Yeah, but 2 Dems didn't vote at all.
Posted by Nonverbalcoma at December 6, 2006 04:04 PMAs predicted.
A virtual sea of DINO scumbags lined-up once again to give Little Boots what he wants.
Santorum's "NAY" is curious. I'll have to think about this.
Posted by Christopher at December 6, 2006 04:09 PMSantorum's "NAY" is curious.
He is certain it will lead to man on dog action.
Posted by phidipides at December 6, 2006 04:11 PMI've got a diary over at DKos dicussing this.
My thought on the Dem no votes was that they were '08 hopefuls. Biden and Bayh....no trail for them?
Posted by Nonverbalcoma at December 6, 2006 04:24 PMguess it will always have been okay to put a lying bastard in.
you would figure this puts the icing on the cake as to how corrupt our senate really is. the idea of voting for someone that has this type of history, honestly? this is okay with my senators?
they must be crazy, what am I saying.
The nay votes were neocon remnants who don't think we should talk to Iran and Syria. Will Bush talk to them? Probably not, except with bombs. The neos are very unhappy (again) with Baker (and Gates), and they haven't given up. Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe:
"Should the United States turn to Iran and Syria for help in reducing the violence bloodying Iraq? James Baker's Iraq Study Group, out this week with its well-leaked recommendations, thinks direct talks with Tehran and Damascus would be a fine idea. I think so too -- right after those governments switch sides in the global jihad.
"As things stand now, however, negotiating with Iran and Syria over the future of Iraq is about as promising a strategy for preventing more bloodshed as negotiating with Adolf Hitler over the future of Czechoslovakia was in 1938."
Let's keep Hitler's memory alive, however silly may be the comparison.
Posted by Don Bacon at December 6, 2006 06:30 PMHoly Joe didn't vote? Shocker.
As for Santorum....not surprising, really. He wants to stand by his decision and claim patriotism by supporting the Decode-in-Chief. Gates spoke negatively about their war; of course he's the bad guy to Little Ricky.
Posted by ann at December 6, 2006 06:46 PMI'm not sure which is worse--that all but two Dems voted for a man with this kind of history, or that two Repuglies voted against the man because of "his criticism of the war and his view that the U.S. should engage Iran as part of a solution". What the Dems never seem to learn is that this presidential team knows very well how to talk the talk without walking the walk. I doubt, with his history, that Gates will serve "two" masters--the ISG AND Bush. Besides which, with Bush being a classic Narcissist, it is highly unlikely that Gates will last long without demonstrating his loyalty to the Alpha bully by rolling over and exposing his belly as he wiggles excitedly on his back.
Biden and Bayh, meanwhile, have lost nothing with their lack of a vote on this issue.
BTW, what do we hear from the un-dead Cheny on all this?
Posted by Julie at December 6, 2006 07:30 PMWho cares. Gates is going to be the Senate Dems' bitch. Somebody had to be appointed and confirmed, might as well be him.
If he turns around and fucks the Democrats as Bush's little yapping dog, he's gonna get crushed.
Just watch.
Posted by God Of War at December 6, 2006 07:57 PMGod of War said:
"If he turns around and fucks the Democrats as Bush's little yapping dog, he's gonna get crushed."
By whom? The wimpy Dems? I doubt it.
And why was this so urgent that it had to come to a vote right before the newbies came on board? Weird.
Posted by Julie at December 6, 2006 08:10 PMI predict some spinal growth concurrent with subpeona power.
Think Jim Webb is gonna take any bullshit from this guy?
Posted by God Of War at December 6, 2006 08:32 PMConsider this: Rummy had already come out and admitted that the current strategy (or lack of strategy) was not working, and that a change of course was necessary. The Dems could have let Rummy play out that hand indefinitely. At the least, it could have provided some interesting dynamics. What then was the rush to approve Gates before the newbies like Webb came on board? Bad strategy, once again, by the Dems.
Posted by Julie at December 6, 2006 08:32 PM"Gates gets 95 votes because he isn't Donald Rumsfeld. But note the two dipshits who refused to vote for him."
Wonderful. The fellow gets voted in not because of what he is, but what he is not.
Kinda describes why the Left supported Kerry in 04, dont'cha think....
Posted by Bagley at December 6, 2006 08:43 PMInteresting. You know, Rumsfeld was always (until last October) 100% loyal to George Bush. Completely. In spite of his arrogabce and independence--always loyal. Never strayed.
But this new boy, Gates, who's supposed to be a go-along, make-up-the-intel guy to please Massah, is now saying, even before he gets the job, that Bush has strayed 'way off the farm in Iraq and we're not winning. We need to talk to Iran. And the rush is on to get him in office. Will Gates buckle under, as Julie writes? Stay tuned. Interesting.
Posted by Don Bacon at December 6, 2006 08:45 PMMy main point is that this discussion (which has been totally lacking in this Congress) could have waited until the Dems had some strength with the next newly-elected Congress to really dissect the nomination. "Discussion" would have been healthy. What was the rush? By discussing the issues, Gates could ...possibly.. have been locked in to a more solution-oriented service. Well, maybe not, considering his history as an eager yes-man.
Also, if you consider how many of 43's nominations have come from 41's crooks list, you should be wondering if there is really any difference. Why do we have to accept a player from 41's list?
This should have waited for the new Congress.
Posted by Julie at December 6, 2006 09:27 PMBunning probably thought he was voting on statehood for DC or something.
Posted by Brian Boru at December 6, 2006 10:22 PMI just don't see it as that bad, all things considered. If you've been near the CIA, you've got skeletons. I'm frankly not that concerned about his past. Let's wait and see how the guy performs before we pass final judgement. Besides, if he goes Bushcorp Sycophant, the Dem Senate can kick him around. I doubt he left a cush job at Texas A&M to take a job as W's sacrificial punching bag, and I would imagine that in his private meetings with Senate Dems he communicated as much.
Posted by God Of War at December 6, 2006 10:50 PMWell, I like Gates' answers to questions on attacking Syria and Iran a lot better than von Rumsfeld's answers.
We KNOW that von Rumsfeld's judgment on all "defense" matters was simply atrocious.
Posted by euzoius at December 7, 2006 06:49 AM