Gillibrand says she won't vote for Mattis waiver
Source: Politico
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) on Thursday said she plans to vote against the waiver required for retired Marine Gen. James Mattis to serve as Donald Trumps defense secretary.
Gillibrands early opposition to the waiver came less than an hour after Trump announced he would tap Mattis for the Pentagon. The popular commander, nicknamed "Mad Dog," is still expected to become the first defense secretary nominee in more than 60 years to win the congressional waiver that's necessary to install him as the military's civilian leader given his recent service in uniform.
While I deeply respect General Mattiss service, I will oppose a waiver," Gillibrand said in a statement. "Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and I will not vote for an exception to this rule.
The law requiring a waiver for defense secretaries who have recently served in uniform dates back to 1947, and Congress indicated that it did not expect exceptions to the rule after allowing retired Army Gen. George Marshall to lead the Pentagon under President Harry Truman in 1950. Because the waiver is legislative, it could ultimately prove subject to a 60-vote threshold for Senate approval -- meaning that the GOP would have to secure at least eight Democratic votes in the upper chamber.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/kirsten-gillibrand-mattis-waiver-232099
marybourg
(12,637 posts)mountain grammy
(26,655 posts)fucking bullshit..
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)as a caucus lock... might be best if Trump does nominate him as Secy Energy.
mountain grammy
(26,655 posts)yeah, take him, trump. you own his sorry soul.
drray23
(7,637 posts)Given that they also floated sarah palin and rick perry as possible doe secretary, i will take a blue dog democrat anyday. I am a scientist working for the doe and i dont want to see it destroyed by a palin or perry.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)would make a good secy of anything should be taken outside and treated like one of her Elk.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)...or as many as Harry Reid's semi-nuclear option will allow. Pukes set the precedent; let them live with it.
branford
(4,462 posts)and judicial vacancies except the Supreme Court. There will be no filibustering Trump's cabinet selections.
As for a waiver for Mattis, it's virtually guaranteed. He's widely respected by members of both parties in the Senate, many Senate and House Democrats from conservative states are for reelection in 2018 and cannot afford to oppose such a popular pick, and if somehow a waiver doesn't pass, Trump will most assuredly choose someone far, far worse (e.g, every other Trump nominee thus far).
The Democrats nuked the filibuster to support President Obama, and as some major elected Democrats now openly admit, we and the country will have to live with the consequences. Similarly, most of us here applauded President Obama's broad use and arguable expansion of executive authority and prerogative, and now Trump will be able to exercise such power, including reversing most of Obama's executive orders and regulations.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Same trick as the cries of "it's rigged!"
KatyMan
(4,211 posts)Do unto others as they did to you, Congressional Dems!
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)...she represented a conservative district, and was a blue dog in the House.
However, as the years go by, I like her more and more.
adigal
(7,581 posts)True_Blue
(3,063 posts)should not be Defense Secretary.
samir.g
(835 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)What are you referring to?
samir.g
(835 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)hyperbole helpful. YMMV.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Many families were stuck there with few supplies because US soldiers would not allow them to leave, she said. Even during a so-called ceasefire, Fallujah was under siege with bombing, missiles and mortar attacks [
] But the worst form of attack was the US snipers hiding on rooftops who kill hundreds of civilians as they tried to move about the city (Australian Associated Press, 16 April 2004)
American journalist Aaron Glantz corroborated this description of the role played by the US snipers in terrorizing the city:
The official number killed in Fallujah is 600, but the total number of civilian casualties is likely much higher. The official tally only reflects those deaths reported by the cities mosques and clinics. But American snipers and bombers have killed many people while they [were] inside their homes.
The doctor says his ambulance was attacked multiple times as it sought to bring aid to residents stranded in their homes. Once when it was trying to retrieve dead bodies for burial and a second time when it was attempting to bring food aid to homes cut off by American snipers.
I see people carrying a white flag and yelling for us saying We are here just try to save us but we cannot save them because whenever we open the ambulance they will shoot us. We try to carry food or water by contrainers. As soon as you carry food or water, the snipers shot the containers of food (Pacifica Reports From Iraq, 13 April 2004).
https://www.google.com/amp/s/ceinquiry.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/chris-kyle-snipers/amp/
Commanders and leaders
Richard F. Natonski
Keith Stalder
James Mattis
Controversies
Despite the Coalition success, the battle was not without controversy. A number of allegations have been made regarding the United States' armed intervention. For example, a documentary entitled Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre stated that the U.S. forces used white phosphorus as a weapon against civilians. The U.S. military maintains that white phosphorus was not used against civilians, but has confirmed its use as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants.[57] According to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, white phosphorus is permitted as an incendiary weapon.[58][59]
The use of phosphorus was especially controversial in the United Kingdom because British forces were involved in the battle. British law prohibits British forces being present in a theatre in which phosphorus is used as an anti-personnel weapon, whether or not the targets are military personnel.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/27874/JSP3832004Edition.pdf
On 16 November 2004, NBC News aired footage that showed a U.S. Marine killing a wounded Iraqi fighter. In this video, the Marine was heard saying that the Iraqi was "playing possum". NCIS investigators later determined that the Marine was acting in self-defense.[60] The AP news agency reported that military-age males attempting to flee the city were turned back by the U.S. military.[61]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Fallujah
Mukaradeeb wedding party massacre
The Mukaradeeb wedding party massacre[1][2] refers to the American shooting and bombing of a wedding party in Mukaradeeb, a small village in Iraq near the border with Syria, on 19 May 2004. 42 civilians were killed.
(Snip)
USMC Major General James Mattis said the idea of a wedding was implausible, "How many people go to the middle of the desert ... to hold a wedding 80 miles (130km) from the nearest civilization? These were more than two dozen military-age males. Let's not be naive." The Rakats and the Sabahs were residents of Mukaradeeb.[3] He later added that it had taken him 30 seconds to deliberate on bombing the location.[5]
In the aftermath, Kimmitt said, "There was no evidence of a wedding: no decorations, no musical instruments found, no large quantities of food or leftover servings one would expect from a wedding celebration. There may have been some kind of celebration. Bad people have celebrations, too." Video footage obtained by the Associated Press seems to contradict this view. The video shows a series of scenes of a wedding celebration, and footage from the following day showing fragments of musical instruments, pots and pans and brightly colored beddings used for celebrations, scattered around a destroyed tent
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukaradeeb_wedding_party_massacre
TuslaUltra
(75 posts)proud to have once had her as a Senator
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)don't know if she's interested tho
adigal
(7,581 posts)another opportunist. Christ.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/us/politics/28immigration.html
So much for sanctuary cities. She wanted to deputize local cops to enforce federal immigration laws, was against amnesty and being against their ability to get licenses.
Oh, of course she's against those things now. Phony.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)We're not supposed to criticise that.
adigal
(7,581 posts)See: President Kerry
MADem
(135,425 posts)Time does change perspectives. Familiarity doesn't always breed contempt.
adigal
(7,581 posts)THAT is what she is a phony and SN opportunist
MADem
(135,425 posts)As late as his 2006 Senate run he was touting "civil unions" as the path forward for VT. Obama played the same game, too. It's not about what people actually believe--it's what their constituency will accept. Smaller constituencies have more clout over issues, particularly social ones, so candidates often tack right when dealing with insular communities that are set in their ways.
So...hmmm. Evolution is ok for some and not others?
I mean, really.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)To civil unions to "god is in the mix" back to full support.
In a letter he published in the early 1970s, when he was a candidate for governor of Vermont, Sanders called for the abolition of all laws against homosexuality.[125]
In the 1980s, Sanders supported the designation of the Burlington "Lesbian and Gay Pride Day" as the mayor of the city and signed a resolution recommending that all levels of government support gay rights.[126]
In the House, Sanders voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.[127] The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
Vermont was the first state to legalize same-sex unions in 2000. In a 2006 interview, Sanders noted that Vermont had "led the way" in creating the civil unions law, but said it was "a very divisive debate". Asked whether Vermont should legalize full marriage rights for same-sex couples, he said: "Not right now, not after what we went through."[128] At the same time, Sanders expressed opposition to the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have prohibited same-sex marriage in the United States.[128] Sanders voted against the amendment later that year.[129] In 2009, Vermont was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage by statute.
When the Supreme Court took up the issue in 2015, Sanders issued a statement reaffirming his support, saying gay Americans in every state should be allowed to marry: "Of course all citizens deserve equal rights. It's time for the Supreme Court to catch up to the American people and legalize gay marriage."[130]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders
MADem
(135,425 posts)That was a Free Love Manifesto, in essence. It was a bit icky, frankly--and not because of the "homosexuality" word, either. It was a "Hey, Bang Away" type thing. Nowadays, we're smarter, and we understand things like coercion, abuse, victimization, grooming, and other things of that nature.
But the point is fair--he shaped his views to suit his audience. That creepy letter appealed in the "Love The One You're With/Pre-AIDS" era. People who lived in Burlington LIKED it that it was referred to as the "People's Republic of Burlington" in both an admiring and a snarky way.
ALL laws relating to sexuality? Child pornography? Child prostitution? Ewww. He wasn't thinking it through. I rather doubt he would want to be remembered as a champion of ADULTERY, either, even though he and Jane were likely practicioners before she unloaded the unlucky Mr. Driscoll. Never mind that, in that letter, he wanted to give "working" people a "break" on cigarette taxes! Talk about a dated concept...! Smoke away, the ACA will cure you?
Boy did he back away from it, though, when things got a bit more conservative on the sexuality scene. It just wasn't playing in the farms and hamlets across the state.
He's on video saying he favored "Civil Unions for VT." He takes the States Rights approach, saying that marriage is a "state issue" as opposed to a federal one. This was in 2006, and CSPAN has it. It's the debate when he ran against that GOP millionaire a bit after the 26 minute mark.
Gay marriage was selling in MA but it wasn't selling in VT in 2006, and Sanders wasn't stupid--he knew it.
But he wasn't -- despite his protestations -- "always there." Check this out from 2000:
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/fuggedaboudit/Content?oid=2291039
Sanders continues to refuse to give a clear answer regarding his position on civil unions.
In the 1980s, a year before he allowed those gays to have a Pride Parade in his city, Sanders also signed his own little "Defense of Marriage" Manifesto declaring "We Believe in Marriage" Week, which everyone seems to overlook. Marrige is between a Man and a Woman, it's a LIFELONG commitment, he said~! See--he was all over the page, too. Shall we call him a bitter hypocrite, and hold him to the same standards of purity?
My intent here is NOT to refight the primary, though--my intent is to show that THEY ALL DO IT. Sanders is no different than any other politician--he adopts views that his constituents want to hear.
SHOCKING EXPOSE: Politicians Cut Cloth According to the Measure! Film at Eleven!
MY POINT: Beating up politicians for not being perfect all the time is a waste of time--judge them by their overall record, and their trajectory. People who nitpick and finger - point and play the "Perfect is the enemy of the good" card are the jerks who give us the Trumps of this world, and I've no patience for them at all anymore.
I look at the big picture, and Senator Gillebrand on her worst fucking day is better than Donald Trump on his best day. She's also better than pretty much every damn Republican in public service today, as well. I'm not going to go back to her days as a representative in a blood red district, and question why she wasn't a screaming liberal when surrounded by a bunch of right-wing nuts. You adjust when you are a "representative," and you represent your constituents--otherwise, you're out of a job.
adigal
(7,581 posts)when she was Congressional rep for NY 20.
Don't give Trump squat.
Stop playing nice. The Republicans learned that 8 years ago.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The GOP has been obstructing since the William Clinton Presidency.
MADem
(135,425 posts)"Mad Dog" would blur the lines far too much.
Trump compared him to Patton--that should be enough for anyone to vote against him.
His combative attitude towards Iran is another reason.
The last "exception to the rule" included a provision that it shouldn't be used again.
DeminPennswoods
(15,290 posts)Anyway, there are far worse choices for SecDef. TBH, as someone who worked in DoD, the SecDefs are usually rolled by the military because they simply don't understand the services or the military/industrial complex.
This might surprise 99.9% of the posters here, but Dick Cheney was the best SecDef in recent memory. Why? Because he really understood how govt worked and he had no problem telling the military brass what was/wasn't going to be done. I think current SecDef Ash Carter is in the same mold.
Mattis spent 44 years in the Marines. He's seen it all and he knows how the services operate and also how they compete with each other for appropriations. He should be able to identify BS when it's presented to him. To me, 4 years is long enough to be out and retired, then come back. It's also important to keep in mind that many enlisted and officers "retire on Friday and return as civilian DoD employees on Monday" because the 7 year rule only applies to officers above a certain grade.
If you are offended by Mattis' view of war, well, that is what war is, killing more them than they do of you.
Demit
(11,238 posts)DeminPennswoods
(15,290 posts)Marines are "the tip of the spear" of the US military. Killing is what they are trained to do; it's their job.
Demit
(11,238 posts)The Secretary of Defense's job isn't to kill.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)To commercially exploit a country's natural resources. Which is what Cheney was so great at, making KBR & Halliburton rich while they exploited slave labor.
MADem
(135,425 posts)his slovenly clothes and what he ate.
I much preferred Bill Cohen--both he and Janet had their shit together. He was a hugely quick study and she could turn on a dime and "get the picture" faster than any principal's spouse I ever encountered.
Mattis is a hothead--and we don't need one of those. Not with a lunatic in the WH.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)ck4829
(35,091 posts)Palin will keep her eye on the exit sign the entire time. A neurosurgeon has been offered a job to lead HUD.
It's the Vote for the Worst Administration.