Friday, November 18, 2005
On the "Murtha Resolution' and GOP Backbone
Here's Glenn Reynolds' roundup of this issue, in case you don't know what I'm talking about.
I just want to provide a few thoughts on this:
I for one am very pleased to see this legislative battle. Congress used to have battles of words like this all the time (for example, the famous debates that took place for the decades before the Civil War). If Congress wanted to lead, it could. It is the branch of government with the power of the purse and the power of impeachment and removal; if it wants, it can run the country. I wish it would more often, because if Congress stands united on something, the rest of the government, including the President, really has to go along. If congress would show more leadership on the part of the US having a strong, agressive foreign policy for the sake of our defence, there would be no doubt what the US stands for.
Also, Mr. Jim McGovern's (of Mass.) statements today at the beginning of the debate today on this issue was ridiculous. He absurdly said the resolution was about more than it actually was, and then started spouting off with things like (not quotes but paraphrases) 'We sent in our army underequiped' and that 'money is being spent on we don't know what' and the great chickenhawk argument that 'no members of this body will be going off to fight, so how can they speak about staying the course' (I love that argument the way it was worded--representatives are already serving their country, how in the hell could they be in the army at the same time? They can't. It's not the army's job to dicate policy, it's the political branch. Which is what they're doing. I mean, who does Mr. McGovern want to dicate policy? The generals? If that was the case, he might not like what would happen. We might attack more countries that are killing our boys).
Mr. David Obey (of Wis.) did not say anything about the substance of the bill. He just said that the current GOP resolution is an attack on Murtha. Uhhh, no. It's an attack on Murtha's stupid idea that we should leave now instead of staying until we win. Than he started going off that the move was 'sneaky, tricky' etc. It'd be nice if the Democrats that were speaking earlier would have addressed policy more instead of whining that they have to make a choice to outrage their far-left base of the mainstream of America.
Michell Malkin liveblogged the whole thing earlier. I direct you to her post.
Yay, debate just started again. I think I'll liveblog it.
UPDATE: Before you read the liveblog in the next post, read David Adesnik's posts on Murtha and the current situation. He explains why Murtha's statement is wrong and idiotic. I couldn't have taken it appart any better myself in such a small space.
I just want to provide a few thoughts on this:
I for one am very pleased to see this legislative battle. Congress used to have battles of words like this all the time (for example, the famous debates that took place for the decades before the Civil War). If Congress wanted to lead, it could. It is the branch of government with the power of the purse and the power of impeachment and removal; if it wants, it can run the country. I wish it would more often, because if Congress stands united on something, the rest of the government, including the President, really has to go along. If congress would show more leadership on the part of the US having a strong, agressive foreign policy for the sake of our defence, there would be no doubt what the US stands for.
Also, Mr. Jim McGovern's (of Mass.) statements today at the beginning of the debate today on this issue was ridiculous. He absurdly said the resolution was about more than it actually was, and then started spouting off with things like (not quotes but paraphrases) 'We sent in our army underequiped' and that 'money is being spent on we don't know what' and the great chickenhawk argument that 'no members of this body will be going off to fight, so how can they speak about staying the course' (I love that argument the way it was worded--representatives are already serving their country, how in the hell could they be in the army at the same time? They can't. It's not the army's job to dicate policy, it's the political branch. Which is what they're doing. I mean, who does Mr. McGovern want to dicate policy? The generals? If that was the case, he might not like what would happen. We might attack more countries that are killing our boys).
Mr. David Obey (of Wis.) did not say anything about the substance of the bill. He just said that the current GOP resolution is an attack on Murtha. Uhhh, no. It's an attack on Murtha's stupid idea that we should leave now instead of staying until we win. Than he started going off that the move was 'sneaky, tricky' etc. It'd be nice if the Democrats that were speaking earlier would have addressed policy more instead of whining that they have to make a choice to outrage their far-left base of the mainstream of America.
Michell Malkin liveblogged the whole thing earlier. I direct you to her post.
Yay, debate just started again. I think I'll liveblog it.
UPDATE: Before you read the liveblog in the next post, read David Adesnik's posts on Murtha and the current situation. He explains why Murtha's statement is wrong and idiotic. I couldn't have taken it appart any better myself in such a small space.
Comments:
Post a Comment
