Posted on 01/11/2007 10:40:35 AM PST by blitzgig
WASHINGTON - President Bush's decision to send 21,500 more combat troops to Iraq drew heavy fire from both Democrats and some Republicans on Thursday despite a plea by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for a "national imperative not to fail."
A day after Bush's prime time speech from the White House, the Senate's top Republican threatened a filibuster to block any legislation expressing disapproval of the plan.
"Obviously, it will ... require 60 votes," said Sen. Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record), R-Ky., as senior administration officials made the case for Bush's new policy in Congress, at news briefings and on the morning television programs. He was referring to the minimum number of votes necessary to break stalling tactics and take up legislation.
Despite support for the president's plan from McConnell and other members of the Republican leadership, rank-and-file Republicans seemed weary of the war that has lasted almost four years and claimed more than 3,000 American military lives.
The main battlefield for the administration on Thursday was the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where Rice was grilled sharply by members of both parties.
-snip-
At a news conference, McConnell accused Democrats of secretly favoring a plan to cut off funding for the troops — an allegation that Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. denied.
McConnell conceded that Republicans as well as Democrats are troubled by Bush's new policy, but said, "Congress is completely incapable of dictating the tactics of the war."
Reid has said he will schedule a vote on a nonbinding resolution expressing disapproval of Bush's new policy, but McConnell's filibuster threat indicated that he would not be rushed into the vote.
Under the Senate's rules, even the threat of a filibuster can force concessions by the majority.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Thank God for the Founding Fathers to be smart enough to see into the future to know the clown show that we have in Congress today!
I completely agree with you!
Atleast Mitch as the minority leader can bring to bear alot of pressure upon woosie republicans and threaten dem leadership if they oppose the President's plan. The reality is he is the Commander of all USA Armed Forces (why doesn't anyone mention THIS fact in the news) and therefore has the backing of the constitution to DEPLOY AS MANY OR FEW TROOPS AS HE SEES NECESSARY!
You don't get much face time in the media but I believe you are a true conservative and, an Honorable Republican.
That would mean that the MSM would actually be EDUCATING the hysterical moonbats and they can let education get in the way of some good ol'fashioned Bush-hating.
You're right. I'm really glad that we got someone as gutsy and capable as McConnell as leader.
It's a lot easier to find 41 staunch votes in this Senate than 50 in the last.
I hope so.
How many of the democrats who said we need more soldiers in the past now say we should not send more soldiers?
New Direction = Surrender
Notice the phrasing. Congress is deeply divided with Democrats opposed and even a few Republicans.
Why was it not phrased . . . with most Republicans supporting the president and even a few Democrats, including former Democrat and now independent Sen J. Lieberman.
Why not phrase it that way? It would be entirely accurate.
I felt the same about my Jr. Senator from Missouri. But lost him anyway. That would be Jim Talent.
I just heard a bit on Fox about Harry Reid. He said something to the effect that he doesn't need to produce a plan because it is the obligation of the president to set policy.
NOW HOLD ON A MINUTE HERE. Is policy for the Presient to set or NOT? Which way will he have it? I gotta think this is in response to Hannity's clock he started up last night. For anyone that missed it, Hannity started a ticking clock that will run until Democrats present their plan for the way forward in Iraq.
I pose that Reid is feeling the heat of being in the leadership role and people are demanding answers from him and his party. He knows that he has none and that means we have to keep the pressure on. Demand a plan from he Democrats and watch them wilt as they fail to produce.
Sorry Harry, but you don't get the Congress and oppose W at every turn and then claim you don't have to produce. It just doesn't work that way. Could it be that the reality is finally starting to set in that the Democrats actually have to do something besides oppose everything?
""rank-and-file Republicans seemed weary of the war that has lasted almost four years and claimed more than 3,000 American military lives.""
"Pussies. They themselves have been directly afffected how? Five minutes of coverage on the nightly news, and some unfriendly questioning form their local media?"
This rank-and-file Republican is "weary" of wussies, dim libs, and a lying-arsed media!
LLS
"Obviously, it will ... require 60 votes,"
Good thing McCain led the Gang of 14 so as to keep filibusters for when Republicans needed them.
And the Gang of 14 got two good conservative SC justices confirmed.
Finally this strategy avoided the nuclear Senate precedent, thus most likely preventing it getting used against the minority Republicans.
Hey Harry! The UN already has a new leader.
FMCDH(BITS)
Don't believe the lying MSM. They make the statement above, but provide little evidence in the article to back it up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.