Skip to main content

Yeah, its from Fox, but can you believe we are paying these people to do this?? This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.



Senate Likely to Allow Obama Recess Appointments
Pro Forma, Ad Finitum -- Now that Barack Obama is going to be president, Congress is likely to stop its use of pro forma sessions to prevent the Executive Branch from making recess appointments.

By Chad Pergram

FOXNews.com

Thursday, January 01, 2009


With a Democratic president soon taking office and a larger Democratic majority in the Senate, it's likely the use of pro forma sessions to prevent Executive Branch action will cease.

The Senate has been meeting in pro forma sessions every fourth day for the past couple years as part of a tug-of-war with President Bush.

"Pro forma" is Latin for "a formality," and in Senate parlance, "pro forma sessions" are a way the Senate can legally meet without really doing anything. No legislative business is allowed. They don't vote. They don't speechify. It's just gavel in, gavel out.

Abandoning pro forma sessions will mean the Senate can truly go away for a few days without deploying a sentry to preside for a few seconds.

Pro-forma sessions all look very official even when they are just momentary stopgaps. Take a recent day:

Senate officers -- the parliamentarian, the legislative clerk, someone from the sergeant-at-arms office -- gather around the dais.

A batch of tourists sit ramrod straight upstairs in the public viewing gallery. Attentively, they stare down at the majesty of the Senate floor, primed for a rare opportunity to watch their government in action.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., climbs into the presiding officer's chair. He grabs a white ivory gavel that resembles a salt and pepper shaker. Cardin taps it on the desk, bringing the Senate to order.

It's precisely 10:00:37 am.

"The clerk will please read a communication to the Senate from the president pro tempore," directs Wyden.

The legislative clerk then reads a short, but very official-sounding paragraph announcing that "Ron Wyden, a senator from the state of Oregon" will "perform the duties of the chair."

Like actors reading lines at a rehearsal, Wyden takes his cue.

"Under the previous order, the Senate stands in recess until Tuesday, December 23, 2008," says Wyden.

He taps the gavel and shoves back from the desk.

It's 10:01:04.

The Senate meeting is done -- in all of 27 seconds.

The people in the viewing galleries continue to sit stoically, not quite sure what's transpired. But shortly the doorkeepers are in the aisles, ushering them out of the chamber.

Seeing a pro forma session is kind of like going to a Major League Baseball game and watching one pitch or seeing NFL teams do one scrimmage.

During the last presidential term if the Senate had adjourned, President Bush could have potentially bypassed the Senate and appointed what Democrats believe are controversial nominees to the federal courts or a Cabinet agency without Senate approval.

By not adjourning and continuing to meet every few days in pro forma sessions, it prevented the president from making the recess appointment, or an appointment that does not require Senate approval and is valid until the next Congress convenes.

The consistent use of pro forma sessions started when tensions between the White House and Senate Democrats heated up in the first Bush term. Senate Democrats, then in the minority, blocked some of the president's appointments during its regular sessions.

One of the most controversial block was to the 2003 nomination of Judge Bill Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Democrats said Pryor held extreme positions on homosexuality and abortion. So they filibustered the nomination.

In early 2004 when the Senate went out of session, Bush went around the Senate and appointed Pryor to the 11th Circuit.

When Democrats won control of the Senate two years ago, Majority Leader Harry Reid made sure the president would seek advice and consent on future nominations. And the pro forma session blossomed.

For the final round of pro forma sessions, Reid crafted a calendar and designated a single Democratic senator to shepherd the Senate through the parliamentary sprints.

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan presided on Dec. 12. Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia gaveled in and out on Dec. 16, 23 and 28. Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico gets the final pro forma session on Jan. 2, 2009.

Reid published a similar schedule in August. Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia presided twice. Seeing Byrd preside over a pro forma session is kind of like watching the Rolling Stones perform at a small venue in the east Village.

Compared to some of his colleagues, Byrd seems to plod through the sessions, speaking deliberately. But some of the senators informally compete to see who can breeze through sessions the fastest. Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia set what appears to be an Olympic record for a pro forma session. Webb left his colleagues in the dust, speeding through one last year in a mere 11 seconds.

The Senate is known as the world's most-deliberative body. With the Obama administration taking office soon, it appears that the Senate will soon revert to the form that earned it that moniker.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

The Dems have been doing this since 06 to prevent Bush from continuing to destroy this country.
Bush has used and abused his executive power in order to play emperor and bypass congressional approval as set forth by what Bush said was "just a ******med bunch of paper". His disdain for our Constitution has not had a positive impact on our country for the last 8 years.
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
The Dems have been doing this since 06 to prevent Bush from continuing to destroy this country.
Bush has used and abused his executive power in order to play emperor and bypass congressional approval as set forth by what Bush said was "just a ******med bunch of paper". His disdain for our Constitution has not had a positive impact on our country for the last 8 years.


Damm,you are so right.We would have been so much better off getting our asses bombed off for the last 8 years.He has been infringing on the rights of poor terrorist.Give one example of your rights being trampled on.
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
The Dems have been doing this since 06 to prevent Bush from continuing to destroy this country.
Bush has used and abused his executive power in order to play emperor and bypass congressional approval as set forth by what Bush said was "just a ******med bunch of paper". His disdain for our Constitution has not had a positive impact on our country for the last 8 years.

I would agree with you on over use of executive power IF the dems would give up or down votes on appointees made by Bush. Their refusal to vote made him take matters into his own hands. Lets not forget, the 'pro forma' was not just invented 8 years ago!
And, no attacks since 9/11.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
excelman,

Please provide the source for Bush referring to the constitution as a "dammed piece of paper." I've read that quote, but no one can give the source. Please do so!


I heard the newsclip on TV a year or so ago. Sure as hell not going to do research for you. Believe it or not, I don't care. BTW, that newsclip I saw was not on FOX .
Excelman you are COMPLETELY RIGHT


And the "we haven't been attacked in 8 years" is STUPID,it is like John Edwards telling his wife he hasnt cheated in a year,the FACT is we DID GET ATTACKED under Bush,the WORST attack EVER,the "he kept us safe" crap is idiotic,tell that to the 3 thousand dead,it is like Ted Bundy saying "well didn't kill anyone today",get it thru your stubborn heads we did get ATTACKED under Bush and it was the WORST EVER
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
excelman,

So, you admit you can't prove your quote. I've looked for the source and can't find one. Please refrain from making statements that can't be backed up. Facts are one thing -- the big lie technique is another.


post for excelman = 3882
post for interventor1 = 233

I'll post whatever the hell I feel like , thank you very much.
Factcheck.org

December 12, 2007
Q:

Did President Bush call the Constitution a "god****ed piece of paper?"
Is it true that President Bush called the Constitution a "god****ed piece of paper?" He has never denied it, and it appears that there were several witnesses.
A:

Extremely unlikely. The Web site that reported those words has a history of quoting phony sources and retracting bogus stories.
The report that Bush "screamed" those words at Republican congressional leaders in November 2005 is unsubstantiated, to put it charitably.

We judge that the odds that the report is accurate hover near zero. It comes from Capitol Hill Blue, a Web site that has a history of relying on phony sources, retracting stories and apologizing to its readers.

The Quote

The report was posted on Dec. 5, 2005. According to author, Doug Thompson, unnamed Republican leaders complained to Bush during a White House meeting about "onerous" portions of the USA Patriot Act, prompting the following:

Capitol Hill Blue: “I don’t give a god****,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a god****ed piece of paper!”

The evidence

There's no record of Bush ever using these words in public and no other news organization has reported him using them privately. Thompson based his report on three sources whom he didn't name. He gave the date of the quote as "last month," which would put it sometime in November 2005.

Thompson told us he once removed the story from his Web site when others raised doubts and no other news organization came up with a similar story. But he said he later reinstated it and currently believes it to be true. "I wrote the story and I stand by it," Thompson said in a telephone interview.

Thompson told us he based the story on e-mail messages from three persons he knows, all of whom claim to have been present at a White House meeting and to have heard Bush make the statement. He said he finds their account credible: "Sometimes I just have to go with my gut, and my gut tells me he did say this."


The unreliable gut

Thompson's "gut" has proven to be a unreliable guide in the past, however. He has admitted quoting trusted sources in the past who later turned out to be frauds -- twice.

* In 2003 Thompson confessed that he had been "conned big time" by a source who claimed to be a former CIA contract consultant named Terrance J. Wilkinson. Thompson quoted this "source" as claiming to be present at two White House meetings in which Bush ignored intelligence officials' doubts about reports of Iraq seeking uranium. Thompson said he had been relying on the same man for two decades and had "no doubt" about his credibility, only to discover that "someone has been running a con on me for 20 some years and I fell for it like a little old lady in a pigeon drop scheme." He erased a number of stories from the site that had been based on information from "Wilkinson" and deleted anonymous quotes given to him by "Wilkinson" from other stories.

Thompson said then: "It will be a long time (and perhaps never) before I trust someone else who comes forward and offers inside information. The next one who does had better be prepared to produce a birth certificate, a driver's license and his grandmother's maiden name."

* That was two years before the "piece of paper" quote attributed to three unnamed sources. But, far from demanding solid proof, Thompson continued to quote at least one more phony source until 2006, when a blogger started to question the existence of "George Harleigh." Thompson had for years quoted this supposed former Nixon and Bush appointee. But when no records of such a man could be found, Thompson admitted he had never even met him:

Doug Thompson (July 26, 2006): We would get quotes via email on current topics. He claimed to be a retired political science professor from Southern Illinois University and an appointee of both the Nixon and Bush administration. I was told he had been checked out. But he wasn't who he said he was and we used his phony name in stories.

This time Thompson says he revised or deleted 83 stories that had relied on information from "Harleigh" or quoted him.
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
Zeb,
Eight months into his first term after slick willy blew 5 chances to get Osama.
Blame willy for the attack, not Bush.


Times change, situations change.

At one time Reagan and Bush1 gave Osama money and arms.

Link

At least Clinton was never seen (at least by me) , holding hands and kissing the king of the country where almost all the terrorist who hit us on 9/11 came from.
If you mean this King, I am sure he did kiss his check as that is the custom as you are aware.

King Fahd (1982-2005)
Under King Fahd bin Abdulaziz, who adopted the title Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, Saudi Arabia continued its tremendous socioeconomic development and emerged as a leading political and economic force.


King Fahd was central to Saudi Arabia’s efforts to diversify its economy and promote private enterprise and investment. He restructured the Saudi government and approved the first nationwide municipal elections, which took place in 2005.


One of King Fahd’s greatest accomplishments in Saudi Arabia was a series of projects to expand the Kingdom’s facilities to accommodate the millions of pilgrims who come to the country each year. These projects involved major expansions of Islam’s two holiest sites, the Holy Mosque in Makkah and the Prophet’s Mosque in Madinah, as well as airports and ports.


In the international arena, King Fahd worked actively to resolve regional and global crises. These crises included the Arab-Palestinian conflict, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the Lebanese civil war in addition to conflicts in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Somalia and Kashmir.


As Crown Prince in 1981, he proposed an eight-point plan to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict and give the Palestinians an independent state. The plan was considered one of the first attempts to find a just and lasting settlement that took into consideration the needs of both the Arabs and Israel. It was unanimously adopted by the Arab League at a summit in Fez, Morocco in 1982.


King Fahd also dedicated years of diplomacy to resolving the civil war in Lebanon. He hosted a meeting of Lebanese members of parliament in Taif, Saudi Arabia in 1989. The meeting resulted in a national reconciliation accord signed in Taif that ended the fighting and opened the way for reconstruction with help from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries.


Perhaps the greatest international crisis of King Fahd’s rule occurred when Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990. The King played a key role in putting together the international coalition that drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.


King Fahd was also concerned with humanitarian issues. Under his rule, Saudi Arabia provided emergency humanitarian assistance to numerous countries, including Somalia, Bosnia and Afghanistan, as well as countries suffering from natural disasters, such as earthquakes (Turkey in 1999, Iran in 2003) and the tsunami that struck Southeast Asia in December 2004.
This report said 10 chances to take him out.
Link


Answers.com

(CBS/AP) An experienced CIA counterterrorism officer tells Congress the agency is still failing to adequately staff the hunt for Osama bin Laden, a newspaper reports.

The officer claims that the headquarters unit assigned to bin Laden has fewer experienced case officers now than on Sept. 11, 2001.

The New York Times reports Michael Scheuer, who recently penned a book critical of the CIA's counterterrorism efforts called "Imperial Hubris," lodged his complaints in a letter to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

A 22-year CIA veteran who ran the bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, Scheuer also claims that the CIA is rotating inexperienced officers into the bin Laden unit for short stints of 60 to 90 days.

A CIA official who refused to be identified disputed Scheuer's account, saying there are more officers working on bin Laden worldwide now than there were three years ago.

"Our knowledge of and substantive expertise on al Qaeda has increased enormously since 9/11. The overall size of the counterterrorism center has more than doubled, and its analytic capabilities have increased dramatically," he said, according to The Times.

Scheuer also claims that the CIA had more opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden that has been reported previously. He says there were 10 such chances between May 1998 and May 1999. It was not clear who decided not to take those chances.

"The pattern of decision making I have witnessed seems to indicate a want of moral courage, an overwhelming concern for career advancement, or an abject inability to distinguish right from wrong," he said.

Scheuer says the bin Laden unit was slated for elimination in the spring of 1998, but then-CIA director George Tenet blocked the move.

The report of the Sept. 11 commission says the U.S. government missed a few chances to capture or kill the al Qaeda leader.

In May of 1998, after months of planning, officials called off a CIA plan to have Afghan allies capture bin Laden and send him out of Afghanistan for trial. The plan was apparently scrapped because of worries about the chance of killing bystanders, and even bin Laden himself, as well as concerns over the strength of the legal evidence against bin Laden.

After the August 1998 African embassy bombings, President Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan that failed to kill bin Laden.

The Sept. 11 report identifies three other occasions on which there was intelligence on bin Laden's location but not attempt to kill him: December 1998 in Kandahar, February 1999 in his desert camp and back in Kandahar in May 1999.

Questions about the CIA's capabilities are part of a larger debate over reforming U.S. intelligence, reflected on Capitol Hill in the confirmation hearings for President Bush's nominee to head the CIA, Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla.
I saw LMM looked at Fact Check about the Bush "piece of paper" statement. She has a well written response. I did some looking too. All I found was references on blogs (which are typical of bad information and I never trust for facts). Even though I don't agree with a lot of what George Bush might have done, I don't believe he would say that. I didn't find one credible source saying he did. It is very similar to the blog rumors about Obama. People write rumors and it grows with time.
Alabama, That 'King Fahd' is dead now, been replaced by his son, I think.
I don't really trust them completely either but we all know wars make strange bed fellows!
At least that one did do some good things during his time.
As Hawkeye once said:
"War is war and hell is hell and of the two, war is worse!"
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
Alabama, That 'King Fahd' is dead now, been replaced by his son, I think.
I don't really trust them completely either but we all know wars make strange bed fellows!
At least that one did do some good things during his time.
As Hawkeye once said:
"War is war and hell is hell and of the two, war is worse!"


Yet again I checked my brain at the door. I do remember the Dad dying and I think you are right, the son succeeded him. Tells you how little I have kept up with them.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
excelman,

So, you admit you can't prove your quote. I've looked for the source and can't find one. Please refrain from making statements that can't be backed up. Facts are one thing -- the big lie technique is another.


post for excelman = 3882
post for interventor1 = 233

I'll post whatever the hell I feel like , thank you very much.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Interventor is otherwise detained. Does excelman now claim his Big Lie is superior to the truth --how Goebbels of him! Caught in his own web of deceit, now he thrashes about. I've long since doubted his credibility. Without that, how does one expect to be believed? Otherwise, one is just a figure of derision,, not to be believed or heeded.
quote:
And the "we haven't been attacked in 8 years" is STUPID,it is like John Edwards telling his wife he hasnt cheated in a year,the FACT is we DID GET ATTACKED under Bush,the WORST attack EVER,the "he kept us safe" crap is idiotic,tell that to the 3 thousand dead,it is like Ted Bundy saying "well didn't kill anyone today",get it thru your stubborn heads we did get ATTACKED under Bush and it was the WORST EVER

We got attacked in big part because Clinton was too busy getting serviced by interns to put a missile up Osama's sorry ass when he had the chance(s).

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×