Originally posted by JAD_333
View Post
Ideally it works like this: If you propose legislation and you need my support, you will be inclined to make changes to satisfy me. I might find flaws you did not see. Or, I might want the legislation to also cover X and Y. If we iron out all our differences, then the final form of the legislation will have greater support and do the most public good.
We won't forget.
This is how most of the business of legislating takes place. But not always, as the recent gridlock in Congress attests.
To your point about the bipartisan support for the 2001 Iraq invasion, those who supported it from both parties in Congress chose what they perceived to be the greater good. There is an old saying that illustrates what happened: It is better to err on the side of trust than it is to err on the side of distrust. It came down to the president saying we must act to protect our national security and here's the evidence; do you trust him or not?
Never again.
Comment