F%#$n Warner to Filibuster own F&*$% Resolution !

[Laura PourMeADrink]

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070203-121353-1086r.htm

Warner to help block his own resolution on Iraq
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 3, 2007


Sen. John W. Warner will join his fellow Republicans in voting Monday to block the resolution he wrote rebuking President Bush's Iraq war policy.
"Senator Warner supports the Senate Republican leadership's effort to establish a free and open debate on Iraq on the Senate floor, including possible amendments," a spokesman for the Virginia Republican said yesterday afternoon.
Earlier in the day, Mr. Warner told colleagues during a closed-door strategy meeting at the Library of Congress that he opposes the manner in which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, is conducting debate on his resolution, which condemns Mr. Bush's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
Senate Republicans are opposed to a vote on the Warner resolution unless they also get votes on two other resolutions. One of those alternatives supports Mr. Bush's plan, and the other would prohibit cutting funds for the war. Republicans also want each resolution to require 60 votes to pass.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, told reporters yesterday that he expects to have all 49 Republicans in the chamber -- nine votes more than are needed for a filibuster -- to vote Monday to block the nonbinding resolution.
Mr. Reid said he has been acting in good faith to get a vote on the Warner resolution.
"The American people deserve better than a filibuster on the president's flawed plan," he said. "Senate Democrats will continue to negotiate with the Republican leadership to bring the plan to a vote."

[Laura PourMeADrink]

1. Webb "inclined to support"

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Later Update: A spokesperson for Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) tells us he's "inclined to support it."

[Laura PourMeADrink]

2. Deleted - Just read that Warner is going to filibuster his own bill. nt

[Blackhatjack]

3. Hate to say it, but this is an exercise in futility....

Most likely there will be lots of debate, close votes, and in the end no 60 votes to cut off debate --just like the Repubs planned it. If Warner votes to filibuster his own resolution there you have it --Repubs are playing this out as long as possible to make the end result more damaging to the Dems.

I'm with Feingold --go for the whole enchilada. Move to cut off funding and end the war. Put all the senators on the record, and let them deal with their vote after we end up withdrawing from Iraq.

Time is short to head off an attack on Iran --and the top Repubs are playing for time until it starts. EOM

[cool user name]

4. Feingold ... damn, wish he were running for President.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. Well me too. But I thought that this was meaningless too. BUT

now it looks like we won't even get this "meaningless" thing through. How can we possibly end this horrible invastion when we can't even get this "meaningless" thing through.

This is horrible, horrible news....

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. this totally sucks ! Yes, fuckin Warner. n/t

[malaise]

13. Why a single Dem trusted John Warner

and went with his resolution is beyond stupidity. Some Dems are afraid of their own shadow.

[Beelzebud]

7. Reid is fucking useless. he needs to stop trying to work with them.

Seriously. He's a fucking push-over, and I'm sick to death of his mealy-mouthed nonsense.

This fucker supported Harriet Meiyers
He refused to fillibuster judicial nominees to "keep the powder dry"
And now that he's been tasked to end this fucking war, all we get are "non-binding resolutions"

Hey Harry: GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU INEFFECTIVE JACKASS

I'm sorry, but we fought hard for this jackass, the least he could do is fight hard for us. Instead his favorite word seems to be "compromise".

[Laura PourMeADrink]

8. I'm totally with you B ! I guess I am totally ignorant on

how the senate rules work. The big deal is that Reid tied
the debate to legislation. But, I don't understand the
difference. You can debate without a resolution? And,
that is what the Repukes want, so they can debate the
McCain amendment.

I wish there was somewhere to go and get very indepth
news about issues. All you get is surface without links
to further info.

All I know is that we need to freakin stop caring what
the hell the other (ehem, losing in 2006) side cares - hell
that is the only way Pelosi got anything through in 100 hrs.
The mass public doesn't even know what the issues are - let
alone what the senate rules are. Why on earth would they
care about how anything looks.

I heard Schumer on TV saying we have no power - w/o Lieberman
and Johnson as auto "nos"

[librechik]

9. Wait! Maybe he's insisting on a bill with teeth!

yeah, right...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

10. You know, with all the talk about this being meaningless - people

are trying a little bit too hard to quash it. Like the WH
with the NIE. Despite Asshat acting like it's straight
ahead, I don't care who doesn't agree - guess he really
does.

[librechik]

11. it's totally scary that even this bill is so difficult to pass--they are brave

to work on it anyway--at least it's something! The Senate is very deliberate, I'm an impatient person by comparison.

Warner is such a tool.Love your subject line, Laura!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

12. Well, thanks for calming me down. Maybe the House can

pass a better version than the watered-down Warner deal. I am so close to
giving up on it all. Between this and "all options on the table" with
Iran - time to look at jobs in Montreal again...