ah, maybe a few republicans want the vote as well?

You (he) might be right. But there are two things...

One, the table has been set. Plus there are to GOPers who might show up as co-sponsors. Probably not, but maybe.

In other news, there are about 15 plus other legislative priorities that the Dems can use to highlight the filibuster. If Reid gets pissed (and he will is the Iraq theater is scuttled), all of those will be next...including some rather large bipartisan (loosely construed) bills.

So, I hope you are wrong (just out of politics, not animus), but if you are right, the f-word will remain swirling for quite a while, and I assume we will have our fireworks on one issue or another sometime soon.

Last time GOP filibustered? 1964 Civil Rights bill.

Freddoso's point is that Republicans, even the ones who don't support the war, don't really have any incentive to show up for Reid's all-nighter. If they all stay home except for one, the whole thing fails.

And of course, that assumes that all 49 Dems are in line too. No telling on that score.

But yeah, if a few Republicans decide to break ranks and be counted as present, then Freddoso is wrong.

Sorry for the typos, you know what I mean (meant).

So, first a number of GOP senators want to vote.

Second, when there is absence of a quorum, you can mearly move to adjourn the Senate, but anyone can object. The Senate may also compel attendance; in 1988, Bob Packwood was physically hauled into the Senate to maintain a quorum during a filibuster.

Dunno, there's some 20% of Republicans who have voted with the Democrats so far this year...

Packwood was a jerk. And a lousy representative. *sigh*

If it fails Tuesday night, he tries it again on Wednesday night. And on Thursday night.

Right now, Congress' approval rating is in the shitters. America voted in the Dems to take an action, and America will vote the Dems out not for losing a vote, but for failing to take an action.

Everytime Reid demands the Republicans spend the night, the Democrats will win, and the Republicans will lose.

At some point, one or two Republicans will stay and join the quorum.

I can't imagine what David Fredo is thinking.

Yup, Rule VI: "Whenever upon such roll call it shall be ascertained that a quorum is not present, a majority of the Senators present may direct the Sergeant at Arms to request, and, when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators, which order shall be determined without debate."

Reid is not known for being a deep thinker, or even having many thoughts at all. Lack of a quorum would once again make him look silly---or in his case, even sillier.

Perhaps the Majority Leader has the ability to keep enough Senators there? I mean, there are some Senators that might have a hard time explaining to their constituencies in the next election why they didn't feel it was all that important to hold their fellow GOPers feet to the fire on ending the Iraq war sooner...

BTW, Josh Marshall has also been tracking how reluctantly the MSM is about using the word 'filibuster'.

Also, my guess is that if a piece of legislation is pending and on the floor that you can't leave unless you want to either get an adjournment from the chair with support from a majority of Senators...or, you actually take a vote on the legislation. If that's true, the Senate may remain in session indefinitely...under the current proposal.

And according to Riddick's Rules when the Senator with the floor suggests the absence of a quorum, that Senator thereby yields the floor. Since any Senator can only speak twice in one day, if they call for quorum too often they'll run out of speakers and the filibuster will end when nobody asks for the floor.

Should be easy for the Sergeant-at-Arms to find David Vitter.

Reid did something similar to force a debate about detainees many many months ago. I remember Bill Frist leaving that meeting in a huge huff because he got blindsided by archaic Senate rules.

Reid knows these ancient and Hermetic rules and could give Robert`s Rule of order lessons.

There`s something else going on here. He`s definately setting some kind of trap, damned if I or anyone else can see it. Tonight should be interesting.

The Democrats have been getting heat for not being more successful in promoting their agenda. Exposing the Republicans as obstructionist Bush-whores who still have vast power to hurt America can only help the Democrats. I don't know why the Republicans hate America so much, but the evidence is totally clear.

They think only of themselves, not for the good of the nation. The question is how to help Americans, the ones who don't pay attention, to see what is in front of them.

From my personal experience working in state legislatures, I can tell you how it works at that level, which procedurally is not all that different from its federal counterpart.

The lack of a quorum does not require the Senate's immediate adjournment, just a cessation of all voting on the floor. Sen. Reid might have to declare a recess until quorum can be achieved, but recess is not the same as adjournment. Evans-Novak is purposely conflating the two to confuse the public.

Adjournment requires that the Senate Journal be formally closed for the purpose of transcribing and recording all Senate business, i.e., submission of committee reports, bill referrals, etc., not just floor proceedings and speeches. As long as the Senate Journal remains officially open, the Senate remains officially in session.

Further, any senator who for whatever reason does not answer a formal call to the floor by the presiding officer, yet remains on the capitol's premises -- which also includes all congressional offices outside the Capitol itself -- may be subject to arrest by the Senate Sgt.-at-Arms, who may upon the call of the Senate's presiding officer physically compel the absent senator to appear on the floor for the purpose of conducting official business.

Remember the case in Texas a few years ago, when Democratic legislators had to literally flee to Oklahoma to prevent the Texas State House from passing then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's congressional redistricting bill? That's because, as long as they remained in Texas, they were subject to arrest by the State House Sgt.-at-Arms for refusing to answer a formal call from House Speaker David Craddick to convene.

I know the mainstream media thought it was all just so hilarious, but those Democratic legislators were in fact threatened with arrest, and Tom DeLay was reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee for misusing U.S. Government resources to assist the State House Sgt.-at-Arms in tracking them down. These are the times in which we now live.

Therefore, GOP senators might be well-advised to not only vacate the Capitol premises during their act of defiance, but also leave the District of Columbia itself. I might also advise them that any such action on their part to block any congressional attempt to conclude a deeply unpopular war may or may not play well with their constituents, but that's going to have to be the individual senator's call.

i'm not suggesting that Sen. Harry Reid resort to physical coersion to achieve his aims. I'm merely stating the fact that as the Senate's presiding officer, Reid has a lot of procedural arrows in his quiver, and that previous experience suggests that he clearly knows how to shoot them, if ever the need be.

I think the point is, that while a law may pass with the simple majority of the members present, it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. In the past, (due to a gentlemen's agreement in the Senate) the Republicans have only had to THREATEN to filibuster to get the Dems to drop a bill, not actually do it.

This tactic would force the Republicans to actually be there talking to filibuster, and keep enough people available to vote to block cloture.

By ANNE FLAHERTY AP Writer © 2007 AP WASHINGTON — Republicans dismissed as political theater a Democratic plan for an all-night session of the Senate to ...

What does this make Kevin Drum???

Maybe the POINT is too show the American Public that this war isn't merely Bush's war - it's the GOP's war too, and that IF Americans want anyone to listen to them, then - perhaps THEY better vote Dem. Republican don't listen to voters - only to Bush, and play game - political theater games whereby the make up non-binding bills so the GOP can pretend they care what American citizens think, and play Americans for fools.

Dems are using the same procedural harassment, the same kind that Repugs played on Dems – the tables are turned, Repugs sited Dems for not giving up and down votes, used catcalls to the Dems and worse.

Reid is simply playing it the way Repugs played it – if it’s political theater – its right out of the Republican political theater playbook.

I'm no Parliamentarian, but this Senate Rule 22 sounds to me like debate ends after 30 hours and then you proceed to the up-or-down vote. The cloture vote decides whether you have to complete all 30 hours of debate before the substantive vote. The 30 hour limit can be extended, but you need 60 votes to do that.

"After no more than thirty hours of consideration of the measure, motion, or other matter on which cloture has been invoked, the Senate shall proceed, without any further debate on any question, to vote on the final disposition thereof to the exclusion of all amendments not then actually pending before the Senate at that time and to the exclusion of all motions, except a motion to table, or to reconsider and one quorum call on demand to establish the presence of a quorum (and motions required to establish a quorum) immediately before the final vote begins. The thirty hours may be increased by the adoption of a motion, decided without debate, by a threefifths affirmative vote of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, and any such time thus agreed upon shall be equally divided between and controlled by the Majority and Minority Leaders or their designees. However, only one motion to extend time, specified above, may be made in any one calendar day."

Phastphil's Rule #1

Do the opposite of whatever the Prince of Darkness says you should do.

Obviously, the Senate rules are more than a little arcane, and some of the commentary yesterday already appears incorrect. So, I would not necessarily assume that this is correct (though it may be). I'd like to think that Reid has worked this out carefully enough that it can't boomerang on him as easily as described, but my faith in the Democrats has been strained over the last, oh, twenty years or so. As for any help on this from Republicans, well, I wouldn't look for it. Even the handful of Republicans who will vote for cloture and the substantive bill are going to be under incredible pressure to do (or not do) everything possible to make Reid look bad.

Consideration (not debate) can go on for 30 additional hours only after cloture has been invoked. On two separate threads last week we had no shortage of people saying how Reid needed to make the GOP enforce their filibuster, saying he's a wimp for not doing so. I, and a few others, pointed out that the reason they don't do this anymore is because it doesn't work. For the very reasons pointed out here (you must maintain a quorum or adjourn) a filibuster of this type is harder on the majority party. Today people here are calling Reid dumb for doing the exact thing they were crying for last week. Just not easy being a leader, is it? My opinion: The Senate needs less, not more, message politics.

Ah, I see that now. Thanks, Pat. Nevermind...

Thanks to you RRoO experts out there for chiming in...

I personally think this is a win-win whether a single word of filibuster ever has to be uttered or not. As Josh Marsall (among others) points out, the MSM has been hesitant to call the Republicans out on the very thing they wailed about the Dems doing just a year ago. Anything that calls attention to the fact that the GOP is blocking an upanddown vote of a deeply unpopular war is a good thing. Reid's effort may be designed to fail, but if it compels the MSM to start shooting straight, then that's just fine with me.

Two suggestions for Senator Reid though:
1) how about trying a simple PR campaign first about the GOP's intransigence instead of going straight to the big guns? Republicans completely controlled the message back in the 'nuclear option' days and all-but-forced the MSM to sing their song. Maybe I'm wrong but it doesn't feel like Democratic Senators have lifted a finger to do their part and publicize what's happening.

2) Reid should have done this tactic on the Webb bill - the one that compels the president to give military personnel 1-for-1 rest periods at home. It's SO much more media-friendly, and SUCH an easier narrative to sell. A vote against it really is a vote against our men and women in uniform and would cut right through the whole 'support the troops' malarkey that comes out of the GOP. They would have to trot out some kind of tortured 'tying the president's hands' logic that would have just looked idiotic.

Well, do Republicans want to have Democrats and, god willing the sentient press, say this: "Republicans refuse to debate Iraq, bring Senate to a standstill!"

RULE VI, part 4:

Whenever upon such roll call it shall be ascertained that a quorum is not present, a majority of the Senators present may direct the Sergeant at Arms to request, and, when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators, which order shall be determined without debate; and pending its execution, and until a quorum shall be present, no debate nor motion, except to adjourn, or to recess pursuant to a previous order entered by unanimous consent, shall be in order.

----------------------------

I think Reid is all right. If the Republicans are absent, then the Dems will clearly be the majority of those present, and Reid can direct the Sergeant at Arms to round up the Republicans. Dems won't vote for adjournment, so no business gets done until the Republicans show up and the debate commences.

At least that's how I read it. I'm happy to be corrected.

Even a Republican demand for a quorum, halting the filibuster, shows its the GOP that doesn't want to allow a vote on any legislation to bring the war to an end.

More importantly, however, is that Reid must go through this step, because it is how the GOP did it.

If Reid doesn't do this and moves to more aggressive measures, such as simply declaring the filibuster unconstitutional (essentially the nuclear option, although there are some who like to nitpick at this characterization), else the GOP will whine that Reid didn't exhaust all other possible solutions as the GOP did.

So, no matter how ineffective any of this is, it must be done in order to keep the GOP from crying, no matter how falsely, foul.

Fromer: You are reading it correctly, but I respectfully suggest you may be missing the impact of the rule. Democrats, as you know well, are in the majority. And so if there is not a quorum present (51), and one does not appear, and the Senate directs the Seargeant-at-Arms to compel attendance, his arrests are going to include some Democrats by definition. I am sypathetic to Sen. Reid, here. IMO the problem is that this is (marginally) good message politics at best. But it will not succeed in compelling votes, and in the long run increases, not decreases, the acrimony and is exactly what is causing the gridlock. It also has a high opportunity cost. I view it as slighlty ironic, because it's sort of analogous to our Iraq policy. We can go in and do something that might look good in the short run (the surge). In the end, though, you are creating more jihadists. This type of thing runs counter to productivity in the Senate. The machine simply doesn;t work that way. You can't MUSCLE the Senate or a US Senator.

PAt, why does the SAA have to arrest Dems? Presumbably Johnson is absent with consent, so the SAA just needs to go to the Capitol Grille and round up a couple of Republicans - poof - 51 present.

As far as acrinomy and gridlock: just what was the Senate accomplishing before this anyway? And what are they going to do that Bush won't Veto anyhow?

When nothing can get done, you better make sure people know why: Republican obstructionism.

The Senate is a strange institution designed to give undo power to low population, now mostly rural, states (it gives about 12 percent of the population 45 senators). It is the single most important weapon in preventing progressive change demanded by the American people and was used quite handily by segregationists to prevent desegregation. Its rules and procedures are the most dysfunctional and crudely aristocratic among legislative bodies in the democratic world, now that the House of Lords has been reformed.

The conservative revolution, which can be looked at as the revolt of the segregationists, has thrown into high relief many of the problems with America’s naively hallowed constitutional order. The autonomy of the executive makes in fairly impervious to oversight and allows it to run wars (and wiretap and torture) against the will of the people. In a parliamentary system Bush and Cheney would have long been out. The Senate, dominated by minority factions and governed by Enron-worthy procedures, can endlessly resist change and even the most enfeebled attempts at checks on the executive. For a very long time progressives, think of segregation, were able to rely on the judiciary to circumvent walls put up in Congress. But the conservatives have targeted that other strange semi-legislative institution for 40 years and have now finally turned the table leaving no out for modernizers. All will not be made better by voting in a more cooperative president or more liberal senators. The problems posed by Bush and Cheney and the senatorial stonewallers are symptomatic of an antiquated and ill-conceived constitutional order.

Ah, Kevin.

Notice how Kevin has lately begun this tatic of posting well after midnight, when Middle America is asleep, but his California chardonay sipping friends are still up and can flood the threads with pro-Drum liberal talking points.

So Drum wants to play hardball. He'll get it all right.

If you're going to use the Rules for political purposes, BE SURE THEY WORK TO THE PURPOSE.

I agree that the Webb bill would have been the better test. Just picture a Republican Senator arrested by the Sergeant at Arms and brought to the floor to say 'present', because by refusing to DO HIS JOB, he was keeping the Senate Majority from forcing the President to treat our military fairly.

Then contrast the picture of taking some Republican Senator out of bed at 3 am, dragging him to the floor -- and the speech he gives, saying that while he has doubts about the war, he would resign his seat rather than undercut our troops in the field as the Democrats propose to do....

If you're gonna do political theater, be sure you get a good script.

Come on! There has to be some backdoor parliamentary rule that can be used here! The retardicans always come up with one for Christ's sake!

I don't know what will happen, but I suspect that the GOP will provide just enough senators to carry on the debate (5 or 6 would be enough) and force the Democrats keep enough of their conference to keep the quorum. The Republicans will not allow Reid the spectacle of rounding them up in the middle of the night.

Cloture is a vote to end debate and move to a vote. By voting against cloture, the Rethuglicans are saying, procedurally, that they want more debate. Reid is, obligingly, giving them more debate. If they don't show up for it, they are saying they don't care about debate, they just want to obstruct. If there is no quorum, it's because Republicans didn't show up for the debate they asked for. I can imagine quite a few "Where are they?" speeches. "Here is the debate on the most important issue we face, the ones the Republicans wanted, and they aren't even here!" etc, etc.

Not that I trust the Democratic media mavens to manage this message properly, or at all. Sigh.

Already this morning the Nice Polite Republican radio is telling me that Reid's manuver "is expected to fail."

"And according to Riddick's Rules when the Senator with the floor suggests the absence of a quorum, that Senator thereby yields the floor. Since any Senator can only speak twice in one day, if they call for quorum too often they'll run out of speakers and the filibuster will end when nobody asks for the floor."

The Republicans will work in shifts, with one or two of them in the Senate at anytime. That means that every time one of them leaves after having completed his shift, there can be a quorum call, that Senator being done for the day anyway. Conceivably, that means there could be a quorum call every hour, or even every half hour, throughout the night. Should be fun to see how long Sen Byrd and some of the older Dems hold up...

Would Johnson come for this one? That would be right out of Frank Capra! And it would make 50 Dems, not counting Lieberman. Now, if any Republican or Lieberman attended, there would be a quorum. Would that make any difference? What if they all just stayed away? Too confusing for me.

I agree with biggerbox above. If the Democrats were any better at getting their message out, I'd think this all would be a big liability for Republicans, whatever they tried.

But why am I not hearing more talk of "thwarting the will of the majority" or "majority rule" and "majority of Americans and of the Senate" being obstructed. Reid's calling for an "up-or-down vote" which is good, but I don't think anybody's pointing out that a substantial majority is behind the Democratic proposals.

Sen. Jim Jeffords is an independent too. Where does he fit in?

How did they force a filibuster in the old days? Has something changed since 1964? I'm aware of the filibuster-lite "gentlemen's agreement" of recent years but I didn't think it actually entailed any changes in parliamentary procedure.

I think its perfect -

after all, the American people will see that the only way to get change is to get rid of the obstructionist Republicans - the only way -

2008, the Repubs will be decimated.

Therefore, GOP senators might be well-advised to not only vacate the Capitol premises during their act of defiance, but also leave the District of Columbia itself.

You mean they need to (ahem) cut and run?

Haw!

Let's write some headlines.
GOP AWOL for Iraq Debate.

....Democrats... are in the majority.... Posted by: Pat on July 17, 2007 at 9:42 AM

Reid has a very weak hand, but it's worth playing for the publicity because there is no reporting in the media about the number of filibusters the Republicans have called this term.

Speaking of Lieberman, would his no-show be the last straw as far as Reid is concerned? I mean it's one thing to vote against your own caucus but a far greater sin to go into cahoots with the GOP to put a shiv into the Senate Leader's own plan to break a filibuster. What must Lieberman do to get busted down to buck Private?

Doesn't it work for Dems either way? Rebpublicans obstruct if they show up or don't give a damn if they don't. Sure, the media reports "this will hurt Dems," but only if Dems continue to be the feckless cowards that they've become.

Bernie Sanders took Jeffords's seat in 2006.

The R's vote to block cloture which means they don't want to end debate. Harry says "Fine, I'll keep the Senate in session and we will have a debate." If the R'e don't show up for the debate they asked for what do you think Harry is going to say into any microphone he gets in front of Wednesday. Repeat as necessary.

Each time Reid is able to place Republican Obstructionism in the spotlight, by the time we get to 2008, it might be possible to get rid of 7 or 8 of these guys.

There has been a recent outcry in the blogoshpere for Harry to call their bluff. Republicans are obstructing the business of the Senate by threatening to filibuster, now they get to do it for real, much more dramatic.

I for one, hope Harry and the Dems continue to make life less comfortable for those Smug SOBs.

And I hope he carries through on his threat to keep the Senate in session through the summer breat to prevent Little George from placing more wingnuts on the Federal Bench by recess appointment.

How is Senator Johnson doing? Everyone seems to be counting him as absent, but perhaps Reid has been waiting for Johnson to recover sufficiently to pull this maneuver. It would certainly be dramatic to see Senator Johnson wheeled in to stand up for America...!

So now we're holding comments for approval by the blog owner?

Well, God bless fascism!

As President of the Senate, shouldn't Dick(head) Cheney be present? He'll miss his beauty sleep! Imagine how much of a grouch he'd be tomorrow!

It sucks to have the other side obstruct doesn't it?

Like... when one side block judge appointments. That sucks.

Americans do not care who is in charge - they want people who get things done. Democrats in charge of congress = blah blah do nothing.

Oh, and did you see the economy? The deficit? The stock market? Why aren't the Democrats taking credit for that?

Real mental heavy weights you liberals fooled people into electing this time around. Give them all $400 hair cuts so that they can all look smart.

It would certainly be dramatic to see Senator Johnson wheeled in to stand up for America...!

Yes, as someone else noted, it'd be very Frank Capra!

Don't look for any updates on Johnson's website. It's all happy talk. I know what happened to him was serious but you would think given the importance of his votes they might put out occasional details of his status and expected return to work.

Somehow you all are overlooking the fact that the Senate can change its rules with a 2/3 majority of those PRESENT. That means that if a quorum is achieved the Democrats could in theory suspend the filibuster rule for this vote unless the Republicans keep enough Senators handy to stop it. If those Senators are nearby then getting them in for a quorum should be easy.

Also, if I read the rules correctly Reid has the discretion to choose the order in which Senators are compelled to show up so he can potentially tweak his least favorite colleague with, for instance, a 3am wakeup call.

My guess is Reid has a few Republicans committed to voting with the Democrats. That will shock W.Bush and his followers.

Reid is not known for being a deep thinker, or even having many thoughts at all. Lack of a quorum would once again make him look silly---or in his case, even sillier.

I don't think so. Possibly a partisan view, but it would make the R's look childish for avoiding the business on the floor of the Senate. R's just doin't know how to behave when they can't call the shots, though they play politics well.

I assume Orwell is talking about how the Republican candidates spend hundreds of dollars on professional makeup artists. You'd think that a real manly candidate wouldn't need someone to come and make him feel pretty at $150 a pop, but then you wouldn't be thinking of any of the Republicans.

Orwell: It sucks to have the other side obstruct doesn't it?

No, it sucks to have the other side display hypocrisy about obstructionism.

Don't see any Dems proposing a "nuclear" solution, so you?

And what exactly is the ratio between GOP obtruction and Dem "obstruction?"

The GOP is filibustering 2-3 more times than the Democrats ever did and with the expressed purpose of making sure the Dems don't get anything accomplished - that is, they are not opposing legislative measures because they disagree with them, but solely to ensure that the Dems don't pass anything.

When did the Dems do that?

Never.

But it did serve it's purpose, people start calling for impeachment implying that the Dems needed to show some Spine...Presto....Dems come up with a facile gesture that fails on all levels, but they showed fight....right?

It stopped calls for impeachment.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Isn't it funny that when the GOP controlled Congress, everything they did to get their way worked, but now that the Democrats are in control....everything the GOP does to get their way still works?

GOP obstructs bill to bring troops home.

The Republicans merely want a permanent filibuster on Iraq related issues

...Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) responded to Reid with a counteroffer: an automatic 60-vote threshold for all key Iraq amendments, eliminating the time-consuming process of clearing procedural hurdles. Democrats agreed to similar terms on several Iraq votes earlier this year, and all the controversial war-related votes held since Democrats took control of the Senate in January have required 60 "yeas" to pass....
Republicans find that life is sweet when the American media covers for them.

PS,

You make a valid point about the 2/3s majority of present and voting senators that is required to change standing senate rules. This would require that the GOP keep at least 26 senators near enough to answer any row call vote if it were possible that the Democrats would vote unanimously to amend the rules.

Scarshaped asked if something has changed in the filibuster rules, which is worth highlighting: in the olden days, a filibuster meant that a minority had to remain on the floor to prevent the majority from working its will. This was done through the part of the rules designating the #s of Senators "present and voting" who could vote to cut off debate and move final passage.

This is the legendary Hollywood filibuster, when a Senator and his allies could prevent the majority from doing something they didn't like only by keeping on the floor in shifts, rising whenever that legislation was debated, objecting to any motion to proceed to final passage, and refusing to yield the floor in order to allow majority rule. The drama of it was that if the minority opposed to the bill was ever ABSENT from the floor, unanimous consent would bring up the bill and let the majority pass it. (Kevin has this wrong, in that OTHER business could always be conducted during a filibuster on any particular legislation: it's just that the minority had to maintain a presence on the floor to prevent the majority from pulling a fast one, e.g., passing the immigration bill as an amendment to BlueFish Appreciation Day.)

But forty years or so back, this rule was changed to "Senators duly sworn".

The difference is that under the current rules, a minority who wants to prevent the majority from passing a bill merely has to deny unanimous consent to proceed to a final vote. Since the rule is now "duly sworn",they don't have to have even one Senator on the floor whenever that legislation might be brought up and passed with a sufficient # of Senators "present and voting" to over-rule a minority.

Senators have been conducting a kind of filibuster for two generations now (Al D'Amato was particularly bad) with little or no effort.

But, puh-leeze, to change the rules to pass any particular piece of legislation because of some temporary, tactical majority that happens to be on the Senate floor at any given moment?

I wonder if all you internationalists noticed that the UN Secretary General yesterday strongly opposed a rapid US withdrawal from Iraq on the grounds that it would be calamitous for the Iraqis. I guess you don't really care about that, not when you can score political points.

Oh, God. Watch out when right wingers start using the UN Secretary General for cover. It won't be long until they start hurling their feces.

Perhaps the Secretary General will use UN troops to protect the Iraqis he thinks will be in harm's way when the US withdraws, but I doubt it.

DBL: I wonder if all you internationalists noticed that the UN Secretary General yesterday strongly opposed a rapid US withdrawal from Iraq on the grounds that it would be calamitous for the Iraqis. I guess you don't really care about that, not when you can score political points.

All of a sudden, the wingers are falling all over themselves to use the UN as a justification for Bush policies just like they continually use the before much-despised Clnton.

Of course, in both cases they incorporate strawmen to make their point, such as insisting that somehow liberals are unanimously or even in the majority for a "rapid" withdrawal when that is simply untrue.

Well, we're all familiar with DBL's program of deception, dishonesty, and disinformation.

DBL = Dubya's Buttkissing Lemming

What Freddoso and his undead master are ignoring is the fact that the "whole stupid stunt" has ALREADY worked, in that it's drawn a lot of media attention to the GOP's attempts to block any meaningful legislation on Iraq. (The proof, of course, being that Freddoso and the other Corner morons are busy fulminating about it.)

Novak may be evil but he is at least somewhat smart. But this new generation of wingnuts (i.e. Generation Jonah) . . . well, the less said the better.

It sucks to have the other side obstruct doesn't it?

Standard fare for the GOP criminal element: Draw an absurd false equivalency to cover their blatant hypocrisy. Orwell compares Dems attempting to block Bush's woefully unqualified judicial appointment hacks (under threat of nuclear option from the immoral Reps at the time) to Republican obstruction of all things legislative just to "prevent anything from getting done"

Nice try.

U.S. prepared to talk directly with Iran about Iraq

Bush adopts yet another Democratic strategy, dishonestly claiming it as his own.

Indeed, every single move Bush has made to try to "get on track" in the Iraq war has been ever closer to what Democrats have been saying for years.

Bush wrong.

Democrats right.

Bush's delay in implementing liberal policies in the Iraq war has cost thousands of American lives.

Bush's insistance on continuing with failed conservative policies in Iraq has cost thousands of American lives.

Conservatives: wrong on Iraq - wrong on foreign policy in general

Liberals: right on Iraq - right on foreign policy in general

And Bush's changing policies in Iraq proves it.

Too bad it took more than 6 years to finally come to terms with the truth: conservative foreign and domestic policy make the US less safe from terrorism.

I wonder if all you internationalists noticed that the UN Secretary General yesterday strongly opposed a rapid US withdrawal from Iraq on the grounds that it would be calamitous for the Iraqis.

I am so silly and naive I would never think to consider the source! Ban Ki-moon is a stereotypical Korean politician of the first order, only bothering to look up if he notices a bribe going into the hand of an underling. He should find favor among Republicans. He personifies their craven ideals.