7 GOP senators back war debate

cat's meow · #1 (**permalink**) 02-08-2007, 12:56 AM

_______________________________

Quote:

7 GOP senators back war debate
Lawmakers had helped block action on troop resolution

Updated: 28 minutes ago
Senate Republicans who earlier this week helped block deliberations on a resolution opposing President Bush's new troop deployments in Iraq changed course yesterday and vowed to use every tactic at their disposal to ensure a full and open debate.

In a letter distributed yesterday evening to Senate leaders, John W. Warner (Va.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and five other GOP supporters of the resolution threatened to attach their measure to any bill sent to the floor in the coming weeks. Noting that the war is the "most pressing issue of our time," the senators declared: "We will explore all of our options under the Senate procedures and practices to ensure a full and open debate."

The letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was not more specific about the Republican senators' strategy for reviving the war debate. But under the chamber's rules, senators have wide latitude in slowing the progress of legislation and in offering amendments, regardless of whether they have anything to do with the bill.

The letter began circulating yesterday evening after it became apparent the Senate was deadlocked over the war resolution and Reid was prepared to move on to other matters. McConnell and many in his party have aggressively defended their decision to block the bipartisan resolution as an issue of fairness because Democrats would not agree to GOP procedural demands.

But some Republicans were uneasy about appearing to have stymied the debate. The letter appeared so suddenly that although it was addressed to Reid, the Democratic leader had not seen his copy before Warner read the text on the Senate floor.

"Monday's procedural vote should not be interpreted as any lessening of our resolve to go forward advocating the concepts" of their resolution, the letter said. "The current stalemate is unacceptable to us and to the people of this country."

House Democratic leaders are attempting to formulate their own nonbinding expression of disapproval of Bush's decision to send an additional 21,500 troops to battle, and they intend to devote three days next week to debating it.

A top Pentagon leader weighed in yesterday on the war debate and appeared to undercut the argument advanced by the White House and many GOP lawmakers that a congressional debate challenging the Bush plan would hurt troop morale.

‘Strengthens our democracy’
"There's no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy. Period," Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the House Armed Services Committee. He added that potential enemies may take some comfort from the rancor but said they "don't have a clue how democracy works."

Congress is grappling with several nonbinding resolutions, each of which addresses Bush's deployment plan, even as public support for the war declines and conditions on the ground grow increasingly perilous. The debate has particularly vexed Republicans, who are reluctant to abandon Bush at a critical moment but who also regard the party's defeat in the November midterm elections as a signal that voters want Congress to challenge White House war policy more aggressively.

The Senate was poised to debate a nonbinding resolution opposing the additional troop deployment and calling for a diplomatic initiative to settle the conflict in Iraq. Republicans refused to allow the resolution to reach the floor, relying on a standard procedural objection.

Five of the seven Senate signatories to yesterday's letter -- including Warner, the bipartisan resolution's chief author -- had voted Monday to block the debate. By showing party solidarity, they had hoped to pressure Democrats into allowing the consideration of other nonbinding measures, namely two that are more supportive of the administration's policy. But Democratic leaders refused to relent, and the long-awaited war debate -- or at least the opening chapter -- ended almost as soon as it began.

The Republican senators attempted in their letter to clear up the apparent contradiction. "Monday's procedural vote should not be interpreted as any lessening of our resolve to go forward," the senators insisted. But they voiced the GOP leadership's view that other resolutions should receive an equal vetting.

"The Senate should be allowed to work its will on our resolution as well as the concepts being brought forward by other senators," the letter stated.

The other Republican senators who signed the letter were Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, Norm Coleman (Minn.), Gordon Smith (Ore.), and George V. Voinovich (Ohio).

‘A change of heart’
Democrats brushed off the Republicans' declaration as too little, too late. Reid spokesman Jim Manley said in a statement: "Senator Reid gave Senator Warner and the others a chance to vote for their own resolution on Monday, but only two of them chose to do so. Hopefully this letter signifies that the others have had a change of heart, and will be willing to vote for their own resolution in the future."

After reading the text on the Senate floor, Warner hurried back to his office, declining to answer questions. He would not specify whether he and his allies would seek to block specific bills, including an huge spending package that the Senate is expected to take up today, to fund government activities for the current fiscal year. Warner did indicate he will attempt to amend the funding package with his resolution.

In the letter, the senators said they will offer the resolution "where possible" on bills as they come before the Senate.

House Democrats had hoped for a large bipartisan Senate vote on Warner's resolution to create momentum in the House and to provide maximum pressure for Republicans to go along. But with the Senate at a standstill, House leaders are considering a straightforward resolution that opposes the troop increase, without the multiple provisions that complicated Warner's text. Senior House Democrats predicted their measure will attract overwhelming party support and possibly as many as 30 GOP votes.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Sam · #2 (**permalink**) 02-08-2007, 01:19 AM

I notice Gordon Smith (R) Oregon is part of this. I respect him, never voted for him, but I think he is sincere. I do not agree with article I will link. The author is questioning the possibility his Morman fatih as a "cause" for this change of heart.

http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/01/gordon_smith_on.html

gixaholic · #3 (**permalink**) 02-08-2007, 09:34 AM

well they want an open debate... Harry Reid has been blocking any debate on a resolution agreeing on the presdidential surge.... Republicans want a full and open debate on the Anti Surge and Surge proposal.................

-------------------------article
After the failure to approve cloture on the single amendment allowed to reach the floor by Harry Reid, it appeared that the Democrats had decided to allow the effort to pass a non-binding resolution to die on the floor -- and blame Republicans for supposedly ending the debate. Seven Republican Senators have decided to push back against that decision, demanding that GOP and Democratic leaders reach some level of accommodation for a full debate on all proposals, a surprise that Reid attempted to ignore when it arose during yesterday's session:

Senate Republicans who earlier this week helped block deliberations on a resolution opposing President Bush's new troop deployments in Iraq changed course yesterday and vowed to use every tactic at their disposal to ensure a full and open debate. In a letter distributed yesterday evening to Senate leaders, John W. Warner (Va.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and five other GOP supporters of the resolution threatened to attach their measure to any bill sent to the floor in the coming weeks. Noting that the war is the "most pressing issue of our time," the senators declared: "We will explore all of our options under the Senate procedures and practices to ensure a full and open debate."
-------------------------------------------------------------------article

Cizungu · #4 (**permalink**) 02-08-2007, 03:55 PM

They squirm, they squirm, caught between a rock and a hard place...

Hagel seems to talk sensibly, but his actions don't follow his words, apparently. Now he's changed his mind again... We'll have to see how it plays out.

"There's no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy. Period," Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the House Armed Services Committee. He added that potential enemies may take some comfort from the rancor but said they "don't have a clue how democracy works."

That needed to be said. Kudos to Pace for cutting through the bullshit.

gixaholic · #5 (**permalink**) 02-08-2007, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cizungu

They squirm, they squirm, caught between a rock and a hard place...

Hagel seems to talk sensibly, but his actions don't follow his words, apparently. Now he's changed his mind again... We'll have to see how it plays out.

"There's no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy. Period," Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the House Armed Services Committee. He added that potential enemies may take some comfort from the rancor but said they "don't have a clue how democracy works."

That needed to be said. Kudos to Pace for cutting through the bullshit.

i dont think you understand.... The republicans are pushing for a full open debate on iraq.... The dems want to keep it just to there non binding resolution.....

Cizungu · #6 (**permalink**) 02-08-2007, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gixaholic

i dont think you understand.... The republicans are pushing for a full open debate on iraq.... The dems want to keep it just to there non binding resolution.....

Well of the course they do; the Republicans' resolutions are desperate measures that wouldn't allow effective opposition to the surge. The Democrats are the majority, and have been elected to either significantly change the course in this war, or end it. They don't have to put up with this weak shuffling from the congressional opposition : "change the course but support the surge" is worthless, and is simply meant to buy time. Although the Democrats's non-binding resolution won't get much achieved either, it's still noticeably better. The Republicans are going to have to compromise further, they're in a position of weakness after all.

gixaholic · #7 (**permalink**) 02-08-2007, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cizungu

Well of the course they do; the Republicans' resolutions are desperate measures that wouldn't allow effective opposition to the surge. The Democrats are the majority, and have been elected to either significantly change the course in this war, or end it. They don't have to put up with this weak shuffling from the congressional opposition : "change the course but support the surge" is worthless, and is simply meant to buy time. Although the Democrats's non-binding resolution won't get much achieved either, it's still noticeably better. The Republicans are going to have to compromise further, they're in a position of weakness after all.

they dont have to put up with it.... lets not forget them dems wont even be able to pass there little bill without the help from the repubs... So if the dems want there bill then the dems are gonna have to deal and let the republican bill be brought to the floor...

sorry pal..

Cizungu · #8 (**permalink**) 02-08-2007, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gixaholic

they dont have to put up with it.... lets not forget them dems wont even be able to pass there little bill without the help from the repubs... So if the dems want there bill then the dems are gonna have to deal and let the republican bill be brought to the floor...

sorry pal..

No, you don't understand how it works. Look at the article above: already, some GOP senators have changed their minds, recanting their initial opposition. The Republicans are under pressure--the Democrats can wait them out. They can hold their position, and it will be the Republicans, who have this war tied around their neck, who will be forced to cede ground. A logical outcome, I'll add, since they're in the minority.

Of course, Republicans could refuse to give up out of sheer ideological stubbornness, in which case they'd be even more disconnected with mainstream America's opinion. But I don't think they'll be able to do it, too many factors are against them.

cat's meow · #9 (**permalink**) 02-08-2007, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cizungu

No, you don't understand how it works. Look at the article above: already, some GOP senators have changed their minds, recanting their initial opposition. The Republicans are under pressure--the Democrats can wait them out. They can hold their position, and it will be the Republicans, who have this war tied around their neck, who will be forced to cede ground. A logical outcome, I'll add, since they're in the minority.

Of course, Republicans could refuse to give up out of sheer ideological stubbornness, in which case they'd be even more disconnected with mainstream America's opinion. But I don't think they'll be able to do it, too many factors are against them.

Good summing up of the situation...

RASTAMAN · #10 (**permalink**) 02-08-2007, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cizungu

No, you don't understand how it works. Look at the article above: already, some GOP senators have changed their minds, recanting their initial opposition. The Republicans are under pressure--the Democrats can wait them out. They can hold their position, and it will be the Republicans, who have this war tied around their neck, who will be forced to cede ground. A logical outcome, I'll add, since they're in the minority.

Of course, Republicans could refuse to give up out of sheer ideological stubbornness, in which case they'd be even more disconnected with mainstream America's opinion. But I don't think they'll be able to do it, too many factors are against them.

Good points. Also, to consider....the Republicans were literally strong armed by none other than "Dark Vader" Cheney to suddenly back the SURGE. Just recently a meeting was called at Damp David of which all major Republicans in the Senate were required to be there. Prior to this meeting Republicans in Congress were starting to splinter in their support for Bush's war in Iraq.

Either way the remanants of the once powerfull GOP are screwed! On the one hand Republicans in the Congress are being Blackmailed by Cheney and on the other hand the Surge, the cost of the Iraq war, and further failure of winning it! will cost Republicans in the Congress to loose even more seats in the 08 elections.