Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

KPN

(17,542 posts)
4. Absolutely right. And while I fully get and agree with your point, I also want to point out that it's more than just
Mon Jun 1, 2026, 12:17 PM
Yesterday

a "mistake".

What it is -- is ignoring the views and opinion of the electorate as a whole. It's a deliberate use of legislative back-channels; that is, the use of a "rider" attached to an annual departmental legislative authorization, as well as the deliberate use of vague language to obscure intent with the goal of avoiding public notice and vocal opposition.

What really galls me is that Section 224 was actually proposed jointly by the House Armed Services Committee's chairman, Mike Rogers, and senior Democrat committee member Adam Smith. Hell, who knows how many other committee Dems support it, and for that matter, how many other Dem congress members? Without the attention the goal of Section 224 deserves, most Americans who are or would be opposed will never even notice it.

... Is there tension between progressives and moderates in the Democratic Party? You bet ... and for damned good reason. This is not a
"mistake" and it's certainly not the only one of substance over the past 45+ years. Not even close.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»US Congress moves to deep...»Reply #4