Yesterday's closed session in the Senate

[punchdrunk]

Well, I'm suprised no one has created a thread about this yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/...raq/index.html

Is it a stunt by the Democrats or are they simply tired of the Republicans dragging their feet? I say both. Republicans in Congress have done little oversight of themselves or the Bush administration and rightly deserve to be called out. But I'm also sure that with the Libby indictments, Delay's troubles, and Bush's sagging approval ratings, Dems did this as a shot across the bow. A precursor for the 2006 elections? Let's get it on!

[Mark]

Originally Posted by rhoadp

Well, I'm suprised no one has created a thread about this yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/...raq/index.html

Is it a stunt by the Democrats or are they simply tired of the Republicans dragging their feet? I say both. Republicans in Congress have done little oversight of themselves or the Bush administration and rightly deserve to be called out. But I'm also sure that with the Libby indictments, Delay's troubles, and Bush's sagging approval ratings, Dems did this as a shot across the bow. A precursor for the 2006 elections? Let's get it on!

Not sure where you think the "stunt" part comes into it.

Sounds to me like the Democrats are starting to grow a spine.

Finally.

[NoZed Avenger]

It depends who you believe. The head of the committee (according to a news report when I was driving) stated that they told Reid and others in the minority that a report should be coming out -- probably as early as next week.

Reid then did the above. If that version is true, then it appears more of a stunt than anything else.

But as long as it keeps the base happy and makes them feel that the Democratic leadership has stepped up and finally grown a spine, I'm sure it has done what they wanted.

[Furious]

Er, what's the big deal? It's legal to call for a closed session I presume.

Kind of like it would be legal to change the filibuster rules for judiciary appointments or to redistrict a state in a non-census year ...

Sorry if I'm cynical about perceived dirty politics, but the bar has been lowering for a while.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

It depends who you believe. The head of the committee (according to a news report when I was driving) stated that they told Reid and others in the minority that a report should be coming out -- probably as early as next week.

Reid then did the above. If that version is true, then it appears more of a stunt than anything else.

But as long as it keeps the base happy and makes them feel that the Democratic leadership has stepped up and finally grown a spine, I'm sure it has done what they wanted.

I am not a Democrat.

I am just against One Party Rule and the automatic corruption that goes with it.

[TragicMonkey]

I just assumed it was an excuse for a private party with beer and cake and strippers. We'll know if the next budget includes a bill for $50,000 for "removing beer stains from Senate carpet." They'll just sneak it into a defense bill, as usual.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

It depends who you believe. The head of the committee (according to a news report when I was driving) stated that they told Reid and others in the minority that a report should be coming out -- probably as early as next week.

They have been making the same empty promise for quite some time.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally Posted by Mark

They have been making the same empty promise for quite some time.

Cites?

[Mark]

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

Cites?

Emphasis mine:

Quote:

"Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts, R-KAN, said that although the panel has not met about Iraq since May, its staff has been working on the issue and had already informed Democrats that full meetings would resume next week.

But Democrats have contended that, after promising a full and timely investigation in 2004, the GOP majority had virtually halted the investigation. Democrats wanted the inquiry to be completed before the presidential elections that year, but Republicans decided to delay it to avoid affecting the election.

Since then, Democrats complain, the intelligence panel has deliberately ignored the matter. Calling the executive session, they said, was the only way to force the Republicans' hand.

'My colleagues and I have tried for two years to do our oversight work, and for two years we have been undermined, avoided, put off, and vilified by the other side. Any line of questioning that has brought us too close to the White House has been thwarted', said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee."

---Susan Milligan, The Boston Globe 11/02/05

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally Posted by Mark

Emphasis mine:
---Susan Milligan, The Boston Globe

The claim was

Quote:

They have been making the same empty promise for quite some time.

What you have there is the Reps saying that they told the Dems that the meetings would be resuming (and the report I heard indicated that they hoped to have something out with another 6-7 days of meetings), and the Dems, after being told that, go and claim that the resumption is due to their super-secret special meetings.

You then have them claiming that they have been thwarted because there haven't been meetings in approximately 5 months.

What you said was not just that Reps have been dragging their feet or had been moving too slow, but that they had been making "the same empty promise" -- to get the report out -- for "quite some time."

Your article doesn't seem to address that. Your article seems to support the Rep claims that they had already told the Dems about resuming the meetings before the Dems demanded their secret meetings -- in other words, the article cuts boths ways, according to whom (if anyone) one believes.

If, as alluded to, the Dems were notified about the resumption of hearings prior to demanding the secret session (or whatever it is called), then it supports calling Reid's maneuver an empty stunt. It was meant to look like their action resumed the meetings, when in fact they were already scheduled.

Note: that makes it a political stunt. I don't know why Furious starts asking about legality. I don't even consider it dirty politics or a bad move, it is just politics as usual -- but I do think that describing it as a stunt (designed to gen up the base) is completely accurate.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

The claim was

What you have there is the Reps saying that they told the Dems that the meetings would be resuming (and the report I heard indicated that they hoped to have something out with another 6-7 days of meetings), and the Dems, after being told that, go and claim that the resumption is due to their super-secret special meetings.

You then have them claiming that they have been thwarted because there haven't been meetings in approximately 5 months.

What you said was not just that Reps have been dragging their feet or had been moving too slow, but that they had been making "the same empty promise" -- to get the report out -- for "quite some time."

Your article doesn't seem to address that. Your article seems to support the Rep claims that they had already told the Dems about resuming the meetings before the Dems demanded their secret meetings -- in other words, the article cuts boths ways, according to whom (if anyone) one believes.

If, as alluded to, the Dems were notified about the resumption of hearings prior to demanding the secret session (or whatever it is called), then it supports calling Reid's maneuver an empty stunt. It was meant to look like their action resumed the meetings, when in fact they were already scheduled.

Note: that makes it a political stunt. I don't know why Furious starts asking about legality. I don't even consider it dirty politics or a bad move, it is just politics as usual -- but I do think that describing it as a stunt (designed to gen up the base) is completely accurate.

You missed the point. The Republicans have been saying they will continue the investigation for 2 years, while doing nothing but blocking it. Therefore, their claim that they were going to resume the investigation in a week could and should be regarded as just another delaying tactic.

Oh, but maybe they were telling the truth this time?

Right. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally Posted by Mark

You missed the point. The Republicans have been saying they will continue the investigation for 2 years, while doing nothing but blocking it. Therefore, their claim that they were going to resume the investigation in a week could and should be regarded as just another delaying tactic.

Oh, but maybe they were telling the truth this time?

Right. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

The second report on the investigation was issued March 2005.

And the Reid vote could and should be viewed as a stunt.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

The second report on the investigation was issued March 2005.

And the Reid vote could and should be viewed as a stunt.

I regard it as (finally!) enough is enough. The Republicans had their chance to come clean and blew it big time.

[punchdrunk]

Originally Posted by Mark

Not sure where you think the "stunt" part comes into it.

Reid put the Senate into closed session as a way to draw attention to the feet-dragging by the Republicans, and for no other reason. Traditionally the senate is put into a closed session for full-Senate confidential debates. Apparently they didn't have any debates during this session, just some huddled meetings. What would you call it? Certainly not usual.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by rhoadp

Reid put the Senate into closed session as a way to draw attention to the feet-dragging by the Republicans, and for no other reason. Traditionally the senate is put into a closed session for full-Senate confidential debates. Apparently they didn't have any debates during this session, just some huddled meetings. What would you call it? Certainly not usual.

I call it a good first step toward doing his job.

This country was never founded or run on the "winner takes all" philosophy adopted by the current Republicans. A stunt? Our system is supposed to have checks and balances...and it's about bloody time they were restored.

[punchdrunk]

Originally Posted by Mark

I call it a good first step toward doing his job.

This country was never founded or run on the "winner takes all" philosophy adopted by the current Republicans. A stunt? Our system is supposed to have checks and balances...and it's about bloody time they were restored.

I bet that if the shoe was on the other foot and a Republican minority leader did this, you would call it worse than a stunt; it would be a dirty trick, and an example of the GOP trying to circumvent the will of the people and the officials they elected.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by rhoadp

I bet that if the shoe was on the other foot and a Republican minority leader did this, you would call it worse than a stunt; it would be a dirty trick, and an example of the GOP trying to circumvent the will of the people and the officials they elected.

As with many people here you seem to be making an incorrect assumption about me.

A) I am not a Democrat. I have no Party loyalty at all, preferring to put my country first. I consider party loyalty to be the single biggest threat to our way of life.

B) My main problem is with One Party Rule. It is corrupting and it is definitely not what the Founding Fathers intended. If the Democrats ever again control all 3 branches of government, I'll be busting their chops just as badly. The budget was balanced in the 1990s because the 2 parties shared power and cancelled each other out, more or less.

C) While I do indeed lean pretty far to the Left on most issues, by no means do I do so on all.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally Posted by Mark

I regard it as (finally!) enough is enough. The Republicans had their chance to come clean and blew it big time.

I regard it as both sides blowing hot air and posturing for cameras - IOW, politics as normal.

As stated above, I don't consider it some type of dirty trick, I don't consider it unethical, I consider it a typical day in Washington DC.

And I consider it a stunt.

[punchdrunk]

Originally Posted by Mark

As with many people here you seem to be making an incorrect assumption about me.

I am indeed making an assumption about you. What I think you should consider is why I and many other people are making this, as you say, incorrect assumption. You decry my use of the word "stunt", but you haven't explained how what Reid did is anything but a publicity stunt to garner attention to the feet dragging. Do the Republicans deserve to be called out? I think so, as do you. Yet that doesn't change the fact that what Reid did to call attention to the matter was a stunt. I am able to recognize this, you aren't - or you won't. Perhaps this is why the "partisan" label is hung on you, despite your protests.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by rhoadp

I am indeed making an assumption about you. What I think you should consider is why I and many other people are making this, as you say, incorrect assumption. You decry my use of the word "stunt", but you haven't explained how what Reid did is anything but a publicity stunt to garner attention to the feet dragging. Do the Republicans deserve to be called out? I think so, as do you. Yet that doesn't change the fact that what Reid did to call attention to the matter was a stunt. I am able to recognize this, you aren't - or you won't. Perhaps this is why the "partisan" label is hung on you, despite your protests.

I did explain it. I'll try again.

The Republicans have been delaying the investigation for 2 years.

The now claim they were going to proceed with the investigation but there is absolutely no evidence that this is so. Other than their word, which has already been proven false regrading the same investigation.

Our system of government is supposed to have checks and balances to prevent this sort of malfeasance.

Up to now, the Democrats have been a bunch of limp wieners, not providing those checks and balances.

That is why I do not consider this a "stunt." The stunt, if there is one, is with the Republicans who are making the absurd claim that now they are intending to proceed with the investigation. 2 years of stonewalling say that is a lie.

[punchdrunk]

Originally Posted by Mark

I did explain it. I'll try again.

The Republicans have been delaying the investigation for 2 years.

The now claim they were going to proceed with the investigation but there is absolutely no evidence that this is so. Other than their word, which has already been proven false regrading the same investigation.

Our system of government is supposed to have checks and balances to prevent this sort of malfeasance.

Up to now, the Democrats have been a bunch of limp wieners, not providing those checks and balances.

That is why I do not consider this a "stunt." The stunt, if there is one, is with the Republicans who are making the absurd claim that now they are intending to proceed with the investigation. 2 years of stonewalling say that is a lie.

First, checks and balances were put in place to prevent one branch of government from having more power than the other two. The Constitution does not say that it's up to the political parties to ensure that those checks and balances take place. If the people in control of the legislative branch are not doing their duty in regard to overseeing the executive branch, it's up to the voters to come to that conclusion and put new people in control. The Democrats, besides maybe slowing business down in the Senate to a crawl or doing what Reid did Tuesday, have no power or ability to change how the Republicans do business.

On to the meaning of the word "stunt". I have used the word as simply and objectively as I know how; I've stripped away who's doing it, why they are doing it, why the other side thinks it is wrong and where my values fall compared to both sides. I am using, or trying to use, the word without prejudice, and only as it is defined in the dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stunt

Quote:

stunt -
2. Something done to attract attention or publicity.

You, on the other hand, are clearly letting your feelings on the matter as a whole define how you label specific actions taken by its actors. Since you believe that the Republicans are wrong in this situation, it can be only they who have pulled a stunt. Likewise, since the Democrats are the protaganists in your perception, it is not possible that what Reid did could be considered a stunt. Thus, what you consider a stunt is wholly dependent upon who's pulling it. That's partisanship.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by rhoadp

First, checks and balances were put in place to prevent one branch of government from having more power than the other two. The Constitution does not say that it's up to the political parties to ensure that those checks and balances take place. If the people in control of the legislative branch are not doing their duty in regard to overseeing the executive branch, it's up to the voters to come to that conclusion and put new people in control. The Democrats, besides maybe slowing business down in the Senate to a crawl or doing what Reid did Tuesday, have no power or ability to change how the Republicans do business.

On to the meaning of the word "stunt". I have used the word as simply and objectively as I know how; I've stripped away who's doing it, why they are doing it, why the other side thinks it is wrong and where my values fall compared to both sides. I am using, or trying to use, the word without prejudice, and only as it is defined in the dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stunt


You, on the other hand, are clearly letting your feelings on the matter as a whole define how you label specific actions taken by its actors. Since you believe that the Republicans are wrong in this situation, it can be only they who have pulled a stunt. Likewise, since the Democrats are the protaganists in your perception, it is not possible that what Reid did could be considered a stunt. Thus, what you consider a stunt is wholly dependent upon who's pulling it. That's partisanship.

Your view that my opinion is based solely on emotion, while your is based on something else is simply childish.

Your view of how the Founding Fathers viewed parties is simply wrong.

Quote:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

---George Washington from his Farewll Address.

I guess he was ruled soley by his emotions, too.

[punchdrunk]

Originally Posted by Mark

Your view that my opinion is based solely on emotion, while your is based on something else is simply childish.

Well, this is not what I was trying to convey to you at all. Either I'm not explaining it well or you don't understand. Quite frankly I'm struggling to come up with a better explanation than my previous post. Perhaps breaking it down piece by piece may help:

By definition, I say what Reid did was a stunt - he did it to attract attention (to the Republican feet-dragging). This is something Reid has not denied. The closed session served no other purpose.

Do you deny any of this?

Originally Posted by Mark

Your view of how the Founding Fathers viewed parties is simply wrong.
---George Washington from his Farewll Address.

I guess he was ruled soley by his emotions, too.

Wow, big whiff on this one. Please point out where I described the Founding Fathers views. In fact, please point out any mention I made of the Founding Fathers. When you're done with that, please point out to me where in the Constitution it mentions political parties and their role in checks and balances. Then, while you're at it, please point out in your quote of George Washington where he advocates using checks and balances ala the Constitution to "discourage and retain it". After all that, maybe you could explain to me how the Democrats can use any of the checks and balances as put forth in the Constitution to check the Republicans' power.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by rhoadp

Well, this is not what I was trying to convey to you at all. Either I'm not explaining it well or you don't understand. Quite frankly I'm struggling to come up with a better explanation than my previous post. Perhaps breaking it down piece by piece may help:

By definition, I say what Reid did was a stunt - he did it to attract attention (to the Republican feet-dragging). This is something Reid has not denied. The closed session served no other purpose.

Do you deny any of this?



Wow, big whiff on this one. Please point out where I described the Founding Fathers views. In fact, please point out any mention I made of the Founding Fathers. When you're done with that, please point out to me where in the Constitution it mentions political parties and their role in checks and balances. Then, while you're at it, please point out in your quote of George Washington where he advocates using checks and balances ala the Constitution to "discourage and retain it". After all that, maybe you could explain to me how the Democrats can use any of the checks and balances as put forth in the Constitution to check the Republicans' power.

Your comment:

Quote:

You, on the other hand, are clearly letting your feelings on the matter as a whole define how you label specific actions taken by its actors.

How should I have taken that?

I agree Reid did what he did to call attention to Republican foot dragging. This makes it a "stunt?" As I said, to me it just indicates he was doing his job as part of the loyal opposition. I would feel the same if the Parties were reversed.

Our entire system of government was designed to keep things from flying off too far in any one direction. That you seem to feel this is not the case is, I confess, beyond my ability to understand. The 3 branches of government were set up secifically to achieve this purpose, and were never intended to be controlled by one political party. If that had been the intention, we would have had a dictatorship.

[punchdrunk]

Originally Posted by Mark

Your comment:

Quote:

You, on the other hand, are clearly letting your feelings on the matter as a whole define how you label specific actions taken by its actors.

How should I have taken that?

I guess it was not well written. Replace feelings with beliefs. Your belief that this was not a stunt by Reid comes from your belief in that what Reid did was necessary or good for the country. Is that true?

Originally Posted by Mark

I agree Reid did what he did to call attention to Republican foot dragging. This makes it a "stunt?"

Yes! Here's the link again: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stunt. It's number 2 under the noun usage. About a quarter down the page.

Originally Posted by Mark

As I said, to me it just indicates he was doing his job as part of the loyal opposition.

Quote:

I regard it as (finally!) enough is enough. The Republicans had their chance to come clean and blew it big time.

Quote:

Sounds to me like the Democrats are starting to grow a spine.

Quote:

I call it a good first step toward doing his job.

I'm not telling you what it indicates, what I regard it as, what it sounds like to me, or another name I call it. I'm telling you what it is: a stunt.

Originally Posted by Mark

Our entire system of government was designed to keep things from flying off too far in any one direction. That you seem to feel this is not the case is, I confess, beyond my ability to understand.

Well, I suppose first you would have to give me some definitions of what you consider too far in one direction to be, because quite frankly I'm finding your sense of direction hard to trust at this point. But in general, I certainly agree with this statement. That you have distorted my specific comments about the Constitution and political parties to mean I favor dictatorship is not beyond my ability to understand.

ETA: "That you have distorted my comments to mean I favor dictatorship" is wrong; you never said that. What I should have said is you have distorted my specific comments about the Constitution and political parties to mean that I don't believe in the inherent checks and balances of our government.

Originally Posted by Mark

The 3 branches of government were set up secifically to achieve this purpose, and were never intended to be controlled by one political party. If that had been the intention, we would have had a dictatorship.

Find one good quote from a Founding Father that states the Constitution's checks and balances were intended to check the power of political parties, and I'll eat my Internet shorts.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by rhoadp

I guess it was not well written. Replace feelings with beliefs. Your belief that this was not a stunt by Reid comes from your belief in that what Reid did was necessary or good for the country. Is that true?


Yes! Here's the link again: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stunt. It's number 2 under the noun usage. About a quarter down the page.





I'm not telling you what it indicates, what I regard it as, what it sounds like to me, or another name I call it. I'm telling you what it is: a stunt.


Well, I suppose first you would have to give me some definitions of what you consider too far in one direction to be, because quite frankly I'm finding your sense of direction hard to trust at this point. But in general, I certainly agree with this statement. That you have distorted my specific comments about the Constitution and political parties to mean I favor dictatorship is not beyond my ability to understand.

ETA: "That you have distorted my comments to mean I favor dictatorship" is wrong; you never said that. What I should have said is you have distorted my specific comments about the Constitution and political parties to mean that I don't believe in the inherent checks and balances of our government.


Find one good quote from a Founding Father that states the Constitution's checks and balances were intended to check the power of political parties, and I'll eat my Internet shorts.

The little digs are starting to bore me.

[peptoabysmal]

From the link in the OP:

Quote:

The inquiry would be a follow-up to the July 2004 intelligence committee report that blamed a "series of failures" by the CIA and other intelligence agencies for the mistaken belief among U.S. policymakers that Iraq had restarted its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

Sooo... Are the Democrats going to keep runing the same investigation until they get the results they desire?

[punchdrunk]

Originally Posted by peptoabysmal

From the link in the OP:
Sooo... Are the Democrats going to keep runing the same investigation until they get the results they desire?

It's the second phase of the same investigation, presumably agreed upon by Republicans at its inception. The second phase has been going on for a year and a half. Are the Republicans going to keep dragging their feet on this investigation until they get the results they desire?