# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  Over the past 7 years, how would you rate Congress overall performance?

## 1968

Grubendol recently put together the following poll: *Rate President Bush's Performance*. I'm sure there are plenty that think Congress has something to do with the State of the Nation, too, so here is your chance to weigh in.

----------


## chip anderson

They have done the best they can without revealing they are actually closet communist or trying to appease other congressional members that are.

Chip:shiner:

----------


## Judy Canty

http://www.economist.com/world/na/di...ry_id=10286768

----------


## For-Life

I went with poor.

For 6 years they were Bush's lapdogs, and now they cannot get anything done.

We can talk cheques and balances all you want, but these long, two party, convoluted process with moving objects from beginning, through congress, senate, and thick bushes, is nuts.  I believe for the final Presidential election, it should only be two members.  But for congress and senate, there should be more parties.  We all know if the house is Republican, they will support a Republican President (same applies for Dems).  We also know if they are opposition parties, then nothing will get done.

----------


## Grubendol

I went with terrible because the Conservative side of Congress has done everything in its power to prevent discussion and debate...the very purpose of Congress.

When I talk about the absence of diplomacy during the Bush Administration, this is part of it....Diplomacy doesn't just exist between sovreign nations, it also exists between political parties and, I fully admit that the Democratic Party has had problems with ramrodding policies through when they ran Congress as well, but certainly not during this past 7 years.  Even when the Dems have been in power they have become so shellshocked from the behavior of the Republican Party that they act like they have battered wife syndrome and don't even TRY to do what they were elected to do.

----------


## chip anderson

What were they elected to do besides get those wraskelly wepublicans out?

----------


## Grubendol

End the War.  You know that was their biggest mandate.  They haven't even tried.

----------


## gemstone

It is too bad that we get out first woman speaker and all she does is send bills that ske knows will get automatically vetoed.   I guess she is trying to make her political point.  I just feel thet making points is not what they are there for.  Shame she blew it.  History will not treat her very favorable.  What the heck, maybe the next woman speaker will do a better job. 

As for when the republicans were in charge, I never figured out how dash-all could hold up a bill that was favoerd by a majority of the American public, the majority of congress and tha President of the US.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

For 6 years they were Bush's lapdogs, and now they cannot get anything done.
Hah!  I WISH!  Bush got absolutely nothing (other than a tax cut) out of a Congress that started with significant GOP majorities in both sides.  They never managed to drill in ANWR, they never even began a fix of Social Security, and they didn't even make the tax cuts permanent.

I'd love to know exactly how the GOP Congress managed to be Bush's lapdog- they seemed incapable of working together (this is my absolute biggest disappointment with the current admin... after decades of having Dems in control of the executive or legislative branch, the GOP finally had both- and they accomplished zip).

When I talk about the absence of diplomacy during the Bush Administration, this is part of it....Diplomacy doesn't just exist between sovreign nations, it also exists between political parties and, I fully admit that the Democratic Party has had problems with ramrodding policies through when they ran Congress as well, but certainly not during this past 7 years. Even when the Dems have been in power they have become so shellshocked from the behavior of the Republican Party that they act like they have battered wife syndrome and don't even TRY to do what they were elected to do. 
You know, I've watched C-SPAN since it came on the air.  Yeah- the Republicans acted like ******es during much of their tenure as the majority party.  However, anyone who watched the Dem-controlled Congresses of the 80s would have to admit the Republicans were just dishing out the same level of crappy behavior dealt to them.  Blaming the current Congress' inability to do well- anything- on their being _"shellshocked"_ is beyond silly.  Battered wife syndrome?!?  Come on, I don't believe you've really convinced yourself that the Republicans left in Congress are sooooo evil (and somehow even more powerful now that they are the minority party) that they have kept the innocent and pure Democrats from being able to function as a majority party.

Look, I'll admit the GOP majority Congressional sessions were a bust due to an inability to accomplish anything of substance- but at least be genuine enough to admit your party has acted like directionless idiots since taking back control.  I didn't think it was possible for Congress to be more irrelevant than it was during the GOP tenure- but I was wrong.  Answer me this- who is in control of the Democratic Party right now (I'm not sure I can answer that question for the Republican Party, either).  Both parties are flopping around trying to figure out what they want to stand for, and how to communicate with enough moderates to get elected.

----------


## Grubendol

Pete, I admited to problems on the Dem side too, but there  were negotiated bills which compromised both conservative and liberal values in order to get passed during the 80's.  But, if you want to really look at how "lapdog" the Republican Congress was all you have to know is that Bush NEVER used his veto until the Dems took control.  As I have said repeatedly, the Republicans stopped being the conservative party over 20 years ago...they have been the corporatist party and that's what Bush is too, so they didn't pass conservative spending bills or anything along those lines but they did pass neo-con/religious right/corporatist stuff all the time (anyone remember that they did a special session of Congress for Terri Schiavo?)

----------


## Spexvet

> ...all she does is send bills that ske knows will get automatically vetoed. ....


Damned if they do...




> ...... I didn't think it was possible for Congress to be more irrelevant than it was during the GOP tenure- but I was wrong...


And damned if they don't!




> For 6 years they were Bush's lapdogs, and now they cannot get anything done.
> Hah! I WISH! Bush got absolutely nothing (other than a tax cut) out of a Congress that started with significant GOP majorities in both sides. They never managed to drill in ANWR, they never even began a fix of Social Security, and they didn't even make the tax cuts permanent. I'd love to know exactly how the GOP Congress managed to be Bush's lapdog- they seemed incapable of working together (this is my absolute biggest disappointment with the current admin... after decades of having Dems in control of the executive or legislative branch, the GOP finally had both- and they accomplished zip).


[/quote]
Maybe that says that the things he was unable to accomplish were extreme - way out of the mainstream, and not what the American people wanted. He _was_ able to prosecute two wars, costly in lives and dollars, run up a huge deficit, make rich Americans (and foreigners, for that matter) richer, enable outsourcing of American jobs, name conserative supreme court judges, and jeopardise the civil rights of law-abiding American citizens through the Patriot Act, to name a few things. These accomplishments were only possible with the support of the republican controlled Senate and House.

----------


## 1968

> Maybe that says that the things he was unable to accomplish were extreme - way out of the mainstream, and not what the American people wanted. He _was_ able to prosecute two wars, costly in lives and dollars, run up a huge deficit, make rich Americans (and foreigners, for that matter) richer, enable outsourcing of American jobs, name conserative supreme court judges, and jeopardise the civil rights of law-abiding American citizens through the Patriot Act, to name a few things. *These accomplishments were only possible with the support of the republican controlled Senate and House*.


Let us not forget that the Iraq War Resolution would not have passed without the help of the _Democratic controlled Senate_ (two members voting "Aye" were Senator Clinton of New York and Senator Edwards of North Carolina).

----------


## Judy Canty

> (this is my absolute biggest disappointment with the current admin... after decades of having Dems in control of the executive or legislative branch, the GOP finally had both- and they accomplished zip)


They did get a lot of quality vacation time!

----------


## rinselberg

> He was able to prosecute two wars, costly in lives and dollars..


I thought most of you "lefties" were OK with Afghanistan.. although ya'll think it shouldn't have had to divide up limited military and other resources with Iraq.

Don't miss "The McCain Mutiny".. a thrilling novel of political intrigue, centering around a former Navy officer.. coming to the nation's newspapers, magazines and TV channels in November..!


Errant Bush bashers: Beware of the national security and foreign policy issues. I will make them famous. You will know their (poster) names. It all goes down at The Last Laugh.

----------


## gemstone

Let's fire 'em all this time!

----------


## Spexvet

> I thought most of you "lefties" were OK with Afghanistan.. ...


Was my statement negative? Just stating the facts.

----------


## rinselberg

> Was my statement negative? Just stating the facts.


Good point.

----------


## chip anderson

Anybody lose sight of this was to rate *Congress,* not George Bush.

----------


## Grubendol

> Let us not forget that the Iraq War Resolution would not have passed without the help of the _Democratic controlled Senate_ (two members voting "Aye" were Senator Clinton of New York and Senator Edwards of North Carolina).



 Dont for a second think that this isnt one of the biggest reasons I dislike Clinton.  She has been an enabler even though to the vote to declare the Iranian army terrorists.

  Afghanistan was the right war, Iraq was just an oil grab.

----------


## rinselberg

> Don’t for a second think that this isn’t one of the biggest reasons I dislike Clinton. She has been an enabler even through to the vote to declare the *Iranian army* "terrorists". Afghanistan was the right war, Iraq was just an oil grab.



Iran's Revolutionary Guards are not the "Iranian army".


> "While the Constitution of Iran entrusts the military with guarding Iran's territorial integrity and political independence, it gives the Revolutionary Guard [Pasdaran] the responsibility of guarding the Revolution itself," is the way an article by the Federation of American Scientists on the force begins. In recent years, American officials have contended that the Guard has gone further and had a hand in supporting militant groups throughout the Middle East, including Iraq.
> 
> There is no question that the Guards are far more than a military or police force. The Guards, which has about 200,000 members, controls a huge empire that has a stake in every significant corner of Iran's economy and its civil system of governance. The country's hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was a member of the Guards during the 1980 to 1988 war with Iraq, and he has placed dozens of former members in leadership positions around the country and in the central government in Tehran.
> 
> The Guards are, by design, the most economic and politically independent body in the country, outside of the supreme leader's office..


New York Times "Resources Page": Iran's Revolutionary Guards


Economic sanctions in response to Guards activities beyond Iran's borders were recommended by Congress and enacted by the president in October, 2007.


> Policymakers in Washington and military leaders in Baghdad accuse the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guards of smuggling arms and fighters into neighboring Iraq. In September 2007, U.S. congressional leaders urged designation of the guard as a foreign terrorist organization. The move was aimed at tightening economic sanctions against the force. A month later, the Bush administration announced "“sweeping new sanctions" against the guard, cutting off Iranian companies and individuals from the U.S. financial system. Iran denies sending weapons and fighters across the border, and U.S. military officials have so far provided scant evidence linking weaponry with captured Iranian-backed fighters. But allegations of meddling in Iraq have been frequent, raising new questions about the guard’s structure, its influence in Iran and Iraq, and how effective efforts to curb its finances might be..


Council on Foreign Relations: Backgrounder on Iran's Revolutionary Guards


Enactment of Guards sanctions also a reaction to Iran's uranium enrichment program, which just arrived at another technical milestone.


> WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 — In moving toward designating Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization, the Bush administration is adopting a more confrontational approach with Tehran, reflecting frustration with a stalled sanctions package at the United Nations Security Council, officials said Wednesday..


Terrorist Label for Iran Guard Reflects U.S. Impatience With U.N.; NYT.


July 2007 saw the most-ever number of attacks on U.S.-led security forces in Iraq using high-tech explosives supplied from Iran.


> BAGHDAD, Aug. 7 — Attacks on American-led forces using a lethal type of roadside bomb said to be supplied by Iran reached a new high in July, according to the American military.
> 
> The devices, known as explosively formed penetrators, were used to carry out 99 attacks last month and accounted for a third of the combat deaths suffered by the American-led forces, according to American military officials.
> 
> "July was an all-time high," Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the No. 2 commander in Iraq, said in an interview, referring to strikes with such devices..


U.S. Says Iran-Supplied Bomb Kills More Troops; NYT.


In November, after the new sanctions were enacted, there was evidence that the amount of Iranian-origin explosives smuggled into Iraq had declined.


> WASHINGTON, Nov. 1 — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates indicated Thursday that Iran had told the Baghdad government that it would work to stem the flow of high-powered explosives into Iraq, though he also questioned the credibility of the pledge.
> 
> "It is my understanding that they have provided such assurances," Mr. Gates said during a Pentagon news conference. "I don’t know whether to believe them. I’ll wait and see."
> 
> Those comments came the same day the No. 2 American commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, said that the number of lethal roadside bombs suspected to have origins in Iran had declined in recent months..


Gates Says Iran Gave Assurances on Explosives; NYT.


In July, before the sanctions were enacted, Iran's Revolutionary Guards orchestrated an attack on U.S. soldiers in the Iraqi city of Karbala.


> July 3, 2007. Agents of Iran helped plan a January raid in Shiite holy city of Karbala in Iraq in which five American soldiers were killed by Islamic militants, an American military spokesman said Monday. The charge was the most specific allegation of Iranian involvement in an attack that killed American troops, at a time of rising tensions with Iran over its role in Iraq and its nuclear program.
> 
> Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner, the military spokesman here, said an elite unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, a force under the control of Iran's most powerful religious leaders, had used veterans of the Lebanese Islamic militia group Hezbollah as a ''proxy'' to train, arm and plan attacks by an array of Shiite militant cells in Iraq.
> 
> One high-ranking Hezbollah commander from Lebanon was captured in Basra in March, and after weeks of pretending that he could not hear or speak, he gave American interrogators details of the Iranian role, the general said..


U.S. Says Iran Helped Iraqis Kill Five G.I.'s; NYT.



In June, before the sanctions were enacted, the U.S. expressed concern about Iranian-supplied weapons in Afghanistan.


> June 14, 2007. The flow of illicit weapons from Iran to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan has reached such large quantities that it suggests that the shipments are taking place with the knowledge of the government in Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Wednesday.
> 
> Mr. Gates said he had seen new intelligence analysis over the past couple of weeks ''that makes it pretty clear there's a fairly substantial flow of weapons'' from Iran across its border to assist insurgents in Afghanistan.
> 
> Commenting on potential Iranian government involvement in the arms flow, Mr. Gates said, ''I haven't seen any intelligence specifically to this effect, but I would say, given the quantities that we're seeing, it is difficult to believe that it's associated with smuggling or the drug business or that it's taking place without the knowledge of the Iranian government.''..


Iran May Know Of Weapons For Taliban; NYT.




For more from the War On Error ...

----------

