NYT Editorial: "It's The War, Senators"

[Hissyspit]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/07/opinion/07wed1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Editorial
It’s the War, Senators

Published: February 7, 2007
It is not an inspiring sight to watch the United States Senate turn the most important issue facing America into a political football, and then fumble it. Yet that is what now seems to have come from a once-promising bipartisan effort to finally have the debate about the Iraq war that Americans have been denied for four years.

The Democrats’ ultimate goal was to express the Senate’s opposition to President Bush’s latest escalation. But the Democrats’ leaders have made that more difficult — allowing the Republicans to maneuver them into the embarrassing position of blocking a vote on a counterproposal that they feared too many Democrats might vote for.

We oppose that resolution, which is essentially a promise never to cut off funds for this or any future military operation Mr. Bush might undertake in Iraq. But the right way for the Senate to debate Iraq is to debate Iraq, not to bar proposals from the floor because they might be passed. The majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, needs to call a timeout and regroup. By changing the issue from Iraq to partisan parliamentary tactics, his leadership team threatens to muddy the message of any anti-escalation resolution the Senate may eventually pass.

As it happens, the blocked Republican alternative, proposed by Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, itself represents an end run around the Senate’s constitutional responsibilities. The rational way to oppose cuts in funds is to vote against them, if and when any ever come before the Senate. Mr. Reid should not be shy about urging fellow Democrats to vote against this hollow gimmick, which tries to make it look as if the senators support Mr. Bush’s failed Iraq policies by playing on their fears of being accused of not supporting the troops.

America went to war without nearly enough public discussion, and it needs more Senate debate about Iraq this time around, not less. The voters who overturned Republican majorities in both houses last November expect, among other things, to see energized Congressional scrutiny of the entire war — not just of the plan for an additional 21,500 troops but also of the future of the 130,000 plus who are already there.

MORE

[Kagemusha]

1. Would the Gregg Amendment have been binding?

I'm not seeing anyone really say and it bothers me. Thanks.

[KharmaTrain]

7. Nothing Would Have Been Binding

Gregg's ammendment was to cover his and other moderate Repugnican's asses. It was a feel-good ammendment that said that the Senate wouldn't cut funding and supports the surge/troops...but in ambiguous language that would protect Gordon Smith and Sununu and Normie Coleman...and also get a majority of Democratic votes of be framed that Democrats weren't for "supporting the troops". It was the fall back position should any of the other ammendments had gotten near the 60 votes to pass.

Now we tried to play nice. All the ammendments were primarily sponsored by Repugnicans. Now we see how this game is gonna be played. I'm glad to see the debate head over to the house now where there is no "supermajority" and a BINDING resolution easily has the votes to pass and then will force the issue in the Senate.

[Kagemusha]

8. Thanks for clarifying - I thought so, but I wanted to be sure.

After all, the Gregg Amendment.... even if it had the votes to pass, it would have been blatantly unconstitutional and flat out bat-guano crazy.

[cui bono]

2. Yep. I agree. The Dems need a spine and also, if the Repub leaders can get

them all to vote to block the debate - which is against what the people want, how can we not get all the Dems to vote against a resolution backing Bush - which is what the people want? That seems crazy to me.

:wtf:

[babylonsister]

3. The NYTimes can be schitzo, but I really like this, and hope the Dems

take it to heart.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. What The Hell is Wrong With The NY Times

Just think of what would happen if our elected officials did what was best for us, instead of playing games. No more soirees with Sir Rupert! No more proxy attacks via highly-paid operatives.

It would suck.

[bluedawg12]

5. OK so the people voted and then, forgot.

The Pols know that there are too few citizens in the military for a large enough number of Americans to be effected.

They also know that the publics attention span is brief and their interest in day to day Senate votes minuscule.

So, there is no general outcry.

It was very clever to keep an all-vol military, if this war required a draft of 18 year olds and up, the streets would be packed with young activists.

As it is now, the war is ugly on the news, but seems very far away as we have not been forced to sacrifice a thing other than theoretical loss of American tax payers money, the national surplus and a few thousand KIW or WIA. Yet, life goes on as before....so we wave the flag once a year, give lip service to the fallen and wounded, and thank heavens neither we nor our kids are there in that mess.

They know this up on the hill and they are all duds.

I can only blame the politicians so far, the nation is still apathetic to a fault.


Somehow,. as I watch Senators bloviate, I am reminded about ancient Rome..and it'
s demise. Hail Caesar Primus Gregorius Chimperator Maximus.

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. The NYT is just throwing up a fig leaf.

They have consistently enabled this Administration. Whether it is printing outright lies ala Judy Miller or attacks on Al Gore & Clinton or failing to seriously investigate matters like the outing of Valerie Plame, the NYT has consistently worked to shield and enable the BushCo regime.