Highlights of the Iraq War Resolution Debate

motivez · 02-25-2007, 10:54 AM

I thought this was a great series of videos and wanted to share them with those of you who haven't seen them elsewhere already.

I've always believed that Democrats could win this argument on the merits of the facts of the issue and I'm glad to see them finally stepping up to say things that need to be said, even if it's taken far too long to do so.

Enjoy (or don't

)
----------------------------------------------------

Tim Ryan (D-Ohio):

YouTube Video

----------------------------------------------------

Barney Frank (D-Mass):

YouTube Video

----------------------------------------------------

Hilda Solis (D-CA):

YouTube Video

----------------------------------------------------

Lloyd Doggett (D-TX):

YouTube Video

----------------------------------------------------

Paul Hodes (D-NH):

YouTube Video

----------------------------------------------------

Kendrick Meek (D-FL):

YouTube Video

----------------------------------------------------

Raul Grijalva (D-AZ):

YouTube Video

----------------------------------------------------

Bill Pascrell (D-NJ):

YouTube Video

----------------------------------------------------

Earl Pomeroy (D-ND):

YouTube Video

----------------------------------------------------

Jim Clyburn (D-SC):

YouTube Video

Thorgrim · 02-25-2007, 10:46 PM

Ryan and Frank own it up, anyone who doesn't watch those two are only hurting themselves

Props to OPer...for this post

SoFlaJDM · 02-25-2007, 10:47 PM

excellent post... kendrick meek is a district away from me

him, frank and ryan are awesome

Scrum · 02-26-2007, 12:34 AM

Barney Frank is great.

Thorgrim · 02-26-2007, 12:51 AM

the GOP's "political necrophillia" man he's fucking great

"maybe its the theory...people wrong so often and so consistent...they're owed one"

Tim Ryan: "I don't yield"

Fucking classic stuff...

Nonphixion · 02-26-2007, 02:03 AM

Watching Ryan

thomez · 02-26-2007, 05:43 PM

Ryan is my Congressman

I watched a lot of this debate (mostly in the Senate), honestly I thought that it was a waste of time and pointless, all talk no action, and a lot of posturing. If you want to change the direction in Iraq, pass the legislation and pull the fucking plug with the money, if not willing to do that, shut the fuck up about your non-binding resolutions for purely political purposes.

kinggovernor · 02-26-2007, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

Ryan is my Congressman

I watched a lot of this debate (mostly in the Senate), honestly I thought that it was a waste of time and pointless, all talk no action, and a lot of posturing. If you want to change the direction in Iraq, pass the legislation and pull the fucking plug with the money, if not willing to do that, shut the fuck up about your non-binding resolutions for purely political purposes.

the reality is there is not the votes for that

DosEquis · 02-26-2007, 06:01 PM

There is also a reality that republicans did the same exact thing during kosovo. They had non-binding resolution after another, only when they did it they considered it patriotic and affective. When republicans dissent it is patriotic, when democrats dissent it is obstructionism, lack of patriotism, and they are weak on security.

kinggovernor · 02-26-2007, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

There is also a reality that republicans did the same exact thing during kosovo. They had non-binding resolution after another, only when they did it they considered it patriotic and affective. When republicans dissent it is patriotic, when democrats dissent it is obstructionism, lack of patriotism, and they are weak on security.

kosovo was related to our national security how? It was a UN mission

DosEquis · 02-26-2007, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

kosovo was related to our national security how? It was a UN mission

Iraq is related to our national security how? No wmd, no significant presence of al qaeda while saddam was there. We thought Iraq was a threat, they were not. They violated UN resolutions so at that point i'd say it was a UN mission. One they were trying to accomplish with weapons inspectors.

Now we have non-binding resolutions because the administration has been wrong about nearly everything and any resolution with teeth would be voted down. These resolutions are being put forward while our soldiers are dying so that those in government can say they are at least trying to get support to change the policy. They are the ones which actually support our soldiers as they want a policy change that has a chance for success. We have tried troop surges 3 or 4 times. It didn't work then and it won't work now. So every day while we have the same tired 'stay the course' policy, we have soldiers sacrificing their lives and there is no end in sight. Every day we pump millions of our tax money into that country with no end in sight. We need a change and the patriotic thing to do is debate this issue and show the american people over and over that it is not working despite the administrations rhetoric.

thomez · 02-26-2007, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

the reality is there is not the votes for that

which makes their non-binding resolutions even more pointless, because everyone knows they don't have the votes, and surely in many cases the political will, to act on their bullshit

if it came to a vote on pulling money from the Iraq cause I'm sure many that support these non-binding "we don't support the surge" resolutions would be running away as fast as they could from voting to take money from deployed troops

political posturing at its best

thomez · 02-26-2007, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Now we have non-binding resolutions because the administration has been wrong about nearly everything and any resolution with teeth would be voted down. These resolutions are being put forward while our soldiers are dying so that those in government can say they are at least trying to get support to change the policy. They are the ones which actually support our soldiers as they want a policy change that has a chance for success.

I'm not sure how much more simple it can get. The Democrats in Congress hold majorities in both houses. If they want to change the course in Iraq, they control the purse, they obviously could do so. The problem is, they don't have the courage to actually do something, they would rather talk about what they would do, and what we should do, than to use their majority to make it happen; when it comes down to it votes talk and bullshit walks and all they have is bullshit. They could never get support for a binding resolution pulling money from a troop surge (notice how quick that idea faded away), so instead they yack about not supporting it while they approve the general who laid out the plan with a fucking unanimous vote and they won't do shit to cut the funds. They are more concerned with their success in 2008 than they are with a single Marine's life, I'd guarantee it. If not they'd be doing more than talking. Instead all we see them doing is laying the groundwork for tv advertisements criticizing what they are actually de facto supporting.

kinggovernor · 02-27-2007, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

which makes their non-binding resolutions even more pointless, because everyone knows they don't have the votes, and surely in many cases the political will, to act on their bullshit

if it came to a vote on pulling money from the Iraq cause I'm sure many that support these non-binding "we don't support the surge" resolutions would be running away as fast as they could from voting to take money from deployed troops

political posturing at its best

and even their non-binding resolutions fail

thomez · 02-27-2007, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

and even their non-binding resolutions fail

well, at least in the Senate, they got put up for cloture and didn't have 60 votes, I believe is what happened - they might have a majority, who knows - I think they claimed they did at least. It was all a big procedural clusterfuck trying to pass a resolution that means nothing.

DosEquis · 02-27-2007, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

well, at least in the Senate, they got put up for cloture and didn't have 60 votes, I believe is what happened - they might have a majority, who knows - I think they claimed they did at least. It was all a big procedural clusterfuck trying to pass a resolution that means nothing.

They have a simple majority in the senate, kind of. It is not enough of a majority to get overwhelming support, especially when you have democrats (or an independent) like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman. Both of which support the president on Iraq.

Cutting funding (aka having balls according to you) is a foolish thing to do. It basically bails on the soldiers instead of changing their strategy to be successful. I think regardless of political party most feel that we do need to see an Iraq that can control itself. The "surge" is not the way to do it.

The non-binding resolutions are intended to get support and show the american people who would still vote with the presidents failed policies and hopefully put pressure on them for some real change. Cutting funding is not 'ballsy' it is stupid.

thomez · 02-27-2007, 12:40 PM

Cutting funding is the way the Senate is supposed to control War when opposing the President, as laid out in the Constitution. Supporting his general in unanimous fashion, giving him way too much power to deal with this war than should have ever been thought of, and continuing to fund whatever he wants to do means that the Congress has put themselves in a position of insignificance; there is no balance of power, they have let the President and the Executive trample all over them and all they do now is bitch about everything he does. These are the people that ran their campaigns on changing the way Iraq was handled and they haven't done a goddamn thing.