Maxine Waters reveals a bit of the truth
Betsy's Page
In the debate yesterday over the House Resolution on the Iraq War and battle against terrorism, Maxine Waters, always entertaining, revealed the real reason why the Democrats were so upset. (Thanks to Laura Ingraham for posting the audio - see at link below.) She got up on the House floor and said that many Democrats were going to be "trapped" because they would have to vote on this resolution and they don't want to have to pick a side and vote on it.
<<< "And so, many Democrats are going to get trapped. Because they claim that in their districts they have half of their constituents for it, this war and half against it and they don't know what to do." >>>
Gee, isn't that what representatives are elected to do? Pick a side and take a stand. Even if they might have to tick off half of their constituents? What can be a more important issue than where you stand when the nation is at war? Representatives shouldn't just make vague statements of supporting the troops, criticizing the President, without making it clear what they think we should do.
Normally, I'm pretty scornful of these do-nothing resolutions, but I think this debate in both the House and the Senate over Kerry's withdrawl idea has been very illuminating. Read the text of the resolution and try to figure out which part of the resolution the Democrats are so furious about.
<<< Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;
(2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;
(3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;
(4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;
(5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitution;
(6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and
(7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary. >>>
It must be the third statement against setting an arbitrary date for deployment or withdrawl. And isn't that a legitimate issue that members should have to take a stand on? Shouldn't constituents know before they go to the polls whether or not their representative wants to set a date for withdrawl or not? That's why these representatives feel "trapped." They have to show where they stand on a crucial issue for the country and they don't like having to take a stand.
And spare me all the whining about not being able to amend the resolution. And all that showboating about having their hands tied. That is how the House works. They can decide not to let amendments to a bill or resolution. That is one of the great advantages of being in the majority. They do it all the time. There is nothing unAmerican about it as it's been part of the House rules for decades.
Of course, if the House Democrats had been allowed to introduce amendments, as the Assoicated Press reported, there was one big problem.
<<< They also complained that Republicans refused to allow them to present an alternative resolution _ though Democrats weren't able to agree on just what to offer. >>>
The Democrats have trumpeted that they finally have a platform for the election this fall. They are ready to take the country in a "new direction" with some of their same old ideas of raising the minimum wage, paying for prescriptions, rolling back some of Bush's tax cuts, and giving more loans to college students. As you read over their "new direction" ideas, one thing quickly becomes clear. They don't have a "new" or even an "old" direction on the war in Iraq or about terrorism. Pelosi tries to pretend that it's just dandy that they don't have any plan on the war in Iraq.
<<< ``It's the president's war, and one of the things we'll do is hold the president of the United States accountable for his war," Pelosi said. ``We don't foist any position on any of our members." >>>
Well, isn't that just swell? They want to be entrusted with control of the Congress, but on the most important issue facing the country, all they can do is point fingers at the President. They're quite ready to carp about what has been done before but they don't want the American voters to have any idea of what they'd do if they were in control. Granted that their party can't agree what the policy in Iraq should be. Does that give voters any confidence that there would be any coherence to the policies that they would push if they controlled Congress? Of course not. Trying to pin them down would just be a "trap" for the Democrats. Or an opportunity for them to clarify for voters where they stand on an important, if not the most important issue, before the country.
betsyspage.blogspot.com
lauraingraham.com
=848BAE8BF9E8081A5B5493F8ADAE5D60?dispid=302&headerDest=/site/preview?pid=2657
lauraingraham.com
thomas.loc.gov
latimes.com
cbsnews.com
boston.com
boston.com |
