Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Confirming a nominee doesn't constitute a rubber stamp. Congress needs to pick their battles here. Stonewalling everything that comes out of the White House isn't the road to a productive solution.
I actually applaud them for this concession. It sets the stage for a bipartisan approach to solving the Iraq problem.
|
They say he is smart, experienced, loyal, patriotic, well educated in military tatics and strategy, and he knows the situation in Iraq. He says the Bush plan will work, and that we need more troops in Iraq. They say Bush's plan will not work and we don't need more troops. They give him overwhelming support and confirm him without challenging his stance. Something is wrong with this.
Perhaps this is why I will never be a Washington insider. I would vote based on what I thought was right, not politics. I would not say things I don't believe to get elected or for nominations or to make people happy at the moment and then change later.
I don't understand why some of you are not PO'd. Wind the clock back - Many in Congress gave Bush a "blank check" to invade Iraq. Now they say they were tricked into that vote. Congress authorizes billions of dollars for the war. While they voted for these funds many were saying we had no plan to win. I see a disturbing pattern, a pattern that even non-Mensians can see.
I am sorry Rat and DC but you guys are giving me Washington double speak. And I am sure Congress wants this issue to be a non-issue, so they can go back to fun and political games with Iraq while our military is in a war zone.
One other thing - Isn't one of the prime reasons they want the non-binding resolution to get Republican members of Congress to show or not show their support of Bush in the face of public opinion to hurt their chances of re-election? So the resolution may have almost nothing to do with trying to actually get Bush to change his plan. A plan, already in the works. So if you really wanted to alter the plan time is of the essence.