GOP Leader Threatens Filibuster On Iraq

(AP)  President Bush's decision to deploy 21,500 additional troops to Iraq drew fierce opposition Thursday from congressional Democrats, but the Senate's top Republican threatened a filibuster to block any legislation expressing disapproval of the plan.

"Obviously, it will ... require 60 votes," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., as senior administration officials made the case for Mr. Bush's new policy in Congress, at news briefings and the morning television programs.

"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

On the morning after Bush's primetime speech from the White House, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declared: "In choosing to escalate the war, the president virtually stands alone."

Many Republicans, too, were clearly tired of the war, which has cost more than 3,000 American troops their lives, and played a major role in the Democratic takeover of Congress in last fall's elections.

"At this late stage, interjecting more young American troops into the crossfire of an Iraqi civil war is simply not the right approach," said Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla. "We are not going to solve an Iraqi political problem with an American military solution," he said in remarks on the House floor.

At a news conference, McConnell accused Democrats of secretly favoring a plan to cut off funding for the troops — an allegation that Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. denied.

McConnell conceded that Republicans as well as Democrats are troubled by Mr. Bush's new policy, but said, "Congress is completely incapable of dictating the tactics of the war."

Reid has said he will schedule a vote on a nonbinding bill expressing disapproval of Mr. Bush's new policy, but McConnell's filibuster threat indicated that he would not be rushed into the vote. Under the Senate's rules, 60 votes are required to cut off debate on an issue, and even the threat of a filibuster can force concessions by the majority.

McConnell's threat underscored that at least some GOP leaders are still willing to stand up for the president in the battle over Iraq policy. Even so, Democrats would achieve their goal of forcing senators to show their positions on the war whether the Senate votes on the resolution itself or a GOP effort to block it.

Mr. Bush's new strategy, announced Wednesday in a primetime address to the nation, increases U.S. forces in Iraq by 21,500 and demands greater cooperation from the Iraqi government.

Options for critics of the war were limited; Democratic leaders have mulled such a resolution of disapproval and there also has been talk of attaching a host of conditions to approval of a spending bill to cover the costs of the buildup.

• 1
• 2
• Next Page »

[processor2]

If it was OK for Democrats to fillibuster everything for the last 6 years, then it's OK for Republicans to act like Democrats and do the same.

........

[grazinggoat]

It's the bully way of negotiation republicans brag about. Bring 'em on... yeeeehhaaaa!

[jebediah76]

JPlo -

Um - the reason the U.S. dollar is decreasing is because of the debt we've had to go into to fund the war - what is it - $375,000,000,000.00 at this point? yes - that's billion with a B.

I think you will find that this figure dwarfs what the Bush Administration budgets for education, for healthcare, or for any of these "Keynsian" programs you seem to hate so much. I'm not saying big government and high spending is good, but as a fiscal conservative Bush fails brilliantly. True fiscal conservatives can only watch in abject horror as this man spends and writes checks that we will be paying or for years to come. THAT is scary.

[jebediah76]

Amen, Kate, Amen.
Now if we could only get Mr. PLO here to use punctuation!

[nyckate]

jebediah76 - Pat Robertson a federal judge?? - now that is a really really scary thought - we're going to have to force them to pass sanity tests from now on!!

I don't disagree with filibusters - I just despise the hypocracy of the GOP who decried them so horribly a short while ago when they thought they had a lock on the entire US government top to bottom - we can't forget who adn what the likes of McConnel, Bush and Rove are - hypocrits through adn through.

[jebediah76]

JasonPlo -
If you remember - the reason massive government spending was neccessary was that the country was in the middle of a depression? and WHY was it in the middle of a depression? Because Standard Oil and U.S. Steel refused to pay living wages, because the robber barons had all the money and were stamping their feet that the economy was going nowhere, AND they were fighting the rights of workers to organize!

Sounds like your kind already won once - and they gave as the Great Depression. Thanks, but I'll pass on round two.

Of course the U.S. has slightly socialist domestic policies - the alternative is economic anarchy.

[nyckate]

Jason_plo - the sunni shiite kurds wars have been on-going for between 8-13 centuries.

Also, Invasion of Iraq had NOTHING to do with the War on Terrorism. The bombing in Somalia does - cause you see that's where AQ is, not saddam controlled Iraq.

And if you think Bush and Rumsfeld were interested in going after AQ then why did htey team up with the Kurds who were the ones who aided AQ and allowed and aided AQ training camps in their part of Iraq which they controlled since the Gulf War? That's right - Bush and Rumsfeld had our guys teamed up and siding with those Kurds who helped those who attacked us on 9-11.

[jebediah76]

Also - the Nuclear Option in that debate was something no one wanted. Do you think they will get away with the Clinton era shenanigans again? If they were to try it the Dems would push the nuclear option right back across the table - so at the very least it should never be an issue again.

[Jasonian18]

who says ending the war unsafely quick is American i suppose you just want more deaths to occur to our soldiers it is you who is unamerican fool.

[Jasonian18]

this government isn't fascist it is more socialist then should be though all thanks to roosevelt real pity he had to listen to Keynsian economics and start major government spending had that not happend our country wouldn't have a declining currency right now.