LA Times, AP reported Boehner comment that Dems refused to "work with" GOP on detainee bill, ignored 15 blocked Dem amendments
SUMMARY: The Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press reported House Majority Leader John Boehner's suggestion that Democratic opponents of the GOP-backed detainee legislation were refusing to "work with Republicans." Neither outlet noted that Democrats had offered 15 amendments to the bill that were barred from consideration by the Republican-led House Rules Committee.
In September 28 articles on the House's passage of a Republican bill governing the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorism suspects, the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press reported House Majority Leader John Boehner's (R-OH) suggestion that Democratic opponents of the measure were refusing to "work with Republicans to give the president the tools he needs to continue to stop terrorist attacks." But neither outlet noted that Democrats had offered 15 amendments to the bill -- all of which the Republican-led House Rules Committee barred from consideration on the House floor.
On September 27, the House passed the GOP-backed Military Commissions Act of 2006 by a vote of 253-168, with 34 Democrats voting in favor and seven Republicans voting against.
In the floor debate prior to the vote, Boehner expressed hope that his "Democrat [sic] friends" would "stand together" with Republicans on the bill:
BOEHNER: [T]he question is, will my Democrat friends work with Republicans to preserve this crucial program or oppose giving the president the tools that he needs to protect the American people? Will my Democrat friends work with Republicans to give the president the tools he needs to continue to stop terrorist attacks before they happen, or will they vote to force him to fight the terrorists with one arm tied behind his back?
Now, I do not, and will never, question the integrity or the patriotism of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This is about giving our president the tools he needs to wage war against terrorists who are trying to kill us. And I hope that we will stand together this week and vote to give our president the tools that we need to fight and win in our war against terrorists all over the world.
But as Washington Post staff writer Dana Milbank reported in his September 28 "Washington Sketch" column, far from attempting to "work with" their fellow Democrats, the House Rules Committee -- chaired by Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) -- had on September 26 "ruled that the House would not consider some 15 amendments the Democrats had proposed to legislation on military commissions." Both the Post and New York Times articles on the passage of the bill also noted that Democrats had been "prevented from offering any amendments" -- including one "that would have extended the habeas corpus right to detainees."
In a September 28 article on the House's approval of the bill, however, Los Angeles Times staff writers Richard Simon and Julian E. Barnes quoted Boehner's "challenge[]," but did not note that the GOP leadership had blocked 15 Democratic amendments:
Previewing GOP plans to use the tribunal measure in the campaign, House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) challenged Democrats on Wednesday to vote against it. "Will my Democrat friends work with Republicans to give the president the tools he needs to continue to stop terrorist attacks before they happen -- or will they again vote to force him to fight the terrorists with one arm tied behind his back?" he asked.
The September 28 article by AP writer Anne Plummer Flaherty also quoted Boehner's comments without noting the fate of the Democratic amendments:
House majority leader John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, all but dared Democrats to vote against the legislation.
"Will my Democrat friends work with Republicans to give the president the tools he needs to continue to stop terrorist attacks before they happen, or will they vote to force him to fight the terrorists with one arm tied behind his back?" he said just before members cast their ballots.
Translation: Democrats refused to roll over and play dead like the Republicans in Congress do for Bush.
The title of House Majority Leader should be officially changed to "Bush's Bitch".
What the Repub majority thinks that they are "getting" from BushieCo now. Don't they look at the poll numbers and tight races. Maybe that Senate revolt of McCain and Co. was a set-up by Rove to make the Repubs "look like" they have a mind separate from BushieCo. Meanwhile, the beat and the beast roll on...
...as long as you're willing to see everything his way.
MMFA should probably take a look at Boener's interview yesterday with Chris Matthews, where he achieved a level of mendacity on virtually every subject that was almost breathtaking (before it was over, he had al Qaida aiding the Sept. 11th attacks again). Matthews, in a manner VERY uncharacteristic of his usual fawning approach to interviews with Republican bigwigs, made a fight of it, but, as usual, he was almost totally unprepared, and a lot of crap made it onto the air unchallenged.
Mathews interrupted Boener repeatedly and try to badger him, but he hardly challenged Boener in what should have been easy.
Boener: Saddam trained terrorists in the North of Iraq.
Hypothetical Mathews (what he should have said): But Saddam had no control of the northern part of Iraq. The US did.
Real Mathews: nothing!
Boener: We know Saddam had WMDs and used them in Iran. We don't know where they went.
Hypothetical Mathews: The Duelfer report states quite clearly that not only did Saddam not have WMDs, he had no WMD program. It stated that Saddam had destroyed his WMDs before 1996. Do you have any intelligence that disputes theses findings, the result of hundreds of interviews and on the ground inspections after the war?
Real Mathews: What you say in conjecture. [No it is not--it is totally made up.]
Can any Republican lurker present a rational argument for the use of torture?
The most recent polls of the American People show that 97% of them consider the issue of "detainees" to be the most important issue facing the Nation right now, and as such, those Americans will be basing their vote this fall, on the candidate's position with regard to "detainees".
Wait, CORRECTION: That was supposed to read...
"97% of the American People DO NOT think the issue of 'detainess' to be important to the Nation right now, and they WILL NOT be basing their vote in the upcoming election on the candidates position regarding 'detainees'."
Then why is the Congressional majority, and the administration, so seemingly fixated on "detainees" right now?
I like the item for the quotes:
BOEHNER: "The question is, will my Democrat friends work with Republicans to preserve this crucial program or oppose giving the president the tools that he needs to protect the American people? ...to give the president the tools he needs to continue to stop terrorist attacks before they happen, or will they vote to force him to fight the terrorists with one arm tied behind his back?"
Just where is the Majority Leader getting the idea that his "Democrat friends" are opposing him and the president on this matter?
Two of the "journalists" cited here are quoted as writing:
"Previewing GOP plans to use the tribunal measure in the campaign, ...Boehner challenged Democrats on Wednesday to vote against it."
And...
"Boehner ...all but dared Democrats to vote against the legislation."
Please note the parts "to use the tribunal measure in the campaign" and "all but dared".
Again, who's opposing the legislation? I'd think the Majority Leader would be happy to be unopposed in this matter, rather than complain about it...
Of course, it's not truly a complaint... it's called "baiting" those Democrats... it's simply trying to see if they can be made to "knee-jerk" on this issue, and appear "soft on terror" this close to the election.
They're doing just fine I might add, Congressional Democrats, not taking the bait.
Of course, there's quite a few "bloggers" and "journalists" out there, acting all upset at the horrors and oppressions of "detainees"...
As if they knew the identities and suspected crimes and possible evidence against those "detainees"...
Those "knee-jerkers" sure do take the bait, they sure don't know much about hard-ball politics this close to an election...
They sure do care an awful lot about "detainees", the Congressional majority and those "knee-jerkers" do...
...unlike 97% of the American People.
It is my undertanding, albeit limited, that this legislation gives yet greater power to the prez to conduct himself (in our name) outside the scope of the Geneva Conventions. Hardball politics and baiting aside, why shouldn't humane treatment of human beings, of any stripe, be of concern to everybody?
It's just that the majority of the American People (who decide the administration of our government, and the majority of our Congress... and have been recently coined as "Red State America") are more sensible to the threat of a "terror attack", than to the treatment of "terror suspects", otherwise known as "detainees".
Those American People (and if you deride "Red Staters", then you insult the People who presently have kept Democrats from the administration and from the majority status in Congress), they do not see the "detainees" as their neighbors or friends or family...
They do not see them as even being deserving of the title "Human"; for the administration (who alone holds these "detainees", and alone knows their identities and any evidence against them) has labeled them "terror suspects"... therefore the majority of the American People see them as such, having no other information to go on.
Not friends or neighbors or family, not even "Human", is how the majority of the American People see these unidentified "terror suspects".
And here you must admit, that whether you like the way this issue has played out (the administration alone having and knowing these "detainees"), that that is the way the cards have fallen...
That is the the way the cards are dealt on this one... the administration holds all the cards on this one (as they hold all the "detainees").
And that is why they are playing these cards the way they are, this close to the election.
And as I have said, it is bait to be taken by Congressional Democrats, to make them seem "soft on terror", to the majority of the American People, who, like those Congressional Democrats themselves, know not who these "detainees" are, or what they may have done...
Save that they know they are not their friends, family, etc., for they are called "terror suspects" by the only ones who know who they are, the administration.
And I would say not to buck the way the cards are dealt, but to play them as best you can... to play as best you can the cards that are dealt you this close to the election...
And as I have here described those cards, are as they have fallen.
There is mention that "this legislation gives yet greater power" to the present administration.
I know of a much greater power than any that can be given by this "detainee" legislation: The power that comes with being in the Congressional majority...
Which is a power that can hold this administration accountable...
Which is a power bestowed by what is otherwise known as "Red State America" (don't deride it, because it's true)...
A power that the Democratic Congressional Caucus has already fumbled away once, in 2004, and seem sometimes completely ignorant of...
...with the notable exception of their not taking the bait, in this week's GOP campaign tactic.
for your clarification. Please regard my below post with a grain of salt.
I find your post to be a repugnant marginalization of human rights in the name of politics as usual. This legislation must be opposed and all of its supporters/enablers chastised. What the hell kind of person is nonplussed by immoral acts? What the hell kind of citizenry is not appalled by government sanctioned torture?
"Of course, there's quite a few "bloggers" and "journalists" out there, acting all upset at the horrors and oppressions of "detainees"...
As if they knew the identities and suspected crimes and possible evidence against those "detainees"...
Those "knee-jerkers" sure do take the bait, they sure don't know much about hard-ball politics this close to an election...
They sure do care an awful lot about "detainees", the Congressional majority and those "knee-jerkers" do...
...unlike 97% of the American People."
It is absolutely disgusting, DEM 02020, to refer to people of good conscience as "knee-jerkers." What does that make you? Brain dead? Heartless? Soul-less?
Even if these detainees are guilty of any crime, do they deserve to beaten to death slowly and joyfully? Wake-up DEM, folks like you and I are next on the list.
Refusing to work with the GOP? Today 12 of the Democratic senators voted with the Republicans to allow torture to continue. It wasn't the Democrat's making the most noise against the use of torture. It was McCain and a couple other Republicans; but finally they caved in too.