|
15 Feb 2007, 20:03
|
#1
|
USS Oklahoma
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,500
|
The First 100 Hours
Nancy Pelosi, when she found out that the Democrats had in fact won the House and she was indeed going to be the Speaker of the House, announced that she had a magnificient agenda of things she was going to accomplish in the first 100 hours of her Speakership.
To date, the most notable thing which she has given us is a debate on a "non-binding" resolution making a general statement against the surge in American troops in Iraq. With all of the problems the US government is facing, what the hell is congress doing wasting time on a "non-binding" resolution?
If congress wants to get us out of Iraq then pass a binding resolution eliminating funding for all or part of the war. If they want things to keep going in the same way, then defeat such a measure. But making a suggestion that 55% of the congress thinks the President is making a mistake is rather stupid.
It strikes me as political posturing.
I would disagree with any percipitous withdrawal from Iraq but could admire the courage of congressmen and congresswomen who actually had a belief and were willing to fight for it.
I am getting increasingly tired of weak, spineless politicians. If I want that I will move to France!
__________________
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
|
|
|
15 Feb 2007, 20:09
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3,347
|
Re: The First 100 Hours
No offence, but are you stupid? How would voting for less funds help anyone? the Republicans would beat the Democrats to death for being 'unpatriotic' and would probably still go on regardless. there is no good to be gained from such an act if you are a Democrat and plenty if you are a Republican.
__________________
The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
|
|
|
15 Feb 2007, 20:14
|
#3
|
USS Oklahoma
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,500
|
Re: The First 100 Hours
Ah and a non-binding relsolution is going to help how?
__________________
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
|
|
|
15 Feb 2007, 20:15
|
#4
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: The First 100 Hours
What was the agenda composed of dda?
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
15 Feb 2007, 20:22
|
#5
|
USS Oklahoma
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,500
|
Re: The First 100 Hours
http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/10/100_hours_with.php
This is a brief idea of what she was saying.
Even if I disagree with politicians, I would rather have them working to solve problems than in making gestures.
__________________
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
|
|
|
15 Feb 2007, 20:41
|
#6
|
Raaaaaaaah!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,296
|
Re: The First 100 Hours
There was never ever ever going to be any ban on funding for the Iraq war, the Democrats wouldn't see power again for a generation if they did that.
__________________
Hicks
Mercury & Solace
Always [Fury]
|
|
|
15 Feb 2007, 22:45
|
#7
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: The First 100 Hours
Essentially the republicans are holding american troops as political hostages to make the democrats look bad, because as holders of the executive, they can send them there anyway.
Don't fund the troops, the Democrats have neglected US troops. Go without opposition, the Democrats would be totally spineless. A non-binding resolution is the least bad option. So the Dems are between a rock and a hard place. But there's no justification for the way Republicans are behaving.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
15 Feb 2007, 23:08
|
#8
|
Dum Di Dum Di
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 858
|
Re: The First 100 Hours
Nah, DDA's right. Say what you will of the republicans being assholes and spinsters, it still doesn't change the bottom line; a non-binding resolution is ridicilous. If you have an opinion, stand by it. If you don't have an opinion, don't make statements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dda
I am getting increasingly tired of weak, spineless politicians. If I want that I will move to France!
|
Considering French politicians (especially in these John Howard/Tony Blair times) seem to be the anyone with any spines whatsoever left I find this statement somewhat humourus.
|
|
|
16 Feb 2007, 01:58
|
#9
|
Historian
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 960
|
Re: The First 100 Hours
Well firstly it had to be a non-binding resolution, as Congress has no power to pass a binding resolution regarding troop deployment, that is an executive power. They can control budgetary expenses, but as some have said to try and clip war funding would have been dangerous and costly.
What they could have done was pass a resolution capping expenses, itemising funds for everything the troops need to fight the conflict for another X months, but no funding for a troops escalation. That would have run into opposition from Republicans who dislike the war, but oppose the Congress meddling in executive decisions.
A non-binding resolution was meant to rally support against the war and open negotiations with republican senators on their positions. It also sent a clear signal to Bush Jr that he could not count even on his minority Republicans for support in escalating this insane conflict.
No, it wasn't the strongest move the House Democrats could have made, but it was not the time for the strongest move. Watch: now the Democrats oppose from th wings, and in 6 months when this escalation has failed to achieve any results whatsoever except to fill more American Body bags, and the sectarion violence in Iraq continues to escalate and spread, THEN the Democrats come out with harsher budgetary restraints. They can claim they opposed the surge, but let it go to give the President every chance to clean up his mess, and all he did was make things worse. Then they demand a 6-12 month withdrawal, the President's poularity sinks to the Mid-20s, the Republicans abandon him in droves, McCain is discredited and the Democrats win the presidency in 2008.
__________________
"This is Rumour control, here are the facts..."
"Et nunc, reges, intelligite, er udimini, qui judicati terram"
|
|
|
16 Feb 2007, 20:00
|
#10
|
USS Oklahoma
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,500
|
Re: The First 100 Hours
Actually, the non-binding resolution was posturing and very little else. It was an additional way of undermining Republicans in general and had very little to do with the war itself.
I understand that the struggle for power between parties is inevitable. I accept that there are going to be times when politicians do stupit things in order to gain power or stay in power. However, it does not mean that I must like it.
Congress is paid to make decisions not render opinions (in my opinion). The non-binding resolution solves nothing. It does not help to resolve the debate any more than public opinion polls do. They could all sign a petition and cut out the crap. The Democrats are wasting their opportunities to make any impact on a number of matters by concentrating on "show."
__________________
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:17.
| |