Republicans block Senate debate on Iraq

[Deano963]

WASHINGTON - Republicans blocked a full-fledged Senate debate over        Iraq on Monday, but Democrats vowed they still would find a way to force President Bush to change course in a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops.

"We must heed the results of the November elections and the wishes of the American people," said Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record).

Reid, D-Nev., spoke moments before a vote that sidetracked a nonbinding measure expressing disagreement with Bush's plan to deploy an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.

The political jockeying unfolded as Democrats sought passage of a measure, supported by Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., that is critical of the administration's new Iraq policy. It was the first time Democrats had scheduled a sustained debate on the war since they won control over Congress in last fall's midterm elections.

McConnell called for equal treatment for an alternative measure, backed by Sen. Judd Gregg (news, bio, voting record), R-N.H., saying Congress should neither cut nor eliminate funding for troops in the field. That measure takes no position on the war or the president's decision to deploy additional forces.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, echoed Reid. "If the Republicans want to stand by their president and his policy, they shouldn't run from this debate. If they believe we should send thousands of our young soldiers into the maws of this wretched civil war, they should at least have the courage to stand and defend their position," he said.

Gregg's alternative said Congress should not take "any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such an action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions."

The measure advanced by Democrats and Warner said the same thing, but it also says the Senate "disagrees with the `plan' to augment our forces by 21,500 and urges the president instead to consider all options and alternatives."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070205/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

Emphasis mine.  Did the Republicans learn anything at all from the November elections?  I can't believe Senate republicans think they can squirm their way out of an open Iraq debate by proposing a braindead resolution pledging not to cut off funding. If you're for the escalation, say so in your resolution. If you're against it, say so. But take a position either way. Senate republicans are not making a very convincing case to voters to return them to the majority. They seem to be sticking to their old playbook of "Do whatever the President wants us to". What happened to all of the "up-or-down-vote" screamers on the Republican side?

[Sam Spade]

It's easy to scream up-or-down vote when you're in the majority.

Sadly for Democrats, screaming for an up-or-down vote on debate for a resolution on Iraq has little interest to the actual voter.  (Republicans have found that out before; I don't even think the actual voter even understood what I just typed)

The practical effect is that a Senate resolution on Iraq is probably dead.  What will be more curious is whether the House pushes something through.  Pelosi had been waiting until the Senate passed their resolution before passing the House one, which presumably would have mirrored the Senate one.  The procedural games that can be played in the Senate are non-existant in the House, so one can be pushed through if she wants.

[J. J.]

There would not have been this problem if the filibuster had been abolished in 2005.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There would not have been this problem if the filibuster had been abolished in 2005.

Yeah, well some Senate Democrats were too stupid to let the Republicans break Senate rules to change Senate rules.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I love the sound of the Senate in the morning, it sounds like…VICTORY.

…And the silence goes on...and the filibuster won't stop.

[Deano963]

…And the silence goes on...and the filibuster won't stop.

....The only two things a good Bush Republican could ever want from Congress - silence and inaction.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

…And the silence goes on...and the filibuster won't stop.

....The only two things a good Bush Republican could ever want from Congress - silence and inaction.

Silence and inaction would have been damn good back in October 2002 when Bush wanted to get his war on. Of course, them stating the obvious and calling out Bush for being an extreme election-stealing warmonger would have been even better.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

calling out Bush for being an extreme election-stealing warmonger

an extreme election-stealing warmonger? 

is there any other kind of election-stealing warmonger?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Why the hell did Hagel and Warner vote against their own resolution?

[Deano963]

Why the hell did Hagel and Warner vote against their own resolution?

Technically they didn't. What they did do was vote against beginning a debate on Iraq, where the Senate would then have to take a vote on ending the debate, or cloture, before any resolutions would be voted on.

So what they really did was vote against having the chance to vote on having the chance to vote on their own resolution.

Any questions?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why the hell did Hagel and Warner vote against their own resolution?

Because McConnell told them too. Ironically, killing that resolution was a victory for liberals, since it was some incredibly wishy washy bullsh**t.

[GOP = Terrorists]

Gotta love the fact they spent the last few years RAILING against the filibuster and threatening the nuclear option and then every single one of those who hated it so much (including Joe Lieberman who repeatedly said he didn't believe in filibusters) now love it.  Hypocracy is the GOP's name.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Gotta love the fact they spent the last few years RAILING against the filibuster and threatening the nuclear option and then every single one of those who hated it so much (including Joe Lieberman who repeatedly said he didn't believe in filibusters) now love it.  Hypocracy is the GOP's name.

"Hypocrisy" doesn't mean anything to Republicans. Just look at my signature.

But yes, this vote is further proof that Lieberman is an extremely horrible person. BTW, I've mentioned it before, but the clueless always seem to miss this: control of the Senate is set in stone until the next Congress.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Vote was mostly party-lines. Two Republicans voted with the Democrats. Collins and Coleman. Gee, what do they have in common?

Reid voted Nay (no doubt for procedural reasons). One other non-Republican voted against beginning debate. Anyone care to guess who?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Since the Democrats were obviously never going to use this fillibuster option, mo matter how urgent, they should have voted to go nuclear along with the Republicans, so that the party with a spine would have been unable to use it.

[GOP = Terrorists]

they should have voted to go nuclear along with the Republicans

I said the same then.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Pathetic spineless Democrats tried bi-partisanship with the warmongers with some wishy washy spineless resolution. It got shot down. Now, they must end this war. Never ever try comprising with these wackos again.

[Gabu]

There would not have been this problem if the filibuster had been abolished in 2005.

Somehow I don't think that the Republicans would support it, and gee, I can't imagine why.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Anyone know the last time a non-binding resolution got fillibustered? Especially one as pathetic as this?

 Appearantly, the Republicans don't want to talk about Iraq. Great.  Thee warmongering tratiors can get the hell out of our way now.  The Republican party has proven themselves to be a bunch of extremist hacks. 2008 can't come soon enough.

It's a disgrace to this universe that the Democrats couldn't fillibuster Justice Alito, while the Republicans seem to fillibuster everything.

[David S]

The first rule of holes: When you find yourself in a deep hole ...stop digging.

Seems like the R's haven't figured that out yet.

[Gabu]

The first rule of holes: When you find yourself in a deep hole ...stop digging.

Seems like the R's haven't figured that out yet.

[J.G.H.]

Let's clear some stuff up here. Republicans were never against the legislative fillibuster. The nuclear option would only have gotten rid of the fillibuster for judicial nominees, which was being used in an unprecedented fashion. They never said anything against legislative fillibusters.

[Silent Hunter]

Let's clear some stuff up here. Republicans were never against the legislative fillibuster. The nuclear option would only have gotten rid of the fillibuster for judicial nominees, which was being used in an unprecedented fashion. They never said anything against legislative fillibusters.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Don't see why there shouldn't be a debate on Iraq. The surge is defendable.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Appearantly, the Republicans don't want to talk about Iraq. Great.  Thee warmongering tratiors can get the hell out of our way now.  The Republican party has proven themselves to be a bunch of extremist hacks. 2008 can't come soon enough.

It's a disgrace to this universe that the Democrats couldn't fillibuster Justice Alito, while the Republicans seem to fillibuster everything.

Let's make a deal.  Have the Dems introduce a binding bill cutting funding for the troops, and we Reps will allow a vote.  Deal?