No Filibuster on Iraq Spending bill with deadline???

by IsThisOverYet, Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:11:01 PM EST

I don't get this at all.  I am sensing some kind of trap and I don't like it.  Mitch McConnell is stating that Republicans will NOT try and filibuster the Iraq war spending bill even if it contains a deadline for withdrawing our troops.  His rationale is that Bush is going to veto it anyway.  Here is the story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070326/ap_o n_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=Aru6Fu3EUXS_ukIIjcg ONkiyFz4D

All I can think is they have something up their sleeve, and I don't trust that Mitch McConnell as far as I can throw him.  We all know Bush can veto anything that comes across his desk, that hasn't stopped them from obstructing virtually EVERYTHING we have tried to pass so far, what gives?  Anyone have any ideas?


Poll
What are the Republicans up to?
A dirty trick.
They are finally realizing what an albatross Iraq is.
Nothing to see here people! Move along, move along.

Votes: 3
Results : Vote Link : Polls


Tags: Iraq, Mitch McConnell, George W. Bush (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 10 Comments :: Post a Comment


Letting Bush take the heat (none / 0)

maybe thats what it is. Maybe they are getting tired of sticking their necks out for Bush's war.


by okamichan13 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:35:01 PM EST

Re: Letting Bush take the heat (none / 0)

Let's hope so.  The more we can make this Bush's war, the better.  But I just can't see the Republican party all of the suddenly wisening up though.  


by IsThisOverYet on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:38:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Letting Bush take the heat (none / 0)

..all of the SUDDEN wisening up though.


by IsThisOverYet on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:17:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Filibuster on Iraq Spending bill with deadl (none / 0)

Maybe you should try reading conservative news outlets every now and then.  Jed Babbin has a new column out and it says "I asked McConnell if he had talked to President Bush about unlimbering the presidential veto. He wouldn't, of course, reveal his personal discussions with the President but he did say that some bills that deserve to be killed may well not be because they deserve the dramatic death that comes with the veto."

Maybe that has something to do with it.  


by jeffersonpoole on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:57:38 PM EST

Re: No Filibuster on Iraq Spending bill with deadl (none / 0)

I can only stomach so much conservative propaganda before I start getting nauseous.  :)


by IsThisOverYet on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:19:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Filibuster on Iraq Spending bill with deadl (none / 0)

If they fillibuster it, it potentially stretches on for weeks and the Republicans look bad.

If they veto it, the Republicans may look bad, but at least they only look bad for the one day news cycle of the veto.


by Silent sound on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:05:21 PM EST

The US is BANKRUPT! (none / 0)

The US is BANKRUPT! We don't have $124 Billion dollars to had over to the Bush, et al. fiasco. We simply do not have the money. We will all starve, and Bush will blunder into Iran, and then we will all starve real quick. The Russians and the Chinese can hardly wait for us to fall into this fiendish economic trap.

Get ready for $10 per gallon gas and soup kitchens.


by blues on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:39:51 PM EST

political maneuvering (none / 0)

I don't think they have anything to gain by filibustering. They do have something to lose. And further they have something to gain by not filibustering:

  1. If they filibuster, they come off looking like obstructionists and dead set on opposing the American people and continuing the war indefinitely. Since many senators are up for reelection they'd rather leave the war as much around Bush's neck as they can.
  2. If they don't filibuster, there's a good chance the bill won't pass anyway (Leiberman won't vote for it, will either Nelson? will Baucus? what about Tim Johnson? Will he get rolled in?) in which case they win, being able to say, "we had the discussion and put it to an up or down vote, it's settled, we need to support our troops and give the president the flexibility he needs to win the war." And Bush doesn't have to veto.
  3. If they don't filibuster and Bush vetos, they can at least pin the blame on him, and claim to have debated it and worked to fund the troops...

Seems to me they have nothing to gain from filibustering.


by jujube on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:52:11 PM EST

Re: political maneuvering (none / 0)

Your #2 worries me most.  Perhaps they know it is going to fail to get 50 votes.  That would be horrible considering everything we went through in the House to get their version passed.


by IsThisOverYet on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 10:38:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: political maneuvering (none / 0)

The more I think about it, the more that scary explanation seems the most logical. In a 50-49 Senate with Lieberman counted among the 50, we would need to get at least one (likely more than one) Republican to vote for the bill. McConnell's not dumb, I bet he's got the votes counted.

People in Maine and Nebraska and maybe Pennsylvania, Oregon, ?? whereever else. Should get on the phone to their Republican senators.


by jujube on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 10:48:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: