If it's done it's done and 10 minutes to pass it..meh, you're right, it's nothing. but the whole thing... lots of time on something that isn't as important as other things that time to prepare the thing could have been spent on. I just don't "get" the need for it at all

My mistake.

It might reveal something that goes on during these missions and ruining these peoples careers

Where in the Senate resolution would you say that happened?

It makes them feel better. Like they are part of the operation. Like they contributed. They did not. No one believes it but those who voted for it or are too embarrassed to vote no, for fear they are recorded as not supporting the troops. These people could give a shit what Congress thinks.

i don't "want to take you on" -I think you're a starring asset to the site, and frankly, I'd've never read the thread if it weren't for you-ask the regulars -do I ever come here -do I know much about American politics?....

Yeah, I've got to agree with monster here (although that's probably because we both come from countries with a similar political system).

Over here, the PM would simply stand up in parliament and make a speech about how everything went down and who deserves a pat on the back then sit down again. It'd be recorded in the hansard notes (a record of every word said in parliament) and that'd be it aside from normal military proceedures (whatever they might be).

bmho the personnel involved in this mission don't give a damn about a resolution of thanks. they don't do things for the praise of politicians nor do they give a damn about medals. they do it for the flag and the guy standing beside them

Exactly. Even if he was a part of ST6 (assuming I'm allowed that shorthand), it's clear he has no freaking clue what a Resolution is or what it's meant to accomplish. His asinine projections that a Resolution would somehow do harm to these guys or prevent them from doing what they do is so absurd it's laughable. And if this kind of moron could get elevated to that level, I'm suddenly more terrified of them than I ever was of OBL. Now I'm going to call you a fucking idiot. How dare you claim that our PRESIDENT manipulated a team of Navy SEALS for political purposes. You filthy piece of shit, you disgust me.

And that is the truth. It draws attention to the unit, the missions, and the people. And they do not want or need that. Now every swinging dick independent reporter out to get a stringer on the NYT front page will be out head hunting these people. What should have happened is for the government to state what happened in the mission, never mentioned any details about anything, never told anyone what they did with the body, never told anyone they took pictures, and never told anyone what units were involved. The public has no right or need to know. The deed was done and if people don't believe them, tough shit.

Its for the historical record as it has always been for 200+ years and does not ruin any careers.

Fuck off. He is using it for re-election. Everyone can see it.

It is not the event, it is the after press he is exploiting.

It draws un-needed and un-wanted attention.

Thanks. And sorry for misinterpreting your intentions. I've had a longass go-around with Merc today, so perhaps I'm a little testy. Sorry about that. We all know they don't do it for the recognition.

That doesn't mean they don't deserve the recognition.

The Senate passed it 97-0.

What crawled up the House's ass that they won't bother to do the same?

I sorta feel like it's already there in the history books.....why am i wrong?

Gotta say, this is the closest Merc and I have ever been, and it don't smell so good.... :lol:

The event will be in the history books.

The "Thanks of Congress" is a 200+ year protocol; the only one that serves as an official acknowledgement by the nation's highest body, with no harms to future missions or anyone reputation.

Have I told you guys we had chicken curry for dinner two nights ago, and then yesterday I had the leftovers for lunch?

Well no, you may say, but why should we care?

Because I've just noticed that my armpits smell faintly of curry!

If you don't want to tangle with someone clearly smarter than you, then you can fuck off out of my thread.

Not even a goddamn clue what a Resolution even is, and I'm supposed to believe this dumbshit is a former Navy SEAL with JSOC?

HA HA HA HA!

The Official Congressional Record isn't the same as "History Books". When your PM stands up and reads whatever he or she reads to thank whoever it is they're thanking, it becomes part of the Official Record. In the U.S. House, it's not recorded, making it a part of the Official Record, unless it's voted on.

Oh yea! Thank GOD for that, since if they political hacks didn't do it someone might have forgot about it! Hell, I hope they recorded the Twin Towers coming down in case someone might have forgot that event as well.

Waste of frigging taxpayer dollars.....

Jill, I've got to tell you, Merc is a lot smarter than some of his posts give him credit for.

Now that shit right there is funny.... :lol2: Honey you don't own shit, not even this thread.

I am not and never stated such. Get over your fat ass already.

Ok, but when the individuals can't be named... i guess it's just on a par with not understanding why many Brits are still Ok with having a Monarch. It's a cultural thing.

Anyway, I think I'll go do some gardening. Not sure why I've been feeling so defensive of merc today, but it doesn't seem to be helping at all. lol

Oh, and I can't believe no one cares about my stinky armpits!

The Congressional Record provide an incredible snapshot of the perspective of the nation's highest legislative body on important national events of the day for any time in the last 200+ years that you cant find anywhere else.

Fascinating reading if you like that kind of stuff.

:lol:

ain't that the truth.

mind you, a pile of turd is also a lot smarter than some of merc's posts give him credit for

Too busy worrying about my own

If you don't mind cartoonish BS. The majority of it is worthless tripe.

Say What?

I must have been thinking about yer turd.... :blush:

Right and he's shown a lot of class throughout this discussion.

As a citizen of an old, old country.....
official records mean fuckshit. History is passed on by word of mouth and writings of the people. No-one puts any store in records written by the ruling party of the time.

You must have missed the picture "of me" he posted today.

Cute, huh?

Its not written by the party of the time, but reflects the actual words and actions of members of both parties, unfiltered and unedited.

What? you need a different size?:eek: My bad....:D

Now that is some important bullshit right there!

I never said he was classy. lol Just smarter than his posts might make him seem. ;)

You're showing your ignorance again.

I did, and I still say wtf? what in the hell does that have to do with this, even if it were you.

OK :)

















:rolleyes:

And you are showing how you put importance on stupidity. No one gives a shit. High school bands show up in Congress and get on the Congressional record every day. It is total crap bull shit. No one cares.

Your over-the-top behavior towards others once again has been good for lots of laughs...but if it makes you feel better about yourself, mores the pity, but rock on, dude and do your thing.

One day in Band Camp, we got to go to see Congress, and they recognized us in the Congressional Record, and it was soooooo cool!

Oh!!! and this other time, when we were in Boy Scouts! We went to see Congress in action! and they recognized us in The Congressional Record! It was so awesome! They even put all of our names in the record! And our scout master too! And my Mom who came with us got her name in it too! How awesome was that!

F&B.... I have read all (or at least most) of your posts to date and have generally, internally said "oh yeah!' But I cannot understand why this is such a big deal. It's never going to be forgotten. Why does it need this seal of approval? Or is the issue more that people are refusing the seal of approval just to show the size of their balls? (which sucks, i get that)

Speaking as a historian, I'd really like to applaud this sentiment.

Much of what we know of past governments comes from that kind of document, and debates in the House.

I don't see how it is a waste of time. It would take very little time to actually draw up. The only thing that would make it a waste of time wuold be to unnecessarily treat as a matter of controversy and waste a bunch of time discussing it and overanalysing it.

It is also entirely possible that a motion of thanks would be moved, seconded and then voted on with a show of hands. That might not happen in PMQ, but maybe in a cross party committee, which would then be reorded.

It happens in councils too, across the land. Like if there's been a major fire and the firecrews have really stepped to, there might be a thanks motion moved. It's agreed ahead of time by the party leaders and then voted on. It takes a few minutes.

But also, if as Fair&Balanced suggests, this is something that has been a practice since the Revolution, then it seems reasonable to do it now. If there is a precedent for it then to not do it is as much of a statement as doing it would be.

har. fair point (to the "speaking as a historian" post). As I said in my last post (maybe less eloquently) -I do agree that debating it for the political sake of it is a bigger waste of time. And I still contend that in this day and age there will be plenty of record or what happened without this -I can see how that wan't always the case -the masses used to be illiterate, never mind having unfettered acccess to the internet- but I get why some people want it done and it's no biggie to me if it gets ratified.

Historians do. They also draw on other evidence, but that official record is invaluable. Not just because of what it says, but because of what can be inferred from it. I regularly consult the parliamentary record fro the period I study. I look at eveything from house debates to committee minutes. What's said and done in the House can tell historians a great deal. Not least because it is a public record of the political preoccupations of the day. When I was researching attitudes to desertion in the 18th century, my research took me all over the place, from the personal letters and memoirs of soldiers, through the debates on military finance, to the in-letters of the Secretary at War.

If the business of Congress is not routinely recorded in the way parliamentary business, without a special effort to do so, then speaking as a historian, I'd really rather they took the time to do so.



[eta] sorry, hadn't seen your previous post:)

But to answer it: one source is not necessarily more or less useful than another. They each bring certain benefits and also bear certain dangers. The best kind of evidence for a historian is a multiplicity of sources *smiles*. Preferably of such variety as to allow a glimpse into many aspects of the subject. That includes popular response and official record.

Do the SEALs need a pat on the back or are they ok with 'the satisfaction of a job well done'?

Valid point - I don't like thinking about this, however its already happening & this isn't going to change that.

Again, I agree. I think those days are gone though. Gotta deal with what is.

True, but the passing of info via word of mouth is not all that accurate and the writings of people is biased by those who did the writing and the info the had at the time. "whisper down the lane" sorta.

From what I understand this is a "no brainer." We've spent more time discussing it than they would have if they just did it.

The R's don't want to sign onto this for political reasons. Its a really tough pill to swallow for them. They've been painting Obama as weak since before the last election and were certainly planning to use that issue in the next election (not like they have a chance anyway). All this time he has been plotting, planning and working on this. They look like fools right now. They've lost another plank in an already weak campaign. If anyone here is playing politics with this issue, its the R's.

Well said - The differing perspectives is also a big plus. Varied accounts from varied sources all add to get a clearer picture of the event as possible.

So my friend and I were talking about this while we were walking this morning and she asked: if this needs to be part of congressional record for the sake of history, what about all the stuff that got recorded and was later shown to be wrong outside of congress -how does that get corrected in the history books? The example she gave was the recent statement along the lines of 90% of Planned Parenthood's money being used to fund abortions... (I realise I don't have the exact wording, but you kbnow the one I mean)

---

and Jill, sorry, I had not seen all the other shit going on and apologise if I made anything worse. I was truly just interested in it because you started the thread about it. I try to stay away from the politics threads for exactly this reason but you seemed like a rational person to discuss stuff with. I am ignorant about American politics -and a lot of Brit politics these days too- but I don't find it helpful to be told so and then given political labels when I question, so I stay away. yup chicken. I didn't mean to pile on in any way shape or form, and I am sorry for giving that impression.

It is the size of the balls thing.

This was a no-brainer and a standard practice. The Senate, which is much more coliegial than the House, passed it in a heartbeat. The House Republicans are playing politics with it.

Classicman had it right:

The Congressional Record presents the unedited words and actions of members of Congress, not necessarily the truth or the facts.

A future historian studying American attitudes about abortion in 2011 will get the facts about Planned Parenthood from other reliable sources and will get a perspective on how the issue was demigogued and PP was falsly vilified by conservative members of Congress from speeches and votes recorded in the Congressional Record.

As an aside and totlly unrelated:

Here is the Congressional Record (Globe) from 1838 where a Southern Congressman introduced several resolutions stating that the Federal Government should stay the fuck out of the issue of slavery in the southern states.

http://books.google.com/books?id=AD0...page&q&f=false

You cant find these kind of source documents anywhere else.

So why don't we want history to be truth and facts?

In your Planned Parenthood example, the Congressional Record will show the unedited truth about how conservatives in Congress lied about the issue, relying solely on their own words and actions. It is not the purpose of the CR to correct the lies.

The facts about Planned Parenthood are available from other reliable sources.

But the killing if Bin Laden is not?

Or does it just need to be there is some format to prompt historians to look at the other resources?

The Congressional Record is not intended to be a record of the details of national events, but simply how Congress responded to those events, in the form of resolutions, speeches, etc.

I suspect the national security archives will have details on the entire operation when it become declassified 50 or 100 years from now.

As Dana noted, historians rely on a variety of documents and sources.

As one of those sources, the Record is unique in offering the unedited words and actions of Congress.

It is just as important to a research historian to be able to get at the lies that were told as well as the facts. It is just as useful to know the rumours and the bluster as it is to know the votes and the results.

Not all history is about setting down the facts. Some of it is an attempt to get a grip on what people were thinking, talking about, preoccupied with and playing politics around. Political shennanigans tell us a great deal about the mentality of the time we're looking at.

@ F&B


Hmmm. I'mm'a contemplate it some more.

thanks, I appreciate your opinion. :)

eta: and Dana's too. And most participants. :D