when the senate held a recent all-night session with regards to the Iraq war, it was reported that the president planned to veto their decision to begin pulling troops out of Iraq by April 2008. This announcement of the president's veto was apparently made prior to the session even being held. That being said, why did the senate even have to hold the session in order to attempt to achieve the necessary 67 votes if it was clear that the president would veto the decision anyway? That was basically saying that the session was nothing more than a mere joke, and a waste of time on the part of the senate. Would it not have made more sense for the senate to just be allowed to attempt to override the iminent veto, since they already knew it was coming, without having to humiliate themselves with the previous session?
2007-08-26 07:09:23 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
If they didn't have the Majority of the vote to pass the bill, how do you think they would have ever gotten the 2/3's needed to override?
It was a publicity stunt by Reid, pure and simple.
It back fired, big time.
2007-08-26 07:13:41 · answer #1 · answered by Mark A 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Making a statement makes a statement. In the early days of the Viet Nam War, there were few protesters. The movement increased and a majority of the people wanted us out. Since that all night session, some top Republicans have started to break with Bush. Waste of time? Tell that to the friends and relatives of the four peaceful protesters who were shot down and killed at Kent State by National Guardsmen. And to hear Bush say we should have stayed long in Viet Nam tells you what has to be fought against. Him and his kind. Let's see, 55, 000 killed in Viet Nam, and the boys were dying at a rate of 900 a month. In Iraq they die at 90 a month. Better medical treatments.
The Senate did the right thing. They are part of a co-equal branch of the United States of America. It can show the American people where members of the Senate stand. It drew a great deal of press the the fact we have an administration that is not one that unites, but one that divides.
Watch, as the Republican Senators running for re-election next year begin to join the call to get our brave men and women out of Iraq. You will see how "nothing more than a mere joke, and a waste of time" becomes part of a movement that will start bringing home troops before the end of the year.
2007-08-26 14:37:39 · answer #2 · answered by Songbyrd JPA ✡ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This was all a publicity stunt by Sen. Reid of Nevada and the Democratic Senators. They want to push the issue a bit more in the face of the American public, and will do anything and everything they can do in order to drive home a message that they want to do something different.
While I might support doing something else, instead of keeping our men and women in harms way, I haven't heard any suggestions as to what to do, other than pulling out and leaving the place to go to hell. This is certainly not an option, as it will leave our image globally worse off than it is at the moment. We cannot have another Vietnam - the only solution is to keep sticking to our guns, and waiting it out. If we say we're leaving, Al Qaeda and the other terrorist groups will simply wait until we leave, and launch a massive attack at that point. Anyone else want to see that happen? I know I don't!
2007-08-26 14:19:06 · answer #3 · answered by jennygirl 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Oh, I remember that ridiculous overnighter. Totally useless, just like the defeatist that called for it.
2007-08-26 14:43:05 · answer #4 · answered by dave b 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋