When Resolve Against Bush* Melts

[kskiska]

Hill Usually Defers to Commander in Chief on Military Issues

In a seeming display of political independence, the Republican-controlled Senate defied President Bush in mid-October and voted to convert $10 billion of his proposed aid package to Iraq into a loan. Two weeks later, senators quietly converted the reconstruction money back into an outright grant, without so much as a roll call vote.

(snip)

"You get, in effect, the equivalent of a French poodle that occasionally yaps at its master and bares its teeth, but if there's something of consequence to the administration, particularly when it comes to international affairs, it's going to back down," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

In recent interviews, several senators said they felt they had no choice but to reverse course and approve the Iraq reconstruction money as a grant, given Bush's insistence that Iraq not be saddled with further debts. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) said he still believes a loan "was the right way to go," but added: "The power of the veto is pretty substantial, particularly on something that's time-sensitive."

During a White House meeting with senators, the president became visibly angry and pounded the table to make his case, participants said. "In the face of the president's very, very strong position, it seemed to me something Congress should yield on," said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).

(snip)

Some Democrats viewed the back-and-forth on the loan question as a sort of Kabuki dance, in which Republicans could appear sensitive to voters' concerns without defying the president in the end. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said it allowed them to act as though they were doing "what the people wanted back home," only to yield to the White House on an unrecorded voice vote with only a half-dozen senators in the chamber.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16914-2003Nov8.html

[jpgray]

1. I think the Democrats have it right on this one

It is a Kabuki dance.

[teryang]

2. Now it's wartime again

I thought it was post war spending for Iraqi reconstruction. We cbange the language to fit the justification.

[leesa]

3. Man, I am constantly amazed at what gutless cowards Republicans are

I guess that's why so few have been in the military. I do not understand, however, why those like McCain would continue to march lock-step with a regime that is blatantly damaging our country's welfare. With a regime that has without a doubt lied to get us into an oil war. Did he learn nothing all those years in VietNam and in the prison camp? He even laughed at the beginning of the mess in Afghanistan, "Gee, I hope this is not another Gulf of Tonkin" And then proceeded to give the Crime Family full power to do whatever they wanted.
What makes this kind of man a traitor? Job security? Could it really mean that much to them that they would participate in the destruction of their own country?

[teryang]

5. McCain couldn't bring himself to oppose

...this regime's policies any more than he could stop breathing. His only criticism is that the regime ISN'T GOING FAR ENOUGH. This is because of his social conditioning as a career military man, raised in military family reinforced by his traumatic POW experience.

He would view your rhetorical question concerning treason absurd. He is more of a tragic figure. He could never be have anything but faith in such misguided policies. Most persons with his background as a career naval aviator don't have the insight necessary to evaluate foreign affairs independently. Everything is seen from their point of view as the "defenders" of America. Or as one said to me frequently, "The sound of jets is the sound of freedom."

What is interesting to me is how the modern version Mahan's theory of preserving the lines of communication in the Middle East is now converted to an outright taking of the resources at the source. If this were brought up, his type would start waxing about the necessity to bring stability and democracy to the middle east without any consideration of whether this is what our motives really are or whether our methods have even the remotest chance of success. The notion that if we only had more soldiers, more bombs, more resources, then we would win, reveals a complete lack of sophistication about the dynamics involved in foreign affairs. US naval careers are lived out in a bubble.


Fundamentally, there is this abstract thing in the mind of most military officers called the United States of America which obscures all the disturbing little details which more critical observers find plain to see. Privately over a beer, they would make comments about ragheads, not descending to level of redneck commentary about "sand niggers." The US Navy officer corps is one of the whitest institutions on earth. The element of chauvinism is so deeply ingrained as it is with the blue blood ruling class that they take it for granted. Anyone who doesn't think the same way is a "civilian slob."

[9215]

6. Well said

McCain is a follower not a leader. He would try to fix Iraq, which is going to be a failure anyway, instead of cutting loses and getting out.

[htuttle]

4. I'd still like to know why Byrd didn't call for quorum or a roll call vote

He could have stopped it right in it's tracks -- for a time, anyway -- and not allowed anyone to hide behind the 'non-vote' vote.

I get the impression that when a situation arises where 6 Senators (actually more like 5 'Ayes' + 1 'Nay') approve an $87 billion dollar appropriation bill on a voice vote, and the Senate's premier parliamentarian is one of those both attending and opposed to the matter, then people made some deals somewhere (for the good of the party, no doubt...). :eyes:

Still pisses me off, that's all. I let Feingold know how I felt about it last week.

[leetrisck]

7. Delay, Hastert, Blunt (& Zell Miller)

in lock step with the little king - bow & scrape now

[htuttle]

8. It only takes one Senator to call for quorum

And they didn't have quorum with only 6 Senators present. Even after that, if they could have called everyone back and gotten quorum, someone could have called for a roll call vote instead of a voice vote.

However, I think even Byrd agreed to allow other members of his party 'deniability' by going along with the way they passed this thing (since he could have stopped it and forced accountability if he wished).

If I'm wrong (ie., if it takes more than a single Senator to demand a roll call vote), someone please correct me.