Article

2007-02-18 Home Front: Politix

Senate Rejects Renewed Effort to Debate Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2007-02-18 00:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Among the Republicans who broke ranks were Senators John W. Warner of Virginia, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

Posted by DMFD 2007-02-18 01:07|| 2007-02-18 01:07|| Front Page Top

#2 That animal is much too good for them DNFD. That Rhino looks like a hardheaded, steadfast, well-armed, ne0-con to me.

Posted by Shipman 2007-02-18 01:11|| 2007-02-18 01:11|| Front Page Top

#3 "The Senate on Saturday narrowly rejected an effort to force debate"

For the love of Allan - the Dems and their media wing have gone to whatever the next step is beyond self-parody. Cloture motions LIMIT debate, allowing a measure before the Senate to come to a vote of senators without the normal condition of unanimous consent, the principle on which the Senate works. DEFEATING a cloture motion does not LIMIT or prevent debate, it prevents VOTING.

"The 56-to-34 vote in a rare Saturday session was the second time Republicans were able to deny opponents of the troop increase a debate".

Same point as above. It is astounding that such a fundamental and obvious misrepresentation of the facts of Senate procedure can be casually and universally found in the major media. What we see here is a philosophical challenge to our understanding of democracy that I don't think was previously considered - the Constitution bars government restriction of a free press, but I'm not aware that the Founders ever considered the current situation: an unfettered press that while superficially vast and diverse actually is quite uniform in grossly misinforming the electorate.

"We will be relentless, said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the third-ranking Democrat. There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment, all forcing this body to do what it has not done in the previous three years: debate and discuss Iraq."

The only thing relentless about your behavior, Chuckles, are its irresponsibility, detachment from reality, and vacuous self-righteousness. And WFT? about no debate or discussion of Iraq - where have you been, you whiny, useless twerp?

For everyone's information, save for a few measures with statutory debate or amendment limitations like the annual budget resolution, ALL Senate measures are liable to amendment and infinite debate, pending unanimous consent that they be brought to a vote of the body. This means that at any point, regardless of who's in the majority - including the past few years - any senator could move to amend virtually any bill to express just about any view or attempt to impose any actual binding restriction WRT Iraq, or any other matter.

In other words, it's preposterous for Schumer to claim that somehow discussion or even substantive action WRT Iraq was limited in recent years. The normal course is for amendments to be offered, and tabling motions to be made against them by the managers of the bill. The vote then occurs on the tabling motion, but the vote is properly understood (usually) as being on the underlying amendment.

Sorry for the parliamentary mini-lecture, but I spent several years working in the Senate and it is just amazing to see how basic Senate procedure is misrepresented by the Dems, and by the media. Obviously a real press would solve both problems by exposing such gross misrepresentation of the facts, thus discouraging senators from making such ridiculous statements.

Posted by Verlaine 2007-02-18 02:12|| 2007-02-18 02:12|| Front Page Top

#4 "It is astounding that such a fundamental and obvious misrepresentation of the facts of Senate procedure can be casually and universally found in the major media."

I'm no longer astounded by it.

I was at first, back in the late 90's when it first dawned on me how dishonest and biased they were; but not anymore. I operate on the simple assumption that for all practical purposes, the press in this country is a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party and is charged with disseminating the message they want to put out as well as suppressing the information the Party wants suppressed. And I seldom see anything that contradicts that assumption.

As for the Democrats themselves, they are benefitting from Bill Clinton's primary legacy: the revelation that "truth" simply doesn't matter; that a plausible, well-constructed lie is just as good as a true statement; and that there need be no shame in even the most blatant dishonesty.

They have become what author M. Scott Peck called the "People Of The Lie".

"...I'm not aware that the Founders ever considered the current situation: an unfettered press that while superficially vast and diverse actually is quite uniform in grossly misinforming the electorate."

Actually, I think what the Founders never anticipated was that our entire society would someday get suckered into believing that the press is somehow an "objective seeker of truth", as they have portrayed themselves over the last half-century. Back in their time, the days of tracts, pamphlets and broadsheets, the press was assumed to be inherently partisan; and their view was that in the long run, "truth" was something best left to the common man to sort out from a broad and unfettered array of viewpoints presented to him without government interference.

The really pernicious thing with the MSM is not that they are biased; it is that we have allowed them to con us into believing they are "objective" and "fair", and that *SPIT* Walter Cronkite was, and should be, "The Most Trusted Man In America".

That the press is unbiased, is the biggest lie of all.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-02-18 09:13|| 2007-02-18 09:13|| Front Page Top

#5 As for the Democrats themselves, they are benefitting from Bill Clinton's primary legacy: the revelation that "truth" simply doesn't matter; that a plausible, well-constructed lie is just as good as a true statement; and that there need be no shame in even the most blatant dishonesty.

Okay, now I'm depressed. Perhaps a nuclear strike on Oxford will cheer me up.

Posted by Shipman 2007-02-18 11:19|| 2007-02-18 11:19|| Front Page Top

#6 Well said, Dave D. I meant to somehow communicate that while the phenomenon I was describing was, in an objective sense, astounding, I too was no longer astounded. Then again, I just woke up to a screaming front-page headline in a newspaper for a major US city ("Republicans Block Debate on Iraq War") and somehow it IS astounding that such a precise inversion of the facts can be promoted so audaciously.

I also think there is a very large zone in which it is possible for the press to operate in a manner that is reasonable and reliable, if not pristinely "objective". I saw it first-hand in Iraq, where particular reporters would do an excellent job in explaining a particular situation. Of course these were the great exception, and the relentless and extreme distortion of the editorial staff at higher levels normally ensured that such clear-eyed reporting remained isolated.

But I have no difficulty imagining a reasonably objective press as not just a theoretical but practical possibility. Actually understanding a story and presenting it can be difficult, but avoiding crude bias is easy.

And of course we have the perfect storm of distortion at the moment - a wildly unprofessional media, and an administration unable or unwilling to correct even the most consequential and egregious distortions. Appalling, and still astounding, in some way.

Posted by Verlaine 2007-02-18 11:42|| 2007-02-18 11:42|| Front Page Top

#7 Verlaine - that would probably be the same as mine: SD Union. I already fired off a letter, and posted a comment here before I read yours. I made most of the same points but not as articulately, good job
Frank in Santee

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-02-18 12:37|| 2007-02-18 12:37|| Front Page Top

#8 I operate on the simple assumption that for all practical purposes, the press in this country is a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party

Dave, I've become convinced that the Press are actually the voice of the "Progressive" wing of the Democratic Party. You'll have noted that they ignore or twist the words of the centrists of their own party just as much as they do the Republicans.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-02-18 14:08|| 2007-02-18 14:08|| Front Page Top

#9 I am reminded of the words of Joseph Pulitzer, whose prize has been so twisted and mangled that it means nothing any more. He said "Our nation and its press will rise or fall together". Right now, it looks like we're in freefall, with a hard ground below us. Luckily, the Internet allows the truth to get out to those willing to look for it.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2007-02-18 14:14|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2007-02-18 14:14|| Front Page Top

#10 "Dave, I've become convinced that the Press are actually the voice of the "Progressive" wing of the Democratic Party."

That's true, as far as it goes: but that Progressive "wing" is no long a wing; it IS the Democratic Party anymore. The Kossacks, the DUmmies, the MoveOn.orcs, the Deaniacs and the Moore-ons have taken over. They are the Democratic Party of today.

All the rest, the old-line liberals and centrists-- Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, et al are standing on the outside looking in, blinking in astonishment and wondering WTF happened to "their" party.

What happened to it is, it became someone else's party.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-02-18 14:47|| 2007-02-18 14:47|| Front Page Top

#11 but they have yet to leave.... decisively and clearly denouncing what the party has become. Take the south and midwest with them

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-02-18 14:59|| 2007-02-18 14:59|| Front Page Top

#12 Dave D. I was at first, back in the late 90's when it first dawned on me how dishonest and biased they were; but not anymore.

Dave because of the corrupt MSM "news" manipulation, especially its coverage on Vietnam, Kennedy, McNamara, Water Gate etc. my dawning was the early 70s. A side note: During the 50s and early 60s (my formative period) we were regularly instilled with the notion that Our (good) "news" Organs were "free" as opposed to the controlled Government News in the Soviet Union (bad).

Well truth be known the MSM has it's own corrupt agenda much like the Soviet Union did, and it controls its "news" like the Soviets did to serve it, using many of the same techniques but usually more subtly, using slight of hand (editing) to deny it.

Yes a few friends of mine (vets mostly) felt the same way... Obviously we weren't the only ones..

Cliches aside thank God for the NET. We are millions now and the MSM lies wrapped in deceit will never pass for conventional wisdom anymore let alone the truth.

Yes never forget we are much stronger now, even when us old fucks die off the kids coming back from Iraq and A-stan (as well as their relatives and friends) will never be just a few!

Posted by RD 2007-02-18 16:48|| 2007-02-18 16:48|| Front Page Top

#13 What happened to it is, it became someone else's party.

Bought and paid for by the hundreds of millions dollars from Soros, Lewis, Bing, Heinz-Kerry, et al.

Posted by ed 2007-02-18 17:06|| 2007-02-18 17:06|| Front Page Top

23:58 JosephMendiola
23:47 gromgoru
23:47 JosephMendiola
23:46 gromgoru
23:34 JosephMendiola
23:29 JosephMendiola
23:23 JosephMendiola
22:54 USN, ret.
22:42 JosephMendiola
22:40 Angenter Crolugum3645
22:36 JosephMendiola
22:24 JosephMendiola
22:17 trailing wife
22:14 mrp
22:12 trailing wife
22:11 JosephMendiola
21:50 gromgoru
21:50 KBK
21:46 gromgoru
21:45 USN, ret.
21:44 gromgoru
21:42 Asymmetrical T
21:23 USN, ret.
21:22 Mullah Richard