11 dead in two days while *GOP Senators* prevent debate

[bigtree]

2/08/2007 11:04:00 AM

from AMERICAblog: (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/11-dead-in-two-days-while-gop-senators.html)

"The GOP Senators, who have enabled the Iraq War by never, ever challenging Bush, are now preventing even having a debate. It's sick that in America, elected officials won't even talk about a war where the death toll continues to mount. Via Reuters: (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSIBO84626620070208?src=020807_0811_TOPSTORY_iraq_minister_held)

Four U.S. Marines were killed in combat in two separate attacks in western Anbar province, the U.S. military said on Thursday.

Wednesday's deaths took to at least 11 the number of U.S. servicemen killed in Iraq in the last two days.

The most pathetic Republicans are the Senators who are now for the anti-escalation resolution before they were against it before they were for it. Or something like that. John wrote about those seven losers last night: (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/7-gop-senators-have-depends-moment.html)

The Washington Post is reporting that seven GOP Senators, five of whom successfully filibustered the Warner Iraq resolution earlier this week, are now demanding - simply demanding - that the Senate Democratic and Republican leaders permit the Warner resolution to come up for a vote.

Uh, okay. It was your own party that filibustered the Warner resolution, and one of the guys who joined the filibuster was Senator John Warner (R-VA) himself - yes, he filibustered his own resolution - and then two days later Warner is now a signatory of a letter demanding that his resolution not be filibustered. Kind of pathetic that this is what passes for courage in what remains of the Republican party.

The GOP is playing political and procedural games while soldiers are dying. It's sick."

[babylonsister]

1. I don't think it's just the GOP senators.

I wish Reid had stripped Gregg's resolution naked, explaining it and why it was not presented with the benefit of our country in mind. I don't recall hearing that. Unless we have all the facts at our disposal, how can anyone make an informed decision? Meanwhile, Congress quibbles and people die.

[bigtree]

2. Why should he have elevated what is nothing more than a bogus distraction?

If that bill reaches a level of attention then it WILL be confronted and addressed. For now, it's floating without a place to land like all of the other diversions republicans are planning to derail the consensus resolution that Levin and Warner have offered.

[babylonsister]

3. I personally would like to know what was in it. Last night I googled

and the only sources I found were from Faux so I didn't bother.
But how does anyone know how bogus a distraction it is til we read it? I'm sure it is both bogus and a distraction, but the doubts/concern exist.

[bigtree]

4. but, that is the entire reason Gregg submitted the rag

just to have us arguing about the funding, but from his point of view, on his initiative. Our leadership, in both houses, has said, over and over, that they intend to confront the occupation and escalation through the funding. There's no reason at all that they should elevate the Gregg amendment to any level of seriousness - not in their debate, nor in any special recognition in the order of how they are presented for a vote. Our leaders and members should take the lead on funding and leave Gregg's sorry rag where it lies.

[originalpckelly]

5. If they aren't willing to vote on a symbolic measure...

how will they be able to vote for the real thing?

[bigtree]

6. muckraking, op?

[babylonsister]

7. So Gregg wanted to give full financial control of war expenditures

to the executive branch? Is that about right?
And you're right; I had forgotten they wanted to vote specifically on the surge, not the funding. So his argument is moot.

[bigtree]

8. right, it looked like a bill to protect funding for the troops

but it's really an attempt to prevent Congress from reaching in and managing the WH budget requests.

WE set the agenda, not republican obstructionists.

[babylonsister]

9. Thanks, bigtree. nt