Posted on 07/18/2007 9:38:10 AM PDT by tcrlaf
Ratcheting up the stakes in the wake of the GOP's successful blocking of a vote on Iraq withdrawal just moments ago, Harry Reid just announced on the Senate floor that he won't allow a vote on the entire Defense Authorization bill until the Senate GOP drops its filibustering of votes on Iraq.
The move is significant because it could hold up the funding of the Pentagon's fiscal 2008 priorities until the standoff is resolved.
It comes only moments after the Republican filibuster succeeded in preventing a vote on the Reed-Levin amendment, which would have mandated withdrawal by April 2008.
Reid said:
I have temporarily laid aside the Defense Authorization bill and have entered a motion to reconsider.
But let me be clear to my Republican colleagues – I emphasize the word "temporarily". We will do everything in our power to change course in Iraq. We will do everything in our power to complete consideration of a Defense Authorization bill. We must do both.
And just to remind my Republican colleagues – even if this bill had passed yesterday, its provisions would not take effect until October.
So we will come back to this bill as soon as it is clear we can make real progress. To that end, I have asked the Democratic Whip and Democratic Manager of the bill to sit down with their counterparts to work on a process to address all outstanding issues related to this bill so the Senate can return to it as soon as possible.
What this means is that Reid isn't allowing any votes on any other Iraq amendments -- not the toothless Warner-Lugar amendment, not the Ken Salazar amendment that would force adoption of the Baker-Hamilton plan, nothing.
Fellow TPM reporter Spencer Ackerman also says that Reid's move is very significant in another way:
Because the Pentagon's priorities won't become law until a Defense Authorization bill is passed, the Pentagon's fiscal 08 priorities won't get funded until this standoff is resolved -- and Reid is insisting that won't happen until the GOP allows a vote on the Iraq withdrawal measures.
More soon.
bttt
You guessed wrong!
Reagan was a great president, but I don’t measure the whole world by his standards. There will only be ONE Reagan.
Jim,
Sorry for the late response, I haven’t had reliable email access for a few days, as I just moved to Minnesota.
Does the President have the Constitutional authority to do this? I seem to remember that there is a ‘continuing resolution’ regarding Iraq but the war was never formally declared?
Nonetheless, I agree wholeheartedly in spirit.
Cheers!
Dingy Harry may be a traitorous jerk, but I will give him one thing - he has more guts than the Republican leadership had when they had the majority...
I think it’d be more of a matter of presidential huevos gigantia than constitutionality. What would Lincoln have done? I mean besides locking the bastards up for treason.
:-)
Lincoln sent Union troops in to maintain order in Baltimore during the civil war.
That and other things led to the lines in the Maryland State Anthem
"The Despot's Heel is on thy Shore" (referring to Lincoln)
and
"Huzzah! She spurns the Northern scum" (I believe that line was finally removed in 1983.
Cheers!
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.