NationStates Jolt Archive

According to Harry Reid, Iraq doesn't even make the top twelve.

WASHINGTON - Ethics reform, a higher minimum wage and more money for stem cell research are the top items on the Senate agenda next year, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday in an interview with The Associated Press.

Reid said he will tackle those priorities after cleaning up the "financial mess" that the outgoing Republican leadership has left. He was referring to nine long overdue appropriations bills covering 13 Cabinet departments for the budget year that began Oct. 1.

Strange to see that, although the Democrats campaigned heavily against the war in Iraq, it isn't just a little more important to them. Then again, maybe Harry wants to get to the bottom of that shady land deal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/AR2006101101640.html) he was involved in.

Right.

So, basically, you want troops to be pulled out now.

Reid never said those were their only priorities. He didn't say anything about education, for instance -- ZOMG! Does that mean that Congress doesn't care about the children?! :eek:

Anyways, I'm sure it would be more prudent to wait until the Iraq Study Group delivers their report, anyway.

So, basically, you want troops to be pulled out now.

That depends. What I really want is for the Democratic leadership to accept the responsibility that they asked for when they campaigned against the incumbents. I would expect planning for either an extended occupation, as was recently authorized by the UN, or a complete surrender would be at a higher priority than any of the top twelve items that Reid mentioned.

According to Harry Reid, Iraq doesn't even make the top twelve.

Strange to see that, although the Democrats campaigned heavily against the war in Iraq, it isn't just a little more important to them. Then again, maybe Harry wants to get to the bottom of that shady land deal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/AR2006101101640.html) he was involved in.

Right.

Two things--when it comes to Iraq, there's precious little the Congress can do to force Bush's hand short of defunding it and investigating the lies that got us stuck there. You know it. I know it. Most of the country knows it. So instead they'll work on stuff that they can make a difference in.

Secondly, there was nothing shady about that land deal. Hastert's (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/22/politics/main1740900.shtml), on the other hand...

That depends. What I really want is for the Democratic leadership to accept the responsibility that they asked for when they campaigned against the incumbents. I would expect planning for either an extended occupation, as was recently authorized by the UN, or a complete surrender would be at a higher priority than any of the top twelve items that Reid mentioned.

So, less than a month after the election, you want detailed plans from the Democratic leadership, spelling out every jot and tittle of everything they'll be doing for the next two years. How fair and balanced.

A link to your source would be nice, Myrm, since we only have your claim that Iraq is not in the other parts of the 12.

Two things--when it comes to Iraq, there's precious little the Congress can do to force Bush's hand short of defunding it and investigating the lies that got us stuck there. You know it. I know it. Most of the country knows it. So instead they'll work on stuff that they can make a difference in.

Secondly, there was nothing shady about that land deal. Hastert's (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/22/politics/main1740900.shtml), on the other hand...

But they sure did campaign hard on it. The mishandling of the war in Iraq was the issue that supposedly turned the election. Now, it's taking a back seat to issues, appropriations aside, that only appeal to extremely small numbers of people. How about a little window dressing, just to make sure we still believe?

A link to your source would be nice, Myrm, since we only have your claim that Iraq is not in the other parts of the 12.

Ho Hum...Go look at Yahoo!

But they sure did campaign hard on it. The mishandling of the war in Iraq was the issue that supposedly turned the election. Now, it's taking a back seat to issues, appropriations aside, that only appeal to extremely small numbers of people. How about a little window dressing, just to make sure we still believe?

So...

No one cares about ethics?

So...

No one cares about ethics?

Not as much as this hyper-sensitive forum might lead you to believe. Most people think their guy is okay. It's always the other guy that needs the kick in the pants. That's why these bums can get elected and re-elected ad infinitum. No, the real issues are the ones that affect us. Is my nephew going to come back from Iraq alive? Am I sure enough of my job to buy a new house this year? Do I need a second job?

Whether or not a particular Congressman has broken a rule on disclosure or even a law regarding campaign finance doesn't really matter much to most people. I am sure we mostly regard these transgressions as a part of politics. Not all of our Senators can be as honest as Mr Smith and we don't demand it.

Is the guy taking bribes? That's a little more serious and I suspect that the majority of the public does consider that an abuse of office. The question comes down to how badly the guy has violated the public trust.

I doubt there are enough potential felons serving to warrant ethics as a top priority. That's just a distraction so that we don't notice that this Congress is as unable to produce action on Iraq as the last one was.

So, less than a month after the election, you want detailed plans from the Democratic leadership, spelling out every jot and tittle of everything they'll be doing for the next two years. How fair and balanced.

They don't even come into formal session until January. Just another attempt at a last hurrah by a Bushevik, go figure.

According to Harry Reid, Iraq doesn't even make the top twelve.

Strange to see that, although the Democrats campaigned heavily against the war in Iraq, it isn't just a little more important to them. Then again, maybe Harry wants to get to the bottom of that shady land deal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/AR2006101101640.html) he was involved in.

Right.

Sounds to me like they're giving Iraq the priority it deserves: none. Now if only they can convince the President to give it the same military priority. :p

According to Harry Reid, Iraq doesn't even make the top twelve.

Strange to see that, although the Democrats campaigned heavily against the war in Iraq, it isn't just a little more important to them. Then again, maybe Harry wants to get to the bottom of that shady land deal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/AR2006101101640.html) he was involved in.

Right.
What's Iraq?

Two things--when it comes to Iraq, there's precious little the Congress can do to force Bush's hand short of defunding it and investigating the lies that got us stuck there. You know it. I know it. Most of the country knows it. So instead they'll work on stuff that they can make a difference in.

Secondly, there was nothing shady about that land deal. Hastert's (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/22/politics/main1740900.shtml), on the other hand...

Same dennis haster who was a high school wrestling coach (kid-watcher) and helped keep his buddy mark foley's kid-sexual-harassment under wraps?

Right.

Iraq being the dominant issue in the US right now, it probably went without mentioning.

Or maybe the democrats are just going to ignore it for the next two years. I bet that will happen.

Right.

OP << :rolleyes:

Not as much as this hyper-sensitive forum might lead you to believe.
Really now?

Early exit polls showed voters disapproved of the war in Iraq by a large margin, but they said corruption and ethics were more important to their vote.
Link (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nN08174741&pageNumber=2&imageid=2006-11-08T215538Z_01_WASW214_RTRIDSP_2_USA-ELECTION.jpg&cap=Former%20CIA%20director%20Robert%20Gates%20speaks%20after%20U.S.%20President%20George%20W.%20Bus h%20announced%20that%20Gates%20will%20replace%20Donald%20Rumsfeld%20(L)%20as%20Secretary%20of%20Defe nse%20at%20the%20White%20House%20in%20Washington%20November%208,%202006.%20Rumsfeld,%20the%20controv ersial%20face%20of%20U.S.%20war%20policy,%20quit%20on%20Wednesday%20after%20Democrats%20rode%20Ameri cans*%%20anger%20and%20frustration%20over%20Iraq%20to%20victory%20in%20Tuesday*%s%20congressional%20 elections.REUTERS/Kevin%20Lamarque%20%20(UNITED%20STATES)&sz=13&WTModLoc=BizArt-C1-ArticlePage2)

Perhaps more people are concerned with ethics than you think, perhaps Sen Reid understands this more than the GOP, who lost power over it.