That would seem to be a delightfully Machiavellian argument for throwing out the agreement under which the committee was constituted in the first place. I'm reminded of how the United States first got a United Nations resolution to protect civilians, and then went far beyond that mandate to unleash bloody hell on that country.
That would seem to be a delightfully Machiavellian argument for throwing out the agreement under which the committee was constituted in the first place. I'm reminded of how the United States first got a United Nations resolution to protect civilians, and then went far beyond that mandate to unleash bloody hell on that country.
Two of the Rs' 5 choices for the original version of the committee were rejected because their choice was obviously for the precise purpose of keeping the committee from functioning. The minority then ordered his other 3 not to serve. Only 2 then volunteered to participate in doing what history demands. That's not a "Machiavellian argument" in the sense in which you seem to mean it; it's an entirely appropriate reason in view of the importance -- not to the D party, but to our system of gov't -- of getting the job done (and it's *still* questionable that they'll get it done before the clock runs out). And you still haven't mounted any defense of your not-"lawfully constituted" characterization.
That would seem to be a delightfully Machiavellian argument for throwing out the agreement under which the committee was constituted in the first place. I'm reminded of how the United States first got a United Nations resolution to protect civilians, and then went far beyond that mandate to unleash bloody hell on that country.
Two of the Rs' 5 choices for the original version of the committee were rejected because their choice was obviously for the precise purpose of keeping the committee from functioning. The minority then ordered his other 3 not to serve. Only 2 then volunteered to participate in doing what history demands. That's not a "Machiavellian argument" in the sense in which you seem to mean it; it's an entirely appropriate reason in view of the importance -- not to the D party, but to our system of gov't -- of getting the job done (and it's *still* questionable that they'll get it done before the clock runs out). And you still haven't mounted any defense of your not-"lawfully constituted" characterization.