Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Democrats made a tatical error. They should have forced the debate during the Patrous confirmation rather than rubber stamping a general who supports Bush's plan. Or, it is possible that they did not really want to go on record. They rationalized the Patrous vote and they knew they did not have the votes on the non-binding resolution without Republican support. Their games either back-fired or they accomplished exactly what they wanted.
|
I dont think you understand the difference between a confirmation hearing and a legislative hearing.
Confirmation hearings have
never been the place for resolving policy differences (although the differences are certainly raised as part of the confirmation Q&A process). Historically,
the Senate has nearly always approved persons nominated by the the President for executive positions (cabinet secretaries, under secretaries, generals nominated for a specific command, etc) because it has been the long-standing belief and bi-partisan practice of the Senate that a President should have the people around him who support him during his term of office. Unless the person is clearly incompetent, under a criminal cloud or othewise have serious personal issues (like John Tower, who was rejected for Bush 41 Secy of Defense because his former colleagues in the Senate knew he had a drinking problem). Many Dems voted for the confirmation of an Attorney Gen who believed warrantless surveillence of US citizens was legal, a Dept of Educ secretary who supports abstinence only education in public schools, a Treasury secretary who supported making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and a HHS secetary who was opposed to health measures like the morning after pill, all counter to core Dem positions. The Petraeus confirmation hearing was no different, along with the fact that he is emminently qualified regardless of current or future policy directions in Iraq.
The only other exceptions to nearly always confirming presidential nominees are judicial appointments because they extend beyond the President's term and are lifetime appointments.
The Dems accomplished exactly what they wanted and have the support of the majority of the voting public. The non-binding resolution was a first-step, and they will continue to represent the will of the people by taking further steps, without putting the safety of the troops in jeopardy.
I think it speaks to the value of the non-binding resolution that Condi Rice made reference to it this past weekend in meetings with Iraq govt officials:
Quote:
Ms. Rice said she used the restiveness in Washington to underline for Iraqi officials the spread of American frustration with Iraq’s lagging political and economic progress.
She said she had “made clear that some of the debate in Washington is, in fact, indicative of the concerns that the American people have about the prospects for success” if Iraq’s leaders did not quickly take actions to ensure longer-term stability.
from NY Times
|
If it does nothing more than get the Iraqis to get off their asses and address the hard but necessary political and security issues with a greater sense of urgency, it has been effective.