No Filibuster on Iraq Spending bill with deadline???

by IsThisOverYet, Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 02:11:01 PM EDT

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?

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

  • 10 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

10 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Letting Bush take the heat

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

by okamichan13 2007-03-26 02:35PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Letting Bush take the heat

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 2007-03-26 02:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Letting Bush take the heat

..all of the SUDDEN wisening up though.

by IsThisOverYet 2007-03-26 03:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: No Filibuster on Iraq Spending bill with deadl

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 2007-03-26 03:57PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: No Filibuster on Iraq Spending bill with deadl

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

by IsThisOverYet 2007-03-26 04:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: No Filibuster on Iraq Spending bill with deadl

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 2007-03-26 04:05PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The US is BANKRUPT!

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 2007-03-26 04:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
political maneuvering

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 2007-03-26 04:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: political maneuvering

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 2007-03-26 06:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: political maneuvering

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 2007-03-26 06:48PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------