7 GOP Senators Back War Debate

[26 X World Champs]

There actually are some bi-partisan Republican Senators who understand that the American public voted in November 2006 Democrats into office so that there would be more of a debate concerning Iraq in Congress.

After all the bullshit that the GOP whined about when the Democrats would filibuster how hypocritical is it for them to now turn around and not allow a debate regarding the current Iraq policy? What exactly are they afraid of anyway? Te truth scares the crap out of them it appears!

7 GOP Senators Back War Debate

Lawmakers Had Blocked Action on Troop Resolution

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 8, 2007; Page A01

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. [snip]

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).

Source: washingtonpost.com

 

[reaganburch]

There actually are some bi-partisan Republican Senators who understand that the American public voted in November 2006 Democrats into office so that there would be more of a debate concerning Iraq in Congress.

After all the bullshit that the GOP whined about when the Democrats would filibuster how hypocritical is it for them to now turn around and not allow a debate regarding the current Iraq policy? What exactly are they afraid of anyway? Te truth scares the crap out of them it appears!


Source: washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

Is it NOT equally hypothetical then, for people to urinate & moan about the current filibuster threat who defended the Democrat's filibuster threats just a few months ago?

Saying all of that, what's the purpose of the non-binding resolution? That's something that I don't quite understand.

 

[Cremaster77]

Is it NOT equally hypothetical then, for people to urinate & moan about the current filibuster threat who defended the Democrat's filibuster threats just a few months ago?

Saying all of that, what's the purpose of the non-binding resolution? That's something that I don't quite understand.

Look, it goes both ways. Democrats who supported the filibusters last year should not be crying about the current filibuster. Similarly, Republicans who whined about the Democratic filibuster should not be cheering now. Either you think that filibustering is a crucial tool to prevent the majority from running rampant or you don't. That standard should apply regardless of which party is using the tool.

 

[BWG]

Look, it goes both ways.

Partisanship can cloud visions.


Funny how just a short while ago all the cheerleaders were Hoo-Rahing the steps the cons were taking to keep their proverbial foot on the minority party's neck.

'Kick 'em while they're down''Kick 'em while they're down'...rah,rah,rah.

Even though they were reminded that they may not always be the majority force that they were.

No, no, no, the Democratic Party is history, they will only be a memory, everyone agrees with us forever and forever, they chanted.

The reversal didn't take long and the crying has begun.

 

[Hoot]

It's a debate about Iraq. It's a non-binding resolution.

While repubs play games and attempt to block this, or place stipulations on the mere discussion of this war ( "Well, we'll vote for this debate if you do this for us")...our soldiers continue to die.

If I'm not mistaken, previous Dem filibusters involved judicial nominees.

This is life and death for our troops. A bit more serious, then whether a particular judge gets a chair?

I applaud these 7 republican senators.

 

[Navy Pride]

There actually are some bi-partisan Republican Senators who understand that the American public voted in November 2006 Democrats into office so that there would be more of a debate concerning Iraq in Congress.

After all the bullshit that the GOP whined about when the Democrats would filibuster how hypocritical is it for them to now turn around and not allow a debate regarding the current Iraq policy? What exactly are they afraid of anyway? Te truth scares the crap out of them it appears!


Source: washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

That is odd because almost every Republican including Warner voted not to allow cloiture.......

 

[Navy Pride]

It's a debate about Iraq. It's a non-binding resolution.

While repubs play games and attempt to block this, or place stipulations on the mere discussion of this war ( "Well, we'll vote for this debate if you do this for us")...our soldiers continue to die.

If I'm not mistaken, previous Democrat filibusters involved judicial nominees.
This is life and death for our troops. A bit more serious, then whether a particular judge gets a chair?

I applaud these 7 republican senators.

You are mistaken....The dems filibustered all kinds of legislation including SS reform..

 

[Hoot]

You are mistaken....The Democrats filibustered all kinds of legislation including SS reform..

SS reform takes a backseat where our troops safety and welfare is concerned, and most level headed Americans would agree. There is no comparison between filibustering judicial nominees, SS reform, or anything else you'd care to mention.

Or maybe you don't support the troops? Maybe you don't believe Congress should be debating the single most important issue that faces our nation?

This attempt by republicans to block debate is a selfish effort to prevent their votes from being a matter of public record.

Meanwhile, our soldiers continue to die.

 

[reaganburch]

It's a debate about Iraq. It's a non-binding resolution.

While repubs play games and attempt to block this, or place stipulations on the mere discussion of this war ( "Well, we'll vote for this debate if you do this for us")...our soldiers continue to die.

If I'm not mistaken, previous Democrat filibusters involved judicial nominees.

This is life and death for our troops. A bit more serious, then whether a particular judge gets a chair?

I applaud these 7 republican senators.

It's a debate about a non-binding resolution about Iraq... ok... then, what's the purpose of the non-binding resolution...

Everything else about 'repubs' is just white noise to me... My question is what's the purpose of the debate?

 

[Zyphlin]

Hey, as long as Read allows for the resolution to support the troops, the president, and the plan to be put on the table ALONG with the resolution stating the disagreement with the war and the troop surge I am all in favor of a full, open, HONEST, debate.

Till that point, its intellectually dishonest to say that the republicans are stopping a "fair debate" on Iraq and that the Democrats are somehow wanting it to be full, open, and honest yet won't allow the other side a chance for their own resolution. Its that very issue that caused the majority of those above senators to agree to the filibuster...because the Democrats just wanted to make it one side.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Is it NOT equally hypothetical then, for people to urinate & moan about the current filibuster threat who defended the Democrat's filibuster threats just a few months ago?

Saying all of that, what's the purpose of the non-binding resolution? That's something that I don't quite understand.

To me you're missing the point. When Democrats used the filibuster the sore loser Republicans threatened over and over again to change the rules to get their way...to change 200+ years of Senate tradition just so they could do what they wanted.

The Dems are complaining about a filibuster but are not and never will threaten to change Senate rules over this or any other subject and therein lies the big difference.

It's natural for the majority party to whine about filibusters and it is up to them to find a way to solve the problem WITHOUT CHANGING THE RULES. That is how our system works so to point out that the Dems are whining is moot in my mind because the majority party whomever it may be would whine.

 

[reaganburch]

To me you're missing the point. When Democrats used the filibuster the sore loser Republicans threatened over and over again to change the rules to get their way...to change 200+ years of Senate tradition just so they could do what they wanted.

The Democrats are complaining about a filibuster but are not and never will threaten to change Senate rules over this or any other subject and therein lies the big difference.

It's natural for the majority party to whine about filibusters and it is up to them to find a way to solve the problem WITHOUT CHANGING THE RULES. That is how our system works so to point out that the Democrats are whining is moot in my mind because the majority party whomever it may be would whine.

How 'bout pulling the rhetoric down just a tad...

And as far as I can remember, the only times the bastard Republicans wanted to change the rules(the nuclear option as it was), was during judicial nominees... Those evil Republicans, don't you just hate them? I just wish we had a government without those sore loser Republicans. :roll: I don't know that for a 100% fact, but that's what my memory tells me... everybody has a bloody different opinion, depending on what side of the aisle you belong to, that's why it's all white noise to me...

IMO, the meat of all of this, and I'm being serious here, what's the purpose of this debate? This non-binding resolution?

 

[aquapub]

The Democrats...never will threaten to change Senate rules over this or any other subject and therein lies the big difference.

It's natural for the majority party to whine about filibusters and it is up to them to find a way to solve the problem WITHOUT CHANGING THE RULES. That is how our system works so to point out that the Dems are whining is moot in my mind because the majority party whomever it may be would whine.

1) What a steaming load! :lol: Democrats are perfectly fine with changing the rules to get their way. Ever heard of Election 2000?

2) Liberals called it "a threat to democracy" when Republicans CONSIDERED using the filibuster, and then "an important tool for democracy" when Democrats actually used it. -NY Times

3) FYI, the last time I heard, Democrats were also still contradicting themselves about letting Republicans have any say in anything, and THAT was why conservatives were blocking the debate.

...therein lies the big difference

 

[Hoot]

The big difference this time is...while republicans block the debate, more U.S. soldiers die.

This will prove to be the downfall of the republican party if they do not open debates about this war. If the republicans are viewed by the American people as hindering this debate, a debate that most Americans want, they will pay the price heavily in the next election.

 

[aquapub]

The big difference this time is...while republicans block the debate, more U.S. soldiers die.

This will prove to be the downfall of the republican party if they do not open debates about this war. If the republicans are viewed by the American people as hindering this debate, a debate that most Americans want, they will pay the price heavily in the next election.

They aren't hindering ACTUAL debate. They are blocking the proceedings until Democrats fulfil their promise to let Republicans participate.

Actual suppression of speech is a tendency of the left, not the right.

Also, if some group of self-serving partisans had tried to pass something rejecting, say, the liberation of France during WWII over the escalation in American deaths that came with invading Normandy, it would be the moral obligation of those who actually give a crap about this country to block it, as it is the moral obligation of Republicans to protect this country from those who never learn from history.

 

[Navy Pride]

SS reform takes a backseat where our troops safety and welfare is concerned, and most level headed Americans would agree. There is no comparison between filibustering judicial nominees, SS reform, or anything else you'd care to mention.

Or maybe you don't support the troops? Maybe you don't believe Congress should be debating the single most important issue that faces our nation?

This attempt by republicans to block debate is a selfish effort to prevent their votes from being a matter of public record.

Meanwhile, our soldiers continue to die.

Regardless it was still filibustered when the dems were in the minority...You said that only judges were.....

I think that debating the war with a non binding resolution is cowardly and gutless.......If your a senator and against the war then stand up and be counted.......Submit a binding resolution not one that does not mean ****..........

Liberals like you, Kerry, Durbin, and Murtha crack me up when you feign this care for our troops and then you bad mouth them for doing their job.......

 

[aquapub]

After all the bullshit that the GOP whined about when the Democrats would filibuster how hypocritical is it for them to now turn around and not allow a debate regarding the current Iraq policy? What exactly are they afraid of anyway? Te truth scares the crap out of them it appears!

Liberals were persistently defying the will of the people (filibustering) to keep judges they don't like from ruining their unaccountable oligarchy that kept them from having to worry about the will of the people.

Conservatives are blocking a reprehensible act of betrayal against the troops just until Democrats start letting them participate the way they said they would.

These things are nothing alike.

The people who frivolously change the rules to suit their interests are liberals. There are endless examples.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Liberals were persistently defying the will of the people (filibustering) to keep judges they don't like from ruining their unaccountable oligarchy that kept them from having to worry about the will of the people.

Conservatives are blocking a reprehensible act of betrayal against the troops just until Democrats start letting them participate the way they said they would.

These things are nothing alike.

The people who frivolously change the rules to suit their interests are liberals. There are endless examples.

One big difference that you and the other Republican excuse makers keep ignoring in this thread is the way the GOP tried to deal with the filibuster when they had the majority. The GOP over and over again threatened the entire nation and our history with "THE NUCLEAR OPTION" if Democrats didn't stop filbustering and that is what I am referring to here. The fact that it was over judges is MOOT...the important issue was the threat of the NUCLEAR OPTION.

Filibustering is part of the Senate and I do not fault the current minority for exercising that right. I can live with the consequences that occur namely public opinion.

As was the case with the Nuclear Option some sensible Republican senators are banding together with Democrats to try to find a solution. Why? Because they want to do what's right versus partisanship. Debating Iraq is important, Americans are dying in Iraq every day and a strong majority of Americans want the war to end and they want their Senators to voice that feeling...while the minority of Americans want to stifle any talk or debate, in effect burying the collective heads of America in the sand and that sucks a lot.

So the longer the Republicans filibuster the more America turns against them and strengthens the Democratic majority, probably for years to come.

So are you Republican sympathizers suggesting that Senators like Warner and Snow are traitors and do not support the troops and that, as some of you love to write, they want America to lose the war too?

 

[Navy Pride]

To me you're missing the point. When Democrats used the filibuster the sore loser Republicans threatened over and over again to change the rules to get their way...to change 200+ years of Senate tradition just so they could do what they wanted.

The Democrats are complaining about a filibuster but are not and never will threaten to change Senate rules over this or any other subject and therein lies the big difference.

It's natural for the majority party to whine about filibusters and it is up to them to find a way to solve the problem WITHOUT CHANGING THE RULES. That is how our system works so to point out that the Dems are whining is moot in my mind because the majority party whomever it may be would whine.

As usual you are wrong..........Republicans have no problem with the filibusters except in its use to block judges from getting and up or down vote on the senate floor..........

 

[Navy Pride]

One big difference that you and the other Republican excuse makers keep ignoring in this thread is the way the GOP tried to deal with the filibuster when they had the majority. The GOP over and over again threatened the entire nation and our history with "THE NUCLEAR OPTION" if Democrats didn't stop filbustering and that is what I am referring to here. The fact that it was over judges is MOOT...the important issue was the threat of the NUCLEAR OPTION.

Filibustering is part of the Senate and I do not fault the current minority for exercising that right. I can live with the consequences that occur namely public opinion.

As was the case with the Nuclear Option some sensible Republican senators are banding together with Democrats to try to find a solution. Why? Because they want to do what's right versus partisanship. Debating Iraq is important, Americans are dying in Iraq every day and a strong majority of Americans want the war to end and they want their Senators to voice that feeling...while the minority of Americans want to stifle any talk or debate, in effect burying the collective heads of America in the sand and that sucks a lot.

So the longer the Republicans filibuster the more America turns against them and strengthens the Democratic majority, probably for years to come.

So are you Republican sympathizers suggesting that Senators like Warner and Snow are traitors and do not support the troops and that, as some of you love to write, they want America to lose the war too?

There is a huge difference in filibutering ligislation the filibustering judges.....

 

[26 X World Champs]

There is a huge difference in filibutering ligislation the filibustering judges.....

What is the "HUGE DIFFERENCE" that you're talking about?????

If you were a truly non-partisan believer in the Senate and it's unique history that protects the minority you would think there are no exceptions, that the filibuster is there to be used by the minority whoever that maybe.

You have once again ignored that the GOP threatened to change the historical rules of the Senate with the NUCLEAR OPTION. They put politics ahead of the good of the country and used a threat of altering American history if they didn't get their way...and if it had not been for the reasonable Republicans, the same ones that this thread is about they would have crapped all over the Constitution and the Senate.

 

[aquapub]

One big difference that you and the other Republican excuse makers keep ignoring in this thread is the way the GOP tried to deal with the filibuster when they had the majority. The GOP over and over again threatened the entire nation and our history with "THE NUCLEAR OPTION" if Democrats didn't stop filbustering and that is what I am referring to here.

Republican excuse-maker: one who corrects hysterical liberal bs.

The nuclear option is just a phrase that means stopping liberals from abusing the filibuster anymore.

Considering stopping Democrats from defying the will of the people never posed any threat to this country or it's history.

 

[aquapub]

Filibustering is part of the Senate and I do not fault the current minority for exercising that right. I can live with the consequences that occur namely public opinion.

Filibustering is a way for liberals to frivolously obstruct things they don't like. Republicans ACTUALLY believe in democracy and virtually never use it.

 

[aquapub]

Debating Iraq is important, Americans are dying in Iraq every day and a strong majority of Americans want the war to end and they want their Senators to voice that feeling...while the minority of Americans want to stifle any talk or debate, in effect burying the collective heads of America in the sand and that sucks a lot.

Yes, the debate needs to happen. That's why Republicans should keep blocking this "debate" in which Republicans are being excluded from the entire conversation.

DEMOCRATS are the ones preventing an actual debate here. Republicans have an obligation to stop it.

BTW, Americans "wanted the war to end" in WWII within months of Pearl Harbor too. It would be nice if wars didn't require any actual sacrifice so that liberals could support them too. But just because people want the war to end doesn't mean they want to follow Democrats over the cliff and hand Iraq over to terrorists.

Some people learn from history.

A poll taken the day after Election 2006 showed about 75% of Americans thought Democrats would withdraw from Iraq prematurely.

Don't presume Americans are on board with the left's visionless retreatist idiocy just because they want the war to end.

 

[aquapub]

So the longer the Republicans filibuster the more America turns against them and strengthens the Democratic majority, probably for years to come.

So the longer Democrats refuse to allow a two-sided (hence, ACTUAL) debate, the clearer it will become why it took scandals and an unpopular war for Democrats to scrape out a razor thin majority, even in what should've been an effortless mid-term election year.