Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reid to accept that Gates be confirmed during lame duck session.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 09:22 AM
Original message
Reid to accept that Gates be confirmed during lame duck session.
Edited on Wed Nov-15-06 09:35 AM by Mass
Too bad. I would have liked to see the hearings with Webb there and he wanted to be part of that. I guess this was not going to happen. Reid is in a hurry to go with this nomination, and apparently does not want to put a fight.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/14/politics/main2180049.shtml

...
Reid told The Associated Press that a top priority for the remainder of the lame-duck session will be confirming Robert Gates as defense secretary, succeeding Donald H. Rumsfeld. “The sooner we can move it forward the sooner we can get rid of Rumsfeld,” he said.
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. same strategy as before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demnan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
2. Can anyone see parallels with Gonzales here?
We're getting rid of the bad to bring in the worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #2
10. Anyone Bush sends up will be bad. Gates gives Dems a chance to draw blood
and bring up a GOP pattern of manipulating Intelligence to cover their war profiteering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
3. I think they have to be practicing some sort of triage here.
There is such a boatload of stuff to be tackled in the 110th, might as well let this one slide. Also, getting rid of Rumsfeld as soon as possible ain't no small thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peace13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Nice thought about Rumsfeld
but I don't have any nice thoughts for him. Bush waited until now to dump him so that we would be backed into a corner and have to swallow the next load he sent down. Rumsfeld was a Horror with a capitol H. His replacement must be part of the solution not the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeffR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
4. Perhaps because it takes Lieberman off the table?
:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peace13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
5. Here we go again!
Words cannot describe the frustration. If the president is going to stand in the way of a solution to his mess in Iraq by offing up another one of daddy's criminals then he must be removed from the equation. I have listened to the impeach argument this week and thought that I could adjust to the fact that we would not pursue the option. What is this sh*t about moving ahead quickly ...no time... I am sorry but as my bumper sticker says 'The problems we have will not be solved by the minds that created them'. If the Dem's that we have put in power to make the changes this country must have to survive do not stand up and do the work that they are charged with it should be painfully obvious that we have been duped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevietheman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #5
13. The 110th Congress begins 1/3/07. Let's not prejudge what...
hasn't happened yet.

Besides, Gates offers a positive background in some areas, such as favoring detente with Iran. Let's give the guy a chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
7. Time to write Reid. He's not giving anyone hell. More like sell out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Harry Reid says he has questions about Gates' involvement in Iran-Contra
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
9. Hello? This doesn't mean Dems can't draw blood during the confirmation
and there's zero reason to stop Gates' nomination. ANYONE Bush sends up will be objectionable.

And Gates' confirmation will bring back questions of manipulating Intelligence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. So, why not insist that it happens that when they will be in charge.
This is not something for a lame-duck session. New senators, those who were elected for the same reasons Rumsfeld was fired, should have a chance to weigh on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
11. That's okay. Confirmation will still fall on GOP head
The Dems can grill him in oversight. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
14. Reid surely can't want RUSHED hearings for a criminal like Gates. He couldn't possibly
want that sort of victory for the BFEE. Let's see how much time is alotted for the hearings before we assume Reid is rolling over for Poppy's boys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Hmmm.... Aren't you tired of relenting to corruption in hopes of better
circumstances to turn them back?

Wrong is wrong and wrong stops now.

Why are you being appeased again while instating goons?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. I am 4square against Gates - I hope Reid WANTS the hearings to go badly for Gates.
I want ALL of BushInc to be exposed as the criminal enterprise they are.

Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

“I told that the New Republic hadn’t brought them enough votes to win a single precinct,” the senior Democrat said. “But they kept saying that they owed this to the editors of the New Republic.”

During his tenure at the CIA, Woolsey did next to nothing to address the CIA’s “politicization” issue, intelligence analysts said. Woolsey also never gained Clinton’s confidence and – after several CIA scandals – was out of the job by January 1995.

At the time of that White House chat with Stuart Sender, Clinton thought that his see-no-evil approach toward the Reagan-Bush era would give him an edge in fulfilling his campaign promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the economy.

He was taking on other major domestic challenges, too, like cutting the federal deficit and pushing a national health insurance plan developed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

Yet, Clinton – and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats – view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.

Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clinton’s folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
15. More Washington sell outs. This is what should concern us.
Edited on Wed Nov-15-06 11:31 AM by shance
Just because they "call" themselves Democrats, doesn't mean they have the spine or character to be one.

Don't look to Washington to be your ally or leader. Look at the record of all Congressional leaders the past six years. Minus a select few, it would appear, they have no interest in doing what is right. They are not doing their job. They are more or less simply out for themselves.

Time to build stronger state and local communities and governments, and fighting more against what has become the more blended establishment parties of D.C.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
17. Make Bush appoint him as "interim Sec of defense" and have
Edited on Wed Nov-15-06 05:39 PM by SoCalDem
the hearings in January..

I mean .. what's the rush?..

Rummy RESIGNED, or did he?

If he resigned, then HIS deputy Sec of Def should be conferring with the proposed replacement, and since no policies have changed, what's the rush?

Appoint Gates as "interim sec", get Rummy a tee time, and let's move on..

Plenty of time for hearings, and it would be helpful to have 6 weeks to gather information about gates..BEFORE he gets the rubber stamp of approval
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Gates will be confirmed by a majority of Rethugs and Dems.
No amount of protest letters, emails, phone calls will change that outcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC