Why do we give one member the power to hold up nominations? It’s absolutely insane and the redneck is playing a dangerous game. Time to reform the rule and tell Tubs the Senator from north Florida formerly of Alabama to GFH.
Republicans confront Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala over military holds in extraordinary showdown on Senate floor
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Neocons made that move in 2008.
President Barack Obama was far from candid when he announced the end of combat operations in Iraq last month, but he did nothing to hide the fact that he is a neoconservative when it comes to the American empire.
That was not lost on leading neoconservatives, who tend to prefer Republicans. William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, told a colleague that while he would have phrased the speech differently, “his basic response was ‘All hail Obama!’”
John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine, wrote in his New York Post column, “President Obama did something amazing. He delivered — dare I say it? — a rather neoconservative speech, in the sense that neoconservatism has argued for aggressive American involvement in the world both for the world’s sake and for the sake of extending American freedoms in order to enhance and preserve American security.”
Just to be clear, it is the neocons who were among the key architects of the war against Iraq in 1991, followed by the embargo that killed half a million children and set the stage for the 9/11 attacks, which were then used to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq (an ambition long predating 9/11) and the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, American’s longest military engagement — all of which have killed more than a million people, wreaked political havoc, and made life in those countries (and elsewhere) miserable. Let’s not forget the drone assassination program being run in a dozen Muslim countries. The neocon achievement also has helped drive the American people deep into debt.
Nice crowd Obama is hanging with these days. And that’s no exaggeration. Frederick Kagan, one of the top neocon brains and a signatory of the Project of the New American Century imperial manifesto, now works for Gen. David Petraeus.
The U.S. government has left Iraq a physical wreck and squarely in Iran’s sphere of influence, but Obama propagates the neocon myth that Iraq was a great success. For him it’s just the beginning: “But this milestone should serve as a reminder to all Americans that the future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment. It should also serve as a message to the world that the United States of America intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century.... Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq’s future is not.”
People throughout the Muslim world must be cringing.
It’s not enough that the George W. Bush and Obama administrations made messes of Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama promises more. “And because of our drawdown in Iraq,” he said, “we are now able to apply the resources necessary to go on offense.”
And then there was ISIS…
You can thank Trump for that...had he never pardoned the Taliban then terrorists would never have taken over
Can he stop Schumer from bringing them to the floor?
Nope, Schumer has already done so when it suited him.
When there is a lack of unanimous consent then they vote to decide the issue.
Why won’t Schumer bring the rest to a vote?
A wholly unrelated topic to nominating military generals, a wholly diversion tactic by cruddy.
Yeah, we were right there on the cusp of victory….
No, wait. The Taliban already controlled most of the countryside and had for years.
We were never winning in Afghanistan, we were just dumping lead and gold on ingrates.
Such a wothless shitbag. I am betting he probably paid for an abortion or two.
It’s possible that he is actually this stupid
The stories I've read point to opportunity cost. If they bring each one for a vote, that's time lost that they could have been doing other confirmations and essential functions.
Apparently back in August when the backlog was only 273, there was an estimate that it would take 689 hours and 20 minutes. Which I find hard to believe, but I am ignorant of all the weird senate rules. The report is linked here:
Hope that helps.
I never said we shouldn't have pulled out, but Trump negotiated with the Taliban WITHOUT the Afghan government...he basically assured what happened, happened
All of the Trump kids. Marsha Blackburn. JD Vance. MTG. Lauren Boebert. The Doocys. Righties who declare other people to be woke.
"Buttttt Trumppppp!!!" Doesn't work when biden scrapped all of his plans and changed the date of the withdrawal and chose to leave those weapons in the hands of terrorists. Those same weapons are now being used to attack Israel (who joe biden wants to finance and arm, literally providing weapons for both sides of the conflict)
Oh PUH-LEEZE, spare me the stupidity that the Taliban would have succumb if only we'd forced them to deal with the corrupt, puppet government that fled the moment we stepped out.
How can you still be a sucker for that stupid enterprise?
It was never going to work.
So, you’re cool with politicizing military appointments? Got it.
So you’re cool with still beating your wife?
Got it.
I’ve said zero in support of Tuberville or what he’s doing. I asked why Schumer doesn’t get the rest of them passed the way he has others.
The answer is apparently they’d rather fundraise than govern.
Are you dumb enough to not realize the prior sentence applies to Tuberville too?
We’ll see.
Where did I support Tuberville once? Lol you are really just making things up lately.
Bringing them individually to the floor politicizes the process of military appointments! How do you not see that?
Why is a floor vote more political than a voice vote?
Is it better or worse to have a record of who approved an appointment?
Is Schumer’s complaint that his job can be tedious?
Giving individual votes for every appointed military leader gives fat Tubs the opportunity to pontificate on every fvcking vote. It’s untenable.
Also, not only does it require a vote on over 300 non-political appointees, knowing the redneck shithead, it will require 300 cloture votes as well.
It sets a horrible precedent. One senator can stop a process that has been historically bipartisan for a pet issue. What if Democrats hold up nominations on 2025 because the Trump DoD doesn’t pay for abortion travel?
This has been answered for you repeatedly. First it would take too much time. They would all have to go for hearings. Typically some do not. They would all have to have a cloture vote. Then they wait 48 hours per nominee. Every vote is delayed because TT won’t give unanimous consent. Meanwhile every other thing the Senate is doing is stopped.
Then you have the precedent. What happens the next time a Senator gets pissed off?
Oh noes? They’ll have to :gasp: vote on the record?
Do these folks not have support of even 60 Senators?
I’m genuinely in favor of them holding these votes over whatever mischief they’d be up to otherwise.
When congress is in session no American is safe. — Mark Twain
And that’s why Republicans, at their core are fine with the holds and Democracts voting on each individually. That’s less judges they can get through.
Team Red is blocking merit based promotions, and you dived right in to defend Team Red. That's support, Bro.
This is your party.
Hell, the Florida Senate doesn’t even vote individually for agency heads. But, by all means, let’s hold up the work of the military because some asshole thinks he’s doing the Lord’s work.
This - they obviously could take them to floor vote; but the time spent on this would be enormous, especially when they have other important things they have to do.
The problem (and I'm not disagreeing with you overall, it's beyond clear that the Afghan gov't was going to collapse), is that by publicly cutting them out of negotiations like Trump/Pompeo did completely undercut whatever legitimacy they had left at that, particularly with the Afghan military, who very quickly also began looking to cut their own deals with the Taliban as well.
Not going to defend the end of the withdrawal - Biden and co I think clearly made many mistakes. All I would argue is that some of those were unavoidable due to the events Trump's people set in motion as a result of how they negotiated with the Taliban, releasing thousands of fighters that would later play a pivotal role overrunning the country in '20.
And in all honesty, no matter whether it was Trump, Biden or someone else, I never felt that the final withdrawal out of Afghanistan was going to be anything but a mess.
Any thoughts on Tuberville's behavior or are you just here to deflect?
I have absolutely no idea why everyone hasn't ignored crud. W/O looking at his/her/it's post (since ignored) I can tell it is without value and simply occupying space.
Similar threads
