Unparliamentary

In the comments section of a previous post a few days ago, I responded with these words:

I heard on NPR this evening - not really paying close attention, so I didn't get the names - that somebody stood up on his hind legs and said some words about Bush to which a Republican member of the congress took offense, calling it "unparliamentary language". An actual determination had to be made by the presiding officer who determined they were strong words, but not unparliamentary.

Today, I found the story online.

"Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) offered a lengthy criticism of Bush’s record toward the end of Thursday’s hearing, which included a statement that Bush lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq in 2003," writes Susan Davis. "Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) offered an objection on the grounds that Watt’s words were 'unparliamentary' and violated House rules on debate and decorum that forbid personal attacks on Members, the president or vice president."

  Raw Story

I can see why the charge was overruled. Saying that someone lied is not the same as making a verbal personal attack on that person. The exchange is at Daily Kos.

But,it seems that the story did not end there.

Cannon and his fellow Republicans then failed in a vote that attempted to 'take down' Watt's words. But because Rep. Sánchez's ruling was said to interfere with House precedent on the question, Rep. Cannon threatened "to take it to the House floor in a privileged resolution."

The two sides subsequently negotiated a compromise in which Sánchez agreed to vacate her decision that the words were not 'unparliamentary' in a subsequent hearing.

I couldn't find what the compromise included beyond that. (Admittedly, I only made a minimal effort to find out.)

You might be surprised to note that Representative Cannon is the same guy who just recently called attorney David Iglesias "an idiot." Of course, that was on Fox News, where people are not restricted to parliamentary language.

....and hey, do what you want....you will anyway.