The Cellar - The Secret Ballot

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - The Secret Ballot (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=4273)

The Secret Ballot

As I understand it, six Senators were in the chamber when the $87,500,000,000 ~~oil subsidy~~tax on the next generation passed. Only Sen Byrd called naye and it passed without anyone making an official vote. All the Senators, except Byrd, can now pretend they took whatever position they want when they run next time. Weasles! Why or how does anyone vote for a (small r) representative when they avoid taking responsibility for, arguably, the most important vote this term.

I thought Byrd's floor statement was eloquent. Bush, however, has maneuvered the works over a barrel. Here is bit (big bit) of it.

Quote:

...Consider, for example, that before the war, the President's policy advisers assured the American people that Iraq would largely be able to finance its own reconstruction through oil revenues, seized assets, and increased economic productivity.

The $18 billion in this supplemental earmarked for the reconstruction of Iraq is testament to the fallacy of that prediction. It is the American taxpayer, not the Iraqi oil industry, that is being called upon to shoulder the financial burden of rebuilding Iraq.

The international community, on which the Administration pinned such hope for helping in the reconstruction of Iraq, has collectively ponied up only $13 billion, and the bulk of those pledges, $9 billion, is in the form of loans or credits, not grants. But still, the President claims victory for arm-twisting Congress into reversing itself on the question of loans and providing the entire $18 billion in U.S. tax dollars in the form of outright grants to Iraq. I readily admit that how his convoluted logic can be construed as a victory for the President is beyond me.

But reconstruction is only part of the story. On May 1, the President stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln - - strategically postured beneath a banner that declared "Mission Accomplished" - - and pronounced the end of major combat operations in Iraq...

... It has been said many times on the floor of this Senate that a vote for this supplemental is a vote for our troops in Iraq. The implication is that a vote against the supplemental is a vote against our troops. I find that twisted logic to be both irrational and offensive. To my mind, backing a flawed policy with a flawed appropriations bill hurts our troops in Iraq more than it helps them. Endorsing and funding a policy that does nothing to relieve American troops in Iraq is not, in my opinion, a "support the troops" measure. Our troops in Iraq and elsewhere in the world have no stronger advocate than Robert C. Byrd. I support our troops, I pray for their safety, and I will continue to fight for a coherent policy that brings real help - not just longer deployments and empty sloganeering - to American forces in Iraq.

The supplemental package before us does nothing to internationalize the occupation of Iraq and, therefore, it is not -- I say NOT -- a vote "for our troops" in Iraq. We had a chance, in the beginning, to win international consensus on dealing with Iraq, but the Administration squandered that opportunity when the President gave the back of his hand to the United Nations and preemptively invaded Iraq. Under this Administration's Iraq policy - endorsed in the President's so-called victory on this supplemental - it is American troops who are walking the mean streets of Baghdad and American troops who are succumbing in growing numbers to a common and all too deadly cocktail of anti-American bombs and bullets in Iraq...

... But perhaps the biggest mistake, the costliest mistake - following the colossal mistake of launching a preemptive attack on Iraq - - is the Administration's failure to have a clearly defined mission and exit strategy for Iraq.

The President continues to insist that the United States will persevere in its mission in Iraq, that our resolve is unshakable. But it is time - past time - for the President to tell the American people exactly what that mission is, how he intends to accomplish it, and what his exit strategy is for American troops in Iraq. It is the American people who will ultimately decide how long we will stay in Iraq.

It is not enough for the President to maintain that the United States will not be driven out of Iraq by the increasing violence against American soldiers. He must also demonstrate leadership by presenting the American people with a plan to stem the freewheeling violence in Iraq, return the government of that country to the Iraqi people, and pave the way for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. We do not now have such a plan, and the supplemental conference report before us does not provide such a plan. The $87 billion in this appropriations bill provides the wherewithal for the United States to stay the course in Iraq when what we badly need is a course correction. The President owes the American people an exit strategy for Iraq, and it is time for him to deliver.
...
Every Senator, upon taking office, swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution. It is the Constitution - not the President, not a political party, but the Constitution - to which Senators swear an oath of loyalty. And I am here to tell you that neither the Constitution nor the American people are well served by a process and a product that are based on blind adherence to the will of the President at the expense of congressional checks and balances. It is as if, in a rush to support the President's policy, this White House is prepared to put blinders on the Congress.
...
Time after time, the conference committee was given opportunities to restore or impose accountability on the administration for the money being appropriated in the Iraq supplemental...

The conferees approved a provision creating an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority, but I am dismayed that this individual is not subject to Senate confirmation. I am dismayed that the conferees defeated my amendment that would have required the inspector general to testify before Congress when invited. And I am dismayed that the President can refuse to send Congress the results of the inspector general's work. Could it be that the President's supporters in Congress are afraid to hear what the inspector general might tell them? Could it be that the President's supporters in Congress would rather blindly follow the President instead of risking reality by opening their eyes to what could be uncomfortable facts?

The conference also stripped out my amendment to the Senate bill that would have required the General Accounting Office to conduct ongoing audits of the expenditure of taxpayer dollars for the reconstruction of Iraq. On the Senate floor, my amendment requiring such audits was adopted 97 to 0. In the House-Senate conference, it was defeated by the Senate conferees on a 15 to 14 straight-line party vote.

Sprinkled throughout the Iraq supplemental conference report, provisions euphemistically described as "flexibilities" give the President broad authority to take the money appropriated by Congress in this bill and spend it however he wishes. I tried to eliminate or limit these flexibilities - and in a few cases succeeded - but there remain billions of dollars in this measure that can be spent at the discretion of the President or the Secretary of Defense. Although the money is appropriated by Congress, these so-called "flexibilities" effectively transfer the power of the purse from the Legislative Branch to the Executive Branch.
...
The conference report before the Senate today is a flawed agreement that was produced by political imperative, not by reasoned policy considerations. This is not a good bill for our troops in Iraq. This is not a good bill for American taxpayers. This is not good policy for the United States...

I maintain the part of my conspiracy theory that still applies: the idea isn't to reconstruct Iraq, so much as to make it succeed no matter what.

That in turn puts tremendous pressure on all surrounding countries to liberalize and democratize, which in turn leads to peace. In theory.

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad
I maintain the part of my conspiracy theory that still applies: the idea isn't to reconstruct Iraq, so much as to make it succeed no matter what.

That in turn puts tremendous pressure on all surrounding countries to liberalize and democratize, which in turn leads to peace. In theory.

It's a good theory, you'd think someone would want to be on record voting for it. edit: or against it.

The surrounding countries would be outrageously pissed if they knew that was the operational plan. They'd work harder to make sure it didn't succeed. That's one reason why the whole thing looks muddy and directionless. You can't say what the endgame is yet because you can't declare your true objective.

Remember when we didn't see all the destruction on TV this time? It was pinpoint targetting. So who cares if we don't rebuild Baath party offices? We're not rebuilding what we bombed, we're building the entire nation. It's going to be a successful, Democratic Muslim nation with the USA as it's A-number-one best friend, and its success as a free nation that doesn't hate the US is supposed to be a model for Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, et. al. When the people in these other countries see what freedom is, and how it really works, and what it gets you, they are supposed to take an interest in this new approach.

Because no two Democracies have ever waged war against each other. The idea is to try to reform a good chunk of the middle east, because the alternative is continued direct attacks against Israel and the US until some Muslim country finally gets a nuke and then sorry won't be enough.

War against terror. New kind of war. Actual enemies not listed. Actual strategies not yet evident. Not "war on al Queda". Not "war on Islam". This is what it really is.

So, wait.

You're saying the reason they look really stupid is because they're so smart?

We dunno yet whether they're smart or stupid. From the Rumsfeld memo, we do know that they are keeping their eyes on the ball: it asks the key question, are we creating more terrorists than we're defeating?

This sort of high-level strategy would still apply to a Democratic administration, and some of the people behind the idea ARE Democrats. The main problem I have today with the D field (except Lieberman) is that they endlessly seek to not only criticize but actively subvert the process, without making one statement about what they would do to address radical Islamism. They want to take advantage of the people's instinctive isolationism.

The problem does have to be addressed. No way around it. The American people will not stand for another attack, and if there is one, they will demand much more serious approaches from their leaders... and that's where the real dangers lie IMO.

Quote:

That in turn puts tremendous pressure on all surrounding countries to liberalize and democratize, which in turn leads to peace. In theory.

I only wish that were true. I'm not against nor do I oppose the reconstruction of Iraq but I am not as hopeful for the reverse domino theory that is being espoused.

Iran was free for decades - ordinary citizens were wealthy beyond belief, women doctors, lawyers and judges, equal opportunity for all. Did that help Iraq? Nope. Quite the opposite - one could argue that the juxtaposition actually drove Iraq deeper into despotism out of fear of the adjacent nirvanna.

I want Iraq to succeed. In general, I support the administration but with some serious misgivings. One of the things that drives me NUTS about Bush and his admin is their willingness to rationalize their actions in advance.

Its like they make up an excuse for raiding the cookie jar in advance of raiding the cookie jar and, as soon as they are called on it, out comes the prepared justifrationalization ication.

I would appreciate it if our elected representatives would show a little more confidence in the American people and demonstrate a willingness to take responsibility for their inability to convince us what is needed rather than assume we will disagree, then do it anyway, then whip out the prepared bullschlitz response. I find that pretty arrogant and fairly insulting.

On cue, Bush delivers a major policy speech this morning in which he strengthens the notion that the administration's approach is to Democratize the entire middle east... by saying so pretty plainly.

Fine. Democratize the entire middle east.

Anyone want to take a wild freakin' guess who the citizens of many middle eastern states would elect as president in the (highly unlikely) event such an election were to occur?

Its fine to wish for democracy and freedom but its naive not to mention ironic that we (the United States) think we can engineer the outcome of a "free and democratic" process.

And, no, there is no way on this earth that Bush would go to the trouble and expense of "freeing" a country only to have them elect representatives hostile to the United States.

Freedom is freedom.

I'm more or less ok with constructive intervention but we must be very careful what we wish for and we need to thank our lucky stars that most middle eastern countries are NOT democratic.

edited to fix a grammar error - content unchanged.

Quote:

Originally posted by Beestie
snip...I want Iraq to succeed. In general, I support the administration but with some serious misgivings. One of the things that drives me NUTS about Bush and his admin is their willingness to rationalize their actions in advance.

Its like they make up an excuse for raiding the cookie jar in advance of raiding the cookie jar and, as soon as they are called on it, out comes the prepared justifrationalization ication.

I would appreciate it if our elected representatives would show a little more confidence in the American people and demonstrate a willingness to take responsibility for their inability to convince us what is needed rather than assume we will disagree, then do it anyway, then whip out the prepared bullschlitz response. I find that pretty arrogant and fairly insulting.

That's an interesting view. I was kind of hoping the "prepared bullshitz" was them telling us how/why they made that decision. Guess I'm being naive, although like you I have serious misgivings also.:(