.... I think it's a bad idea for people opposed to the war to urge a filibuster. There are both tactical and political reasons why it is a bad idea... Joanna
-----------
I don't know. I am not sure I agree with this. Yes, a filibuster might let more of the Senate off the hook, and it would probably give Bush an excuse to move without any resolution or a very limited one. And yes a filibuster is a sort of chicken shit way to dodge direct political mobilization against Bush.
On the other hand, Bush will go to war no matter what, and therefore it might be better to isolate him with no institutional support. With no new UN resolution and just an ambiguous Senate resolution, passed only after defeating a filibuster and a series of resolutions against war by a vocal minority, Bush's support starts to look very thin.
There is also the effect of dragging this whole thing out and forcing the Bush administration to fight for every inch. Time is on our side here, in the sense that the longer it takes and more difficult we can make it, the more Bush erodes his own power.
With more time fighting to get even flimsy support, the more unstable the US becomes, and the more effect this fight has on the domestic front. Let the economic indicators wobble their way down some more, let more indictments be announced, let winter heating oil prices climb, let the Israelis pull another new atrocity just in the nick of time, while we generate stalling and harassment exercises as best we can.
L'attrition, toujours l'attrition.
Chuck Grimes