What is Warner's Malfunction?

Damn the Senate. I don't believe this.

The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, underscoring lawmakers' concerns about the Iraq war's progress, said yesterday that he may invite testimony from retired generals who have called for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign.

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) said he will confer with colleagues before deciding whether to schedule a hearing that would feature defenders of Rumsfeld as well as retired officers who have stirred debate in recent days by saying the secretary should step down. "I commit to making a decision on this request in the near future," Warner said in a statement, adding that the panel has a busy schedule.

Let's see ... just today, the Senate is going to hold hearings and look at breaking up the oil companies thanks to Schumer, who is virtually a disgrace. No, they are going to hit the oil companies with a wind fall profit tax (which will drive up prices at the pump, further limit dollars for exploration and development - and line their pockets, of course) - or are they going to give us 18 cents back for two months from the 50 - 60 cents they take for every gallon of gas, much of which is mis-appropriated into programs the gas tax was never meant to fund?

These elected for life hacks are getting to be a disgrace. Now Warner is talking about another power grab into the Executive Branch? Rumsfeld doesn't serve at the pleasure of the Senate. He serves at the pleasure of the President and these over-deliberative, pandering Senators should have enough sense to keep their hands off. They mess up everything they touch, from Campaign Finance Reform to Education and beyond.

They rig the system so they can't lose at the polls. They suck sweet heart dollars from lobbyists while both hands are digging in our pockets for our hard earned gold - meanwhile, damned few of them have ever accomplished anything significant in the private sector, if they've ever been there at all.

Go back to what you do best, take a junket, or a recess, and stop trying to make the Executive Branch your own. Like it or not, more people elected President Bush than any single one of you. And combined, you haven't accomplished half as much. Stop playing Executives and get on with being the pandering, pie in the sky legislators you were elected to be. As damned sad as that is to say.

Comments

[Bukko]

And what has the little weasel accomplished that the Senate hasn't? You should say that the U.S. Senate hasn't stuffed up half as much as Bush has. (Pardon the Aussie expression "stuffed up." I emigrated from the U.S. ti Australia last year to get out from the impending economic implosion that will be caused by the fascists you so admire. Good luck with what's coming, righty!)

[raindrops]

Do you know anything about Sen. Warner at all? He is one of the most responsible Senators in Congress. He researches everything he does, he actually listens to the people from his state, and he's got something a lot of Republicans could use a major dose of - ethics! That's why even Democrats in Virginia will quietly vote for him. Yeah, we have two Repubicans senators - the statesman, Warner, who is respected by everyone - and the disgrace who gave us the SOL's, George Allen, who is loved by his cronies and hated by anyone with decent standards.

[Dan]

Do you know anything about Sen. Warner

Yeah, I know he's a Senator. What is it about spearation of powers you don't get, exactly? This has nothing to do with his character, or a roll in the hay with Liz Taylor, either. I don't care if he's Mother Theresa, it isn't his job.

[Aeon]

Henry Kissinger once said, "Of all the despots I've had to deal with, none was more ruthless than Donald Rumsfeld."

How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?: Dwight D. Eisenhower
----------------------------------------------------------
GET A CLUE - the merger of corporations and state = FACISM.

[jpe]

Separation of powers is a legal doctrine, and doesn't forbid things like hearings on the competence of the executive branch.

IOW: you swung and missed.

[jeff]

Actually it is exactly congress's job. The president recommends. Congress approves. Do you know how government (is supposed to) works?
http://armed-services.senate.gov/hearings.htm

[jeff]

Look in the January 2001 proceedings dealing with Rumsfeld's NOMINATION for the post in the above link. Actually looks like first man Bush put on the job after election. Wotta surprise.

[mowry]

Rumsfeld may serve at the pleasure of the President, but he required the approval of the Senate to get his job. They NO LONGER APPROVE. They should be silent and let the incompetance continue? It absolutely is their job to point out Rumsfeld's failures and the flacid leadership of a President too
insulated from reality to demand accountability.

[Maimonides]

You're absolutely right - the Senate's Advice and Consent powers are way out of date, like that Warner. Who gives a fuck if he had the balls to come out of retirement to stick it to Ollie North for the honor of our government, who cares that he's doing his job. He should just shut up and let the Decider decide what's right.

[Randy]

Hear's another piece of interesting news. According to the rules of the house, which were written by Thomas Jefferson and approved by the current sitting House, impeachment can be put into motion by recommendation from a state legislature. So far there is movement afoot in 13 states to approve such a recommendation. I don't expect this to get very far with the House of Representative in the control of corrupt Republicans, but it would be nice to see Bush and Cheney testifying under oath and answering to the people, at whose pleasure they serve. A guy can dream can't he?

[gil]

You need to understand, Right Wingers like Permalink don't want a congress, they want a rubber-stamp.

How dare you question Runny!!

How dare you question oil Corporations!!

This is America pall. It is our god given right to QUESTION. That is how Democracies work.... If you don't want questions move to China.

[Tom Waits]

Dude, you're exactly the kind of right-wing neo-nazi parasite I hate. Quit listening to my music.

[Dan]

Dude, you're exactly the kind of right-wing neo-nazi parasite I hate. Quit listening to my music.

Not to worry, only about one out of seven cuts are worth listening to on the newer stuff. As if there's been much! LMAO ANy free CD's?? Maybe I'll convert.

You sober yet?

[tom waits]

Sober? Naw, been drinking with Hitchens. He's gotta hell of a tolerance for a traitor.

[bryce]

If it was just the war in Iraq leaving Rumsfeild in power might be OK, yeah, he has almost single handedly lost it, but at this point the situation cannot get much worse. Iran is another matter altogether, not only does Iran have a better army but another loss for the US milatary will destroy the credibility of the US for years to come. Unless you want to take the milatary option off the table when it come to dealing with Tehran, rummy has to go.

[Just the facts]

Reihl wrote

"Now Warner is talking about another power grab into the Executive Branch? Rumsfeld doesn't serve at the pleasure of the Senate. He serves at the pleasure of the President and these over-deliberative, pandering Senators should have enough sense to keep their hands off."

The
The U.S. Constitution states:

The Congress shall have Power To...
To declare War ...
To raise and support Armies...
To provide and maintain a Navy...
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers...

Mr. Riehl, given the fact that The Congress has all these powers, isn't it their duty to look into how well the Executive has been raising and supporting the Army, providing and maintaining the Navy, maintaining the rules the Congress has established for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, and in general waged war?

Maybe you do not want them to look into it. Maybe you do not think they will do a good job of looking into it.

But they clearly have the power to look into it.

Those are the facts of the matter. Do you disagree?

Best Regards,

Just the Facts

PS:

Regarding your point on "meanwhile, damned few of them have ever accomplished anything significant in the private sector, if they've ever been there at all."

John Warner's Bio can be found here. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=W000154

It is true that a lot of his life he has worked for the government.
-He served in Korea as a first lieutenant and communications officer with the First Marine Air Wing.
- In 1956, he was appointed an assistant United States Attorney and served for four years in the trial and appellate divisions.
-From 1960 to 1969, he was in private law practice, specializing in bank, securities and corporate cases.
-From 1969 to 1973 as Department of Defense representative to the Law of the Sea talks in Geneva.
-He served as Undersecretary of the Navy from 1969 to 1972, and as Secretary of the Navy from 1972 to 1974.

It is true, he never secured financing for a new baseball stadium, but not everyone can accomplish such great things in the private sector.

[Randy]

Look at what Cheney has done in the private sector. He used the connections made in the public sector to land a fat job at Halliburton. Now he's back in the public sector promoting a war that's nothing but pure profit for him and his old cronies. What a stand-up guy. He's making money by the boatload off the amputated limbs and flag draped coffins of our fallen soldiers and marines, and loving every minute of it. You Republican must be very proud. John Warner sure has a lot to learn.

[Bluedog49]

The Secretary of Defense, along with all other members of our government and military, do not serve at the pleasure of any individual. They serve the constitution. It might be the conservative mind's need for a Father-figure or a leader of some kind to follow, but I've noticed many conservatives don't get this simple fact. They believe the military serves the Commander in Chief. But, the military take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the leader.

[Dan]

John Warner's Bio

I said most. I am aware of his background, which, if this is anything other than a way to support Rumsfeld on his behalf, I'd be troubled. But why open the door for the Dems to mug for the cameras on hearings? And Warner is pandering like it or not. BTW Does his Bio say when he started tappin' Taylor? Now there was an accomplishment.

And tell me why you are at it, who gets to hold hearings when Congressional aides stray? Huh? Who is policing them, exactly? Oh, that's right, "them" is. What a crock. They are accountable to no one but the voters and they have so rigged those bets, you havent a prayer of throwing out an incumbent in almost anything but extreme circumstances. Or when they get found out by their home state, as in Daschel. Don't even use the words accountable and the Senate in the same phrase. Hell, everyone knows Byrd is senile, Kennedy is a drunken ass. But no one gets to hold hearings on them.

[jamie]

Bravo to Warner. This Republican does not believe in an imperial presidency - especially with this inept president. Rumsfeld is a disaster, and if Bush is stubbornly unwilling to admit his mistake in hiri ng and keeping him in the job, then some responsible party or person has to speak up. Rummy has ignored his generals and been a completely incompetent SOD. His incompetence has cost lives, not just prestige. Off with his figurative head, however it has to happen.

[robert lewis]

"spearation of powers " ?

Learn to spell, imbecile. I know its a big concept, but what about "oversight responsibilities" do you not understand?;

Maybe you'll appreciate Warner more after the Democrats take power in '06 - impeach Bush - and fire Rumsfeld.

[oofda]

Great Zot!! this is Government 101. Senator Warner does NOT serve at the pleasure of the President. He is NOT a member of the Executive Branch of government. He DOES serve at the pleasure of the voters of the Commonwealth of Virginia (of which I am one). He actually listens to the people that he represents and takes his position seriously.
And actually more people in the Commonwealth of Virginia voted for Senator Warner than for the President.

[rwilymz]

Jeff queries:
"Actually it is exactly congress's job. The president recommends. Congress approves. Do you know how government (is supposed to) works?"

Mowry edifies:
"Rumsfeld may serve at the pleasure of the President, but he required the approval of the Senate to get his job. They NO LONGER APPROVE."

Robert Lewis challenges:
"I know its a big concept, but what about "oversight responsibilities" do you not understand?"

Once approved, Congress is out of the loop. They no longer have the authority to consent to continuation of the service, which is what you wish them to have. Congress has the permission to prevent the President from being advised by specific people; they do not possess the authority to fire the President's advisors.

So, Jeff? Learn how the government works, please. Thank you.

Mowry? It doesn't matter whether Congress approves of Rumsfeld any longer; their say is over.

Bobby? What about usurpation of authority do *you* not understand?

Bluedog muddies:
"The Secretary of Defense, along with all other members of our government and military, do not serve at the pleasure of any individual. They serve the constitution."

The Cabinet, once individually approved by Congress, serves at the pleasure of the President. To the degree that Office of the President is inhabited by an individual, each individual Cabinet memebr serves at the pleasure of that individual.

Jamie waxes profound[ly dumb]:
"Rummy has ignored his generals and been a completely incompetent SOD. His incompetence has cost lives, not just prestige."

Rumsfeld ignored no one. Policy planning in the military is done by advise and consensus. In any policy planning activity, from national to what goes on in your own family, unanimity is rarely achieved. Someone always disagrees. What we are seeing is that those generals who disagreed [and are now retired] are publically airing a diversionary disagreement in attempt to flank the administration.

Because some generals disagree with policy made while they were active duty does not mean that they were "ignored"; it means the consensus went a direction they don't like.

A suitable analogy would be for a husband and wife to decide where to go on vacation and they have two choices [for ease of analogy]: a cruise to the Bahamas, or a week at the Best Western in Scotsdale AZ. They decide they have only the money for Scotsdale, so even though the wife reallyreallyreally wanted to go on a cruise, they're all going to AZ for a week. And while she's there all she does is grumble and whine and tell strangers that her husband is lousy in bed and has a short dick.

That is what's going on here with all these marvelous generals.

Bryce reports at 90-degrees to reality:
"If it was just the war in Iraq leaving Rumsfeild in power might be OK, yeah, he has almost single handedly lost it, but at this point the situation cannot get much worse. Iran is another matter altogether, not only does Iran have a better army but another loss for the US milatary will destroy the credibility of the US for years to come."

The war in Iraq is over, Bryce. What we have going on now is an "occupation". In terms of military tactics and strategy they are two comPLETEly different things. The war is won; the occupation is going very very well, considering the means used to achieve the conquest. I'll be more than happy to explain to you military neophytes how it works if you really need me to, but suffice it to say that those who don't understand auto mechanics except how to change your oil and replace the wiper blades really shouldn't be lecturing Mr Goodwrench on how to fix the squeak in the front end.

Any time you can conquer a nation of 25 million in, what? 5 weeks? with fewer than 1,000 friendly casualties you've done something that even Alexander or Caesar did not do. When you can do it with fewer than 10,000 civilian deaths you are more humane than any other conquering nation in recorded human history. When you can thereupon occupy that land of 25 million for 3 years with fewer than 2,000 casualties when the method of occupation is not of the Ghengis Khan model, you are sitting extremely pretty.

Bryce, dude, the milatary [sic] hasn't lost Iraq [though if they do devolve into full-out civil war rather than the simmering civil tit4tatting seen today we need to pull out and let them have at it]. Since we haven't lost Iraq we can't have "another loss" in Iran. ...unless you're counting the first loss in Iran to be Desert One...

And even Dan propounds petulant:
"Hell, everyone knows Byrd is senile, Kennedy is a drunken ass. But no one gets to hold hearings on them."

Actually, Dan, there are hearings on the senile Byrd and besotted Kennedy. Every six years at the polls. For some reason, unknown to others, the fine ridgerunners of WVa like being represented by a senile racist, and the fine quasi-socialists of Taxachussets like being represented by a drunken Irishman. They get the government they deserve...