The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, in the Capitol with fellow Republican Senators Jon Kyl, left, and Trent Lott.
The criminal underworld couldn't provide a better example of senior consiglieres and organization "FIXERS" than these Republican HATCHET MEN, appearing before the cameras to say "not only do we support Bush's war, but we support giving him EXPONENTIAL, UNLIMITED KGB/Gestapo war powers and UNLIMITED CONTROL over the US treasury billions and taxpayer dollars!"
"HAND IT OVER, AMERICA!" say our BushCo Senate Enforcers - "Your treasury, your taxes, your retirement, your social security, your children's educations, jobs, and futures, if not their blood & guts..... HAND IT OVER, we want UNLIMITED 'surge,' expansion, and no-oversight war powers!"
==================================================
Rethuglicans Plan to BLOCK Senate Debate
[so much for their whining mantra of a few months ago, "All we want is an up-or-down vote"!]
By CARL HULSE
Published: February 3, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/washington/03cong.html?ref=washington
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 — Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said Friday that his party would unite to block Senate debate next week on a bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq unless the Democrats allowed votes on at least two Republican alternatives.
Related
Senate Allies of Bush Work to Halt Iraq Vote (January 31, 2007)
Mr. McConnell said even Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who is the chief author of the bipartisan proposal, and other Republicans backing his plan had agreed to prevent the resolution from reaching the floor Monday if Democrats did not agree to that demand.
“We’re in a position to insist on a procedure for considering these matters that we think is fair to us,” said Mr. McConnell, who has been negotiating the framework of the debate with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader. “We can’t dictate the outcome necessarily, but we’re insistent upon a process that we are comfortable with.”
Mr. Reid responded that the Republican leadership was essentially filibustering a debate of Iraq policy to avoid a judgment on Mr. Bush.
“This obstruction is an abdication of their responsibility to the American people on the most important issue facing our nation today,” Mr. Reid said in a statement.
Such back and forth is not unusual in the buildup to major debates in the Senate, where the minority party has significant power to influence the process.
Lawmakers and senior Senate officials said they believed that an agreement would ultimately be worked out, since Republicans do not want to risk being accused of shutting off criticism of Mr. Bush on such a major issue, while Democrats are eager to get Republicans on the record on the troop increase.
Mr. McConnell’s threat also reflects the Republican leadership’s strategy to force a Senate review of a series of competing resolutions, muddying the outcome with multiple votes, rather than allow the focus to be on a central proposal objecting to the troop buildup.
Mr. Warner on Wednesday night revised his plan — which already had some Republican backing — and gained some new support, leading Democrats to make his version the main one to be considered.
Senate Republicans have also been squeamish about Mr. Reid’s decision to debate the Iraq policy in the form of legislation, which would be sent to the president if passed as such. They see such a move as overly confrontational, even though Mr. Reid has said the Senate will ultimately convert the proposal to a resolution to avoid having to send it to the White House.
Republicans say they want votes on at least two alternatives. One is a resolution made public Thursday by Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Joseph I. Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut, among other lawmakers. Mr. McCain and Mr. Lieberman support the president’s plan to increase troops.
Their resolution lays out 11 goals the Iraqi government should meet, including disarming militias and distributing Iraqi resources without regard to religious sect. It declares that Congress should ensure that American forces “have the resources they consider necessary to carry out their mission.” The resolution does not say what the United States should do if the Iraqi government does not meet the goals.
A second likely alternative would be a Republican-backed resolution opposing any cutoff of money for added troops, a potentially tougher vote for some Democrats who want to retain that as a future option.
