republican leadership's alternative, drafted by John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), would establish tough new benchmarks for the Iraqi government to achieve but would not oppose the planned deployment.
Two other versions appear at the heart of the impasse. The first, drafted by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), would staunchly back the White House and the president's decision to boost troop strength in Iraq. It recognizes the power of the president to deploy troops and the "responsibility" of Congress to fund them -- before stating that "Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds."
The other proposed resolution, hastily written by Democrats, would simply oppose Bush's plan and insist that all troops are properly protected with body armor and other material.
Republicans demanded that each of the resolutions receive a floor vote and that each be subject to a cloture vote. Reid insisted that the versions be allowed to pass by simple majority or that the debate be limited to the Warner and McCain resolutions (apparently the Biden-Hagel-Snowe resolution is gracing milk cartons throughout the metro Washington area) with 60 votes required for passage.
McConnell wanted all four resolutions to meet a 60-vote threshold, for a simple reason: Both Democrats and Republicans think the only measure that could attract 60 votes is Gregg's, because Democrats would be concerned about the political ramifications of appearing to take action that might harm troops in battle.
Funny that Reid is crying foul while his party acknowledges that Judd Gregg’s resolution would be the only resolution capable of garnering 60 votes. Funny that supporting the president’s constitutional authority and acknowledging the responsibility of the Congress to fund troops in combat would be considered as off the table by Reid.
John Cornyn has it exactly right on this whole subject. He said on PBS’s NewsHour:
"If we really had the courage of our convictions, if people said, 'You know what? This is an immoral task we've asked our troops to do because we don't believe in the mission, we think they're going to fail.' They ought to cut off funds. But to have this sort of -- this debate without any real consequence, I just don't think is the best use of our time."
Seems as though if Reid were truly interested in debate and truly interested in how the war in Iraq is prosecuted that he should have been ecstatic to have a strong bipartisan vote on the Judd resolution. If Reid truly thought the war was wrong, he should be pushing to cut off funding for operations in Iraq.
What yesterday’s actions indicated is that Reid is simply a shabby little man either unwilling or unable to exercise a modicum of leadership. A man totally overmatched by the position he holds and the times in which he lives.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | Lying To The American People — Comments (3) »
Reid: A Debate Means I Get to Win 12 Comments (0 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Looks to the conservative/republican bloggers, perhaps. But the MSM will frame it as "Republicans blocked approval..." or "Republicans threatened to filibuster..." or anything other than Reid attempted to short-circuit debate in the most deliberative body in the modern world.
Would that Reid were the Senate Minority Leader. Alas...
Very Freudian of you.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
It's been awhile since the mean ol' president denied our noble soldiers body armor.
The Democrats are confused already. I smell fear. One wonders if those who speculated that having the Democrats govern for a bit might be a longer-term plus were right. Obviously, the jury is still out, but so far they haven't disappointed.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
what a pitiful excuse for a senate leader.
"A free people ought to be armed" - George Washington
he just wanted to be a crooked politician. What the Fates have wrought.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
For once, Republicans showed a spine. Once again, the Agenda Media showed its bias, claiming that Republicans shut down debate on the various resolutions. Except that they didn't mention that there are competing resolutions. Reid & the media are what makes the demagogue go around.
being a problem for Republicans since, according to the MSM narrative, the GOP fear being forced to vote in support of the Bush Administration. Yet, as has been obvious since the beginning, it's the Democrats who are afraid of voting on resolutions such as Gregg's which would certainly pass, and McCain's which might also muster the votes.
The fact is that the Democrats (and spineless Republican weasels) can't vote against President Bush (which is all they care about) without at the same time voting against Gen Petraeus and the troops (which they want to avoid at all costs).
You would think that this would be obvious to these geniuses, whose brainpower is so much greater than the President's, yet they are so blinded by their desire to attack the President that they have once again painted themselves into a corner.
of position alternatives
a) support the war
b) oppose the war
c) kinda support the war
d) kinda oppose the war
e) kinda support the war depending on polls
f) kinda support the war depending on my audience
g) kinda support the war unless things go badly
h) kinda support the war but RESENT the fact that it's still there (HRC)
i) used to support the war but now blame it on Bush
j) kinda oppose the war but support the troops except when undermining them
k) kinda oppose the war but will vote for funds to run it because of fear of constituent wrath
l) kinda oppose the war, will vote to fund it, then vote for amorphous non-binding resolutions critical of war, and then junket overseas to explain position to foreign elites and bash Bush
m) kinda oppose the war and the presumption of our troops in resenting our opposition
Scoring by choice
a- honorable and right
b- honorable and wrong
c,d- understandable & right, understandable and wrong
e to k- contemptible
l and m - beneath contempt
on one of Reid's shoulders, but even I didn't expect him to be totally lacking the counterbalancing angel on the other.
I saw this picture and thought Chuckles looked like a Sith Lord grooming an apprentice.
Politics and common sense aren't dungs of the same cow.
How terse and true. And as such, he probably doesn't care how foolish he looks to the world this morning.