| Page 3 of 5 < > |
Is Failure an Option?
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
"The resolution -- crafted by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) -- will not come to a vote before Bush's State of the Union address on Tuesday. But by sending it to Biden's committee this week, Democratic leaders will give senators from both parties multiple opportunities to voice concerns about the president's policy.
"In another high-profile move, Democratic leaders yesterday tapped Sen. James Webb (D-Va.), a Reagan administration Navy secretary who secured victory in November on an antiwar push, to deliver the party's nationally televised response to Bush's speech."
Carl Hulse and Jim Rutenberg write in the New York Times that Hagel's participation in the resolution puts "a bipartisan stamp on the looming Congressional showdown over the war. . . .
"At the White House, officials were continuing to discuss the new plan with members of Congress, with an emphasis on lining up Republicans behind Mr. Bush's approach. 'We knew this was not going to be an easy policy to explain or one that was going to be met with open arms,' said a White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"That official said that the message to Congressional Republicans was similar to the one the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, conveyed Tuesday at his press briefing: that approval of any resolution critical of Mr. Bush's approach, even if nonbinding, would send a damaging message.
"'In an age of instant and global communication, what message does it send to the people who are fighting democracy in Iraq?' asked Mr. Snow. 'And, also, what message does it send to the troops?'"
Here's Snow at yesterday's briefing:
"Q Just to be clear, do you believe that a non-binding resolution that opposes a troop increase, does that provide comfort to the enemy?
"MR. SNOW: I don't know. I think -- the question again is, does this send a signal that the United States is divided on the key element of success in Iraq. And I will let members of Congress express themselves, because I'm sure they're going to say, no, we're committed to success, and then they can elucidate on that point."
TPM Cafe blogger Greg Sargent calls attention to NBC reporter David Gregory's very good follow-up question: "So what is an appropriate way to dissent?"
Snow couldn't really say.
Scooter Libby Watch
Based on the questions prospective jurors were being asked yesterday, it almost felt like Dick Cheney was on trial more than his former chief of staff Scooter Libby.



