|
Republican senators stifle debate on Iraq
Malaysia Sun Tuesday 6th February, 2007 (Deborah Tate )
U.S. Senate Republicans have used a procedural vote to block a bipartisan, nonbinding resolution opposing President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq.
It is a defeat for Senate critics of the war, who say they will continue efforts to send a strong bipartisan message to the president to change course in Iraq.
The Senate voted 49 to 47 to end debate on the resolution, far less than the majority needed to cut off debate and clear the way for a vote on the measure. The vote was largely along party lines in the Democratic-controlled chamber.
The resolution, sponsored by Senator John Warner of Virginia, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, expresses disagreement over President Bush's decision to send 21,500 additional combat troops to Iraq.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said Republicans blocked the resolution from coming to a vote because they did not want to embarrass the president.
"What you just saw on the Senate floor was Republicans giving George Bush a green light to escalate the conflict in Iraq," said Harry Reid.
Mitch McConnell
But the Senate's top Republican, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, says he voted to block the resolution not because he wanted to avoid debating the measure, but because he wanted to protest the Democratic leadership's decision to bar two other Republican-sponsored Iraq resolutions from being considered.
"We are not afraid of the debate," said Mitch McConnell. "We are ready to have it. I'm anxious to go forward, but we are going to insist on fair treatment."
One of the resolutions McConnell wants the Senate to consider would underscore the president's commander-in-chief responsibilities under the Constitution. The other would express support for Mr. Bush's plan to increase troop levels in Iraq and set benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet following the deployment.
But McConnell makes clear he opposes the Warner resolution on grounds it sends the wrong message - a point underscored by Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who calls himself an independent Democrat:
"It is an act which I fear will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies and showcase our disunity," said Lieberman.
In the end, Senator Warner voted to block his own resolution, agreeing with his Republican leadership that Democrats in control of the chamber should allow other Republican-backed resolutions to be considered. But he made it clear he remains opposed to the president's troop surge plan, saying the Iraqis should take more responsibility for fighting for their country.
"Let them take the brunt of the fight, and maybe we do not need 21,500, together with support, troops to go in and do the job that we have trained these people to do themselves," said John Warner.
Majority Leader Reid expressed disappointment that the resolution was blocked, saying he believed he had assurances from Senator McConnell last week that Republicans would allow the resolution to come to a vote. Reid vowed that the Senate would not abandon the debate over Iraq, and said fellow Democrats would meet Tuesday to discuss how to proceed in the coming days and weeks.
Email this story to a friend
Comments on this story
| By Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD, 02-06-07, 11:14 AM |
Republican senators stifle debate on IraqRepublican senators stifle debate on Iraq
Here come the smart league of gentlemen in THE BLACK. Now starts the action. Mr. Bush stays as GOD or Goes like boxers KNOCKED OUT???
|
| By Anonymous, 02-06-07, 01:40 PM |
Mr. Bush has crazy advisorsMr. Bush is honest with his cause but his advisers are thick-minded duffers.
They don`t make distinction between a foe and a friend. Look ! Pakistani Military is sponsorning and encourging Talibans to kill Afghans and NATO forces in Afghanistan but the thick-minded advisors of Mr. Bush give Heli-copters and million of aid to Pakistan Military for their best services...............
These U.S. helicopters and aid money is used to kill the Balochs who are not
Talibans...who demand for their civil rights...they have best wishes for Mr. Karzai, the President of Afghanistan and best wishes for Mr. Bush, the President of United States of America. |
| By Mor, 02-06-07, 03:20 PM |
| Do you take alot of time on your own to study these things or are you just speaking primarily of propaganda that has been issued directly from the whitehouse? Pakistan does not have a history of backing Taliban, in fact they work more closely with the illegal war on an inanimate object (war on terror ) than you think. I do believe i was just reading about a bomb that tageted pakistani officials that backed this war. So how can you say pakistan supplies Taliban? Pakistan would be better off not getting involved at all with this illegal war but they feel pressured as do most countries. I also remember alot of people calling Taliban liberators when the communists attacked the Afghans. Funny how you can turn into a terrorist all of a sudden isnt it. Be carefull in these days of illigitimate war, you may be the next they target as a terrorist, anyone can have this label now just for thier view.
We here in the United States have come under fire from our own government for so many years now it isnt even funny, due entirely to another such illegal war, the war on the inanimate object called drugs. Who does this war target do you think? Do you honestly believe making senators rich with drug money is a legitimate excuse to target American children on the streets who use a substance cause life sux ass? So they make it worse for the kids by imprisoning them. Makes sense to a politician that would like to see young poor white males not be able to breed. I believe they call this negative eugenics. I better be carefull, now I might be labled a terrorist for enlightening you. Good luck in your quest for civil liberties it’s getting harder and harder to find those here. You know when I was growing up you didn’t have to carry insurance papers in your car, my mother never had any insurance. When I became old enough to drive they passed a law enforcing insurance papers be held at all times in your vehicle, I lost my privelidge to drive for 9 years because I could not afford the rediculous fines that were imposed upon me. Which in the area I lived that had no public transportation, that i could not find work. Let me enlighten you further. When I was younger there were no seatbelt laws ( for your body is your own, an independent temple of god ), today the state shows ownership of bodies by making it manditory to protect yourself with this device.This is just a couple of things that have changed, we won’t even get into the right to bear arms.
Once again good luck, I wish you the best in your quest. |
| By WHOOPI, 02-06-07, 10:09 PM |
| iT IS POLITICS PLAY OF HIDE AND SEEK.......... |
Have your say on this story
|
|