Thread: Republicans block "surge" debate

Hey, another summer in the heat then! I love my life...

Below are some comments on the fact that the Republicans didn't "block" the debate.

However, I don't think that there's ever been a doubt that the "surge" would go full steam ahead. Money's already there to fund current operations, and there's no way that Congress would muster a supermajority to override a veto on a bill pulling back that money. The issue is what amount of future appropriations will get passed, and so the question is what limitations on strategy will result much later in the year when current funds dry up and the President has to depend on what level of funding can get through the current Congress.

Power Line: Dems' quest for favorable PR trumps tolerance for full debate

February 06, 2007

Dems' quest for favorable PR trumps tolerance for full debate

The liberal MSM spin machine is working overtime in an attempt to portray Senate Republicans as the ones who prevented a debate over Iraq. AP, of course, led the charge. Naturally, USA Today joined in. And the Washington Post contributed with a headline accusing Republicans of "stall[ing] debate."

Even C-SPAN sounded more like C-SPIN this morning at around 9:00 (EST) when its Washington Journal host told the audience that Republicans were preventing debate. He also sniffed that the two Republicans who joined with the Senate Democrats on the procedural vote are both facing tough re-election battles in 2008 (even though Susan Collins' approval rating is above 70 percent), but neglected to make the same point about Democrat Mary Landreau who abstained from voting with her party.

As John explained yesterday, the Republican filibuster did not prevent debate. To the contrary, it was the Democrats' attempt to invoke cloture that would have ended debate. The filibuster prevented the vote the Democrats wanted -- one limited to the Warner-Levin resolution. But as I understand it, the Republicans would have permitted voting had the Dems been willing to let other resolutions come before the Senate. More resolutions presumably mean more debate, just as more votes mean more clarity with respect to the "sense of the Senate."

But the Dems were unwilling to have the fuller, more clarifying, debate. This surely was due, in part, to their confidence that their friends at AP, USA Today, the Washington Post, etc. would spin the story their way thus enabling them to win a PR victory.

UPDATE: The Dems, of course, used the filibuster throughout their recent time in the minority, and the MSM invariably covered for them even when, unlike here, the filibuster actually did prevent voting on the issue at hand. Here, the Washington Post described a Republican cloture motion during the judicial nomination battles as a "motion to end debate." Here, the New York Times described a similar motion during the debate on a gay marriage bill as "shutting off debate." But now, in the world of MSM pro-Democratic spin, efforts to resist cloture have somehow become attempts to end debate.

Thanks, shek; I was just about to point out that the reality is exactly 180 out from that headline.

And by the way: the buttnugget that wrote that cannot possibly think that he was writing anything approximating the truth. THIS is another clear example of advocacy 'journalism', and the point-of-view of this perpetrator is in no doubt whatsoever.

So, to the people that read this thread: are you tired of being lied to by the MSM yet?

Originally Posted by Bluesman

And by the way: the buttnugget that wrote that cannot possibly think that he was writing anything approximating the truth. THIS is another clear example of advocacy 'journalism', and the point-of-view of this perpetrator is in no doubt whatsoever.

So, to the people that read this thread: are you tired of being lied to by the MSM yet?

LONG since, bro.

-dale

This whole "debate" thing is stupid. If democrats really have the balls they will block funding for the surge.

Originally Posted by Ishapore41

This whole "debate" thing is stupid. If democrats really have the balls they will block funding for the surge.

That's my point. They can't affect operations until 1 OCT, or if money runs out in DoD earlier. Appropriations are already approved for Iraq and DoD, and so to change the budget authority, they would have to pass new legislation, which would require the President to sign. The surge is a done deal for now.

They can only block funding for future operations starting next fiscal year, and failure to sign by the President will result in no budget authority. The current debate is all about posturing for the FY08 debate.

That's why the White House has been tossing out the possibility of submitting a longer term supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan now so that will last through essentially the next elections. It's a brilliant political strategy as it places a wedge between the opposing positions of supporting much of the base by yanking funding while alienating the middle if blocking funding can be played as not supporting the troops. Better to do it now while you have the new leadership and strategy in Iraq so that Iraq hasn't been written off by the middle to the point where you can no longer play the "not supporting the troops" card.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

And by the way: the buttnugget that wrote that cannot possibly think that he was writing anything approximating the truth. THIS is another clear example of advocacy 'journalism', and the point-of-view of this perpetrator is in no doubt whatsoever.

So, to the people that read this thread: are you tired of being lied to by the MSM yet?

You know the more I look at the news/journalism etc. All I can say is that I wish I could do the same "quality" work at what I do for as living and not be held to account of wether its true or false or who's lives are impacted by its authinticity. Needless to say IF I DID MY JOB AS HALF ASSED AS THE MEDIA I WOULDNT HAVE A JOB TO WORRY ABOUT. BUT THE LAST THING YOU WOULD HEAR FROM ME IS THAT "YOU VIOLATED MY RIGHTS"

Blocking funds will be most unfortunate.

Iraq is a conundrum as of now.

One should not make it a disaster!

It will be, if money does not flow.

An update.

Power Line: Democrats Foiled, Slink Away

Democrats Foiled, Slink Away

That's what I think has happened, anyway. I'm in Washington today, mostly doing serious business. But I've also tried to pick up on the latest scuttlebutt. It appears that the Republican leadership, in particular Mitch McConnell, has successfully outmaneuvered the Democrats on the issue of the anti-surge resolutions which the Dems had hoped to use to further delegitimize the administration's efforts in Iraq.

As I reconstruct the story, the first stage of the Dems' retreat was when the party's leadership decided to push the Warner/Levin resolution rather than the more radical Biden/Hagel resolution that cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Democrats shifted to Warner/Levin in hopes of landing more Republican votes. But the amended version of Warner/Levin includes language opposing a funding cutoff in paragraph 4:

(4) the Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such an action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions;

So Warner/Levin, as amended, would probably have split the Democrats, as the more radical elements (Feingold, et al.) likely would not have voted for it.

The Democrats' problems were compounded when the Republicans held firm (with only two exceptions) behind Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's insistence that full debate be allowed, not just on the Warner/Levin resolution, but also on New Hampshire Republican Judd Gregg's resolution, a straightforward rejection of funding cuts for the war effort. Harry Reid knew that the Gregg resolution would get more votes than Warner/Levin, and decided to pull the plug on his effort to embarrass the administration, at least for now. The Senate has moved on to other business.

This narrative is consistent with Robert Novak's analysis:

As little as Republicans wanted to vote on the Warner resolution, Democrats were even more scared of voting on Gregg's amendment -- it would have defeated the Democrats' entire purpose for voting on Iraq. Moreover, Warner's resolution would not get the 60 votes needed to pass, and Gregg's would have won. This would embarrass and divide the Democratic majority. More proof: When Gregg asked Reid on the floor whether Reid would vote for a resolution against cutting funding, Reid stammered, said he could not answer, and changed the subject.
Democrats preferred no vote to a vote that included Gregg's resolution, and thus they were forced to give up altogether on the idea of a resolution. After losing a round, their next move is to consider a resolution in the House in hopes of increasing pressure for the Senate to act later.

So the Republicans have won for now, much to the relief of several Republican Senators who much prefer not to have to vote on any of the Iraq resolutions.

UPDATE: The Washington Post reports, however, that some Republican Senators are intent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Update

House passes Iraq resolution critical of Bush
Senate to consider similar measure in rare Saturday session

Updated: 7:46 p.m. ET Feb. 16, 2007
WASHINGTON - The Democratic-controlled House issued a symbolic rejection of President Bush's plan to deploy more troops to Iraq on Friday, opening an epic confrontation between Congress and commander in chief over an unpopular war that has taken the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.

The vote on the nonbinding measure was 246-182, with six not voting.

Within minutes, Democrats said their next move would be to challenge Bush’s request for $93 billion in new funds for the Pentagon.

“The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, leader of Democrats who gained power last fall in elections framed by public opposition to the war.

“The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home,” she vowed after the vote, in which 17 Republicans joined 229 Democrats in a wartime rebuke to the president.

That was fewer GOP defections than Democrats had hoped to get and the White House and its allies had feared. Two Democrats joined 180 Republicans in opposition.

Bush's Republican allies said repeatedly the measure would lead to attempts to cut off funds for the troops. Outnumbered, they turned to Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas to close their case - and the former Vietnam prisoner of war stepped to the microphone as lawmakers in both parties rose to applaud his heroism.

"Now it's time to stand up for my friends who did not make it home, and for those who fought and died in Iraq already," he said. "We must not cut funding for our troops. We must stick by them," he added, snapping off a salute as he completed his remarks to yet another ovation.

White House statement
Bush made no comment on the developments, and his spokesman said the commander in chief was too busy to watch the proceedings on television.

In a statement, White House spokesman Tony Snow did note that “the resolution is nonbinding. Soon, Congress will have the opportunity to show its support for the troops in Iraq by funding the request the president has submitted, and which our men and women in combat are counting on.”

After a secure videoconference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Bush said the Iraqis were reporting progress: providing troops to fight alongside Americans, making sure that no ethnic or religious factions are ignored in the security operations, providing $10 billion toward reconstruction and working on an oil revenue-sharing law.

The developments in the House marked the first vote of the new Congress on the war. Roughly 400 of 434 lawmakers spoke during four days of a dignified debate — an unusual amount of time devoted to a single measure.

Senate vote Saturday
Moving quickly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has called a test vote for Saturday on an identical measure, and several presidential contenders in both parties rearranged their weekend campaign schedules to be present.

Republicans said in advance they would deny Democrats the 60 votes they need to advance the resolution, adding they would insist on equal treatment for a GOP-drafted alternative that opposes any reduction in funds for the troops.

The developments unfolded as a new poll showed more than half those surveyed view the war as a hopeless cause.

A sizeable majority, 63 percent, opposes the decision to dispatch more troops, although support for Bush's decision has risen in the past few weeks from 26 percent to 35 percent, according to the AP-Ipsos poll.

I figured this would pass the House but I don't think this will pass the Senate.

The surge is already being implemented. My entire brigade has already been extended. It's a done deal. They better not put up any road blocks to disrupt the potential for mission success now.

Congress doesn't have the constitutional means with which to prevent the President from deploying military forces, with the exception of funding. They never have.

I agree with Bluesman on this one. Lately the BBC seems to have lowered its journalistic standards. I filter through the news to weed out as much BS as possible, but it definitely seems the story was twisted on this occasion.

Originally Posted by Ironduke

Congress doesn't have the constitutional means with which to prevent the President from deploying military forces, with the exception of funding. They never have.

The War Powers Act of 1973 places limits on the President's ability to engage in hostilities. But yes I agree with you that the President can deploy troops for a limited time and there's nothing Congress can do about it other than an impeachment or cut funding.

Originally Posted by Kassad

The War Powers Act of 1973 places limits on the President's ability to engage in hostilities. But yes I agree with you that the President can deploy troops for a limited time and there's nothing Congress can do about it other than an impeachment or cut funding.

As far as Iraq goes, the restrictions of the War Powers Act (if ever deemed to be Constitutional) doesn't apply since Congress passed the AUMF back in October 2002.