Senate Republicans defeat Iraq withdrawal bill

[sabra]

Source: MSNBC/AP

WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans on Wednesday scuttled a Democratic proposal ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq in a showdown that capped an all-night debate on the war.

The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate under Senate rules. It was a sound defeat for Democrats who say the U.S. military campaign, in its fifth year and requiring 158,000 troops, cannot tame the sectarian violence in Iraq.

"The amendment tells our enemies when they can take over in Iraq," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.

The bill "is the wrong approach at the wrong time," he added.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19797695/

[GOTV]

1. MSNBC was careful to include GOP justificationes early in the article...

... to let the GOP make their case before people switched to another story.

[monktonman]

4. To be fair

The headline does say "pukes defeat withdrawal bill".

[Highway61]

29. We simply don't have the numbers in the Senate...period

It did show the American People the side the re-pugs are on loud and clear. Come election time it is time to clear out the Senate and get some work done. However, on the heels of this, now is a great time for Larry to start "dripping" names.

[tridim]

2. A "sound defeat for Democrats" huh..

I'd say it's more a sound "FUCK YOU American people" from the Republic assholes in the Senate.

[loyalkydem]

3. I say

Let's make these ass holes who defeated this bill pay for every fuckin thing they done over the past seven years. Republican party deserves to go down in flames.

[ldf]

49. welcome to du, loyalkydem

:hi:

you'll find a lot of people here who agree with that sentiment.

[Robbien]

5. You know that GOPers already have their talking points ready and waiting in GOP blogger hands

They have sent out their talking points to all media outlets and are on the phone to pundits scheduling appearances.

Dems at some point may issue one of those paid press releases which always get ignored. And what about Dem bloggers you ask. DC Dems sneer at Dem bloggers.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. They didn't defeat the bill...they fucking FILIBUSTERED IT

The media is just brazen now.

[harun]

25. And it wasn't THE BILL, it was to allow the vote for the bill

Media just lies, no one cares.

[Mz Pip]

7. The US couldn't

"take over" in Iraq. What makes Suxby think "our enemies" can?

I think he's about my number one choice to get his ass kicked out next time around.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Seabiscuit]

8. I don't get it. What was the point of staying up all night? What did Harry Reid

think he was going to accomplish?

Yesterday I read stuff on DU about a 30 hour debate rule that Reid was supposedly invoking to invalidate the 60 vote rule, and substituting for it a simple majority vote rule. Maybe that was a lot of misinformation, but it seemed to me the only conceivable justification for an all-night debatathon.

Yet in considerably less than 30 hours of debate Reid brought the amendment to a vote, and if there were any chance of enforcing some 30-hour rule negating the 60 vote rule, his timing of the vote on the amendment this morning short-circuited it.

Did Reid simply imagine that by keeping everyone up all night he could pick up another 8 Repuke votes? Is he delusional?

I just don't get the point of any of this, beyond it being a lot of empty political theater followed by another spineless caving in by the Dems.

[SemperEadem]

13. the point is getting the fuckin' thugs on the record for everyone to see

It certainly looks like the Senate needs 60 votes to pass anything---so that they can override a veto--which is what a simple majority vote on a bill going to the president needs because he's all about obfuscating and obstructing just like the thugs in his party.

It wasn't empty theatre---it was putting everyone ON THE RECORD, which can not be refuted when it comes time for re-election. The thugs don't seem to think that the overwhelming majority of Americans who are opposed to this war live in their constituency--and to tel the truth, the constituency they bow to are the corporate and military complex groups, not those who voted to put them in power.

[Seabiscuit]

20. Do you really think any conservative voters who may be coming around to oppose

the mess Bush got us into in Iraq will really remember any of this all-night theater when it comes time to vote in 2008? Do you think they'll memorize the list of names voting against the amendment either now or by then? Do you think the MSM will say squat about this all-nighter on the eve of those elections?

I don't think so.

Besides, we already KNEW how those 46 Repukes plus Loserman would vote on any such Iraq issue. They've done it before on spending bills, etc.

[SemperEadem]

44. you mean the base 30% who can't be shaken off their misguided belief

that Bush can do no wrong? Nothing can save them or change their minds, so there's no point in bothering with dragging them into any debate.

However, 70% of this country is opposed to the war. Only 50-some odd percent voted those thugs in... to me, that means that while they didn't get a veto-proof up/down vote, yes, I do believe that what was seen last night has started the ball rolling.

Too bad if you disagree. Flail on without direction...

[brentspeak]

15. Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about.

There's nothing to "negate" the 60-vote rule. Hence, the Democrats didn't cave over anything. The only one spreading misinformation here is you and your "spineless Democrats caving" concern.

[Seabiscuit]

18. I'm not spreading any misinformation.

I merely pointed out some information I saw here on DU about a 30 hour filibuster rule, which was put forth as the justification for the all-night session, information/misinformation I was merely raising questions about. I pointed out that if this is were true, it would justify Reid's keeping everyone up overnight, because that would actually accomplish something. I also pointed out that if this was not the case, and that what I read here on DU was merely more misinformation, then I can't for the life of me figure out what the point of the all-night debatathon was.

If all this was simply to put 46 Repukes plus Lieberman on record as backing Bush's Iraq policies, I still don't see the point - we already KNEW that.

[brentspeak]

22. Ok, then we'll just agree to disagree, and leave it at that

[Seabiscuit]

26. It's a question of fact, not opinion.

You claimed I was misrepresenting something. That claim, as a matter of fact, if you read the language of my original post, is just plain wrong. It's not a matter of opinion.

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. You just got

owned.

[Seabiscuit]

32. ?

haven't the foggiest idea what you're smoking, but I would venture to say it's not mentally healthy for animals or other living things.

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. Owned

:rofl:

[socretes73]

17. It was SPINELESS Caving In

and that is why Congress is held to favorability rating sless than Bush - they need to get a backbone AND STAND UP and not cave in!

[brentspeak]

19. Thanks for you "concern".

It's not working, though.

[Seabiscuit]

21. Wait a minute.

Now I recognize your handle from some of the DLC threads during the past year.

I didn't realize I could still read your posts.

[brentspeak]

23. Uh, ok

????

[RBInMaine]

52. What don't you understand about NOT HAVING THE VOTES!!!!!

The Congress DID NOT CAVE IN!!!! Why can't people like you get it through your heads how the system works?????!!!!! Do you need to go back to 8th grade civics??? It is a virtually split Senate, right down the middle. You need 60 votes to proceed on a binding vote. Then you need 67 to override Bush's veto. WE DON'T HAVE THE VOTES!!!!
So what is the answer?? ELECT MORE DEMOCRATS AND A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT! Kindly place your energy and rhetoric there instead of against our Democratic Congress which has done more in 6 months to pressure this adminstration and do what is right for the country than the previous Congress EVER did. The reason Congress has low marks has to do with GENERAL dissatisfaction with government and lack of understanding that the Dems just don't have the votes to get everything done they want to do, especially with this President, Senate rules, the Constition, and Bush's veto pen. And forget about impeachment because they don't have the votes to pass that either. Again, train your fire on the goddamn R's where it belongs for CHRIST SAKE!!!!!!!!

[harun]

27. It is for a lot of reasons

• Publicity of the Repug Senators falsified positions and reasons
  
• Publicity that there is more work to do by the American public at the voting booth (to kick out more Repugs) if they really want to leave Iraq
  
• Publicity of the Presidents failed policy
  
• Keeping the pressure up against the President so if things get worse in Iraq there is that much LESS work to do in the Senate to get the votes needed. If you wait until that happens then you have to go through all this anyway.
  
• Display to the American people that the Dem's (and actually some Republicans) are doing everything they can to change course.
  

[Imperialism Inc.]

28. Normally the mere threat of a filibuster is all it takes.

If cloture fails (60 votes that say debate should end to have the vote on the bill itself) they usually take the bill off the agenda. The idea being why waste the time if you aren't going to get a vote on it anyway. All Reid did was make them actually filibuster instead of immediately conceding there will be no vote.

What was the point? Well you are right that it was political theater. The point was more press coverage of the fact that it is the Republicans standing in the way of ending the war.

Here is some stuff from the Wikipedia pages on cloture and filibuster that may clear some things up. Some people didn't have it quite right in the info they were giving out here it seems. In short there is no 30 hour rule if cloture fails. Without cloture a Senator is allowed to talk as long as he likes.

---
a filibuster is an attempt to extend debate upon a proposal in order to delay or completely prevent a vote on its passage. The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a supermajority group of 60% of senators brings debate to a close by invoking cloture

---
In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits procedural filibusters, in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. This threat of a filibuster can be just as powerful as an actual filibuster.

---
A filibuster can be defeated by the governing party if they leave the debated issue on the agenda indefinitely, without adding anything else to the agenda. Strom Thurmond's attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act was defeated when Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson refused to refer any further business to the Senate, which required the filibuster to be kept up indefinitely. Instead, the opponents were all given a chance to speak and the matter eventually was forced to a vote.

---
The procedure for "invoking cloture," or ending a filibuster, is as follows:

* A minimum of sixteen senators must sign a petition for cloture.
* The petition may be presented by interrupting another Senator's speech.
* The clerk reads the petition.
* The cloture petition is ignored for one full day during which the Senate is sitting (If the petition is filed on a Friday, it is ignored until Tuesday, assuming that the Senate did not sit on Saturday or Sunday.)
* On the second calendar day during which the Senate sits after the presentation of the petition, after the Senate has been sitting for one hour, a "quorum call" is undertaken to ensure that a majority of the Senators are present.
* The President of the Senate or President pro tempore presents the petition.
* The Senate votes on the petition; three-fifths of the whole number of Senators (sixty with no vacancies) is the required majority; however, when cloture is invoked on a question of changing the rules of the Senate, two-thirds of the Senators voting (not necessarily two-thirds of all Senators) is the requisite majority.

After cloture has been invoked, the following restrictions apply:
* No more than thirty hours of debate may occur.
* No Senator may speak for more than one hour.
* No amendments may be moved unless they were filed on the day in between the presentation of the petition and the actual cloture vote.
* All amendments must be relevant to the debate.
* Certain debates on procedure are not permissible.
* The presiding officer gains additional power in controlling debate.
* No other matters may be considered until the question upon which cloture was invoked is disposed of.

[knight_of_the_star]

38. Theoretically

Cloture only needs two-third of those voting for a rule change. We COULD wait until enough GOPigs are out of the Senate to force through a rule change that would render their fillibusters pointless and force this stuff onto Bush's desk and make him responsible.

[knight_of_the_star]

37. Spineless caving?

The vote was 52-47, sounds like the only dems not voting for cloture were the guy from ND (due to being out for recovery) and LIEberman (which is no surprise).

[Oak2004]

45. He did it to pressure the Republicans

If every fillibuster meets with an "oh, yeah? So go ahead, let's debate" from the Democrats, the Republicans will eventually become reluctant to fillibuster just out of memory of the misery they experienced the last time (and the time before, and etc.).

I think its a good approach, and the Dems should use it every time they fillibuster. I might have to send a courtesy pound of Green Mountain Coffee to Senators Leahy and Sanders in appreciation :)

[EndElectoral]

9. It's amazing...we have the majority and need 60 votes to do anything

Why didn't the Dems do this? Seems you now need 60 Senate votes to do anything

[msongs]

10. this "article " is really an editorial: "..sound defeat..." nt

[brentspeak]

24. You can say that again.

The Democrats KNEW going into the session that the Republicans would successfully vote to scuttle the bill. Reid's purpose for allowing the night-long debate was to graphically demonstrate to the American people just precisely who was holding up getting the troops back home, so the country could see with their own eyes how full of hot air the Republicans actually are. But the idiot reporter and editor decided to misrepresent the entire episode.

[cureautismnow]

11. "46 GOP Repukes & Leiberman thumb their noses at the American Majority"

These 47 traitors don't support the troops. They serve at the behest of their masters - Bush & Cheney. :mad:

[noahmijo]

12. What more do you need to blame REPUBLICANS for the mess?

At this point I never ever want to hear anyone be it from DU or the idiot public claim "Well Democrats did nothing to stop the war" or "What are Democrats doing?"

They did their part they have been doing their part as anyone who has been paying attention to their efforts in the last 6 months knows to put an end to holding American soldiers responsible for refereeing a civil war.

Need anymore proof that REPUBLICANS are the ones stifling progress? Need anymore proof that REPUBLICANS are the ones who screwing this country and continuing the WRONG course as they have been for the last 7 fuckin years???

THIS IS A REPUBLICAN MESS AND REPUBLICANS MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.PERIOD.

[SemperEadem]

14. Precisely

well said. This is where accountability begins for 2008. This should be flung in the teeth of every thug who voted to abandon the troops to sectarian violence--to make them serve longer without any kind of recouperable rest between deployments--to send them over without adequate protection and equipment---to make them referee a civil war--all on a false pretense of keeping Iraq from descending into the violence it's already descended into.

If this war is so important to the thugs, they need to pack up themselves and their families and go over there and live and fight the sectarian violence--if it's good enough for other people's children, it's good enough for their own.

[noahmijo]

42. And just for follow up even though this is a positive response

Of course The Democratic Party as a whole could be doing more-alot more there's ALWAYS something more that could be done, however this idea that it's their fault or primarily their fault and the fact that Repugs and far left Dems alike draw no distinction between the two just baffles me. There should be no such thing as a smirking Republican or even a Republican who thinks they have room for their opinion on the matter unless it's "Man my party is fucked up and they better start changing their ways otherwise I will go Indie"

Fact of the matter is once again this is a REPUBLICAN mess. The REPUBLICANS came and puked on the floor and although the Democrats could do a little more than throw a paper towel on the mess still they are not directly responsible-no matter how much dissent they put up the Republicans were going to have their war given their majority rule and to this day their numbers do not allow for the pull needed to quickly turn things around given that THEIR PARTY REPUBLICANS still wish to stand with the despots in power as opposed to the majority of the American public.

DONE.

Oh and before anybody tries to call me a DLC asskisser right now I support NONE of the Democratic candidates. Frankly not impressed with any of them. However, one thing is for sure-I never want to see another Republican in the president's seat. I'm 25 years old, I will always remember my young life as the time when Republican flat earth yahoos ruled America but I also want to remember when they were overthrown. For that reason come crunch time I will support whomever our nominee is (face it Third Party Candidates will never become viable in the near future) just for the sake of having someone, male or female, that may not be my ideal choice but at least can display a sense of reason and an ability to at the minimum move in the direction of the will of the people when it comes to matters that can damage the nation as much as the Iraq War has.

By their actions since as far back as I can remember and comprehend such matters, Republicans have failed to display any quality or capability to properly lead this nation. If I had my way I'd put them (every Republican that continues to support the Bush policy of failure) on the unemployment list in Iran.

[socretes73]

16. DEMS ***CAVE-IN**** Far too easily

they should say - OK debate is NOT cut off - so let's debate and debate and take up no further business UNTIL we vote.

BRING IT ON!!

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

30. Was it a roll call vote?

I want to know whose hands the blood is now on. I want names.

[harun]

34. Here

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00252

(Note: Reid votes no so he can still reintroduce at will)

[Citizen Kang]

33. Reid fails again

what a wimp. Grow a pair....and a spine while your at it.

[brentspeak]

35. Maybe you rename yourself, "Concern King"

[QC]

41. Lots of concern trolls around today. n/t

[MODemocrat]

36. Bush Admin and Republicans in Senate proved one thing for sure

The troops are the least of their worries; They have absolutely no compassion for those brave people
who are fighting the Bush-Cheney blood for OIL war. All they care about is covering for George W.Bush.

Until this administration I'd had a certain amount of respect for the republican party, but this neo-
con group now in charge, changed all that. They define the word "CORRUPT".


:evilfrown: :evilfrown: :spank: :spank:

[allisonthegreat]

39. sounds like a correct assessment to me n/t

[Megahurtz]

43. Kick. n/t

[EndElectoral]

46. Healine shou;d read - Senate Republicans Reject the Majority of the People

[Xenotime]

50. Nobody listens to the will of the people...

[superconnected]

47. This won't even sit well with most republicans.

Good headline, spells it out clearly - who is responsible for us being in Iraq? - the Republicans are responsible.

Not, the dems who originally voted for the war too, anymore.

[PSPS]

48. Intentionally misleading headline. The bill would pass but the republicans filibustered it.

[Odin2005]

51. BS headline.

Headline should say: "Pukes use vile bag of tricks to defeat the will of the people."


Oh, and the concern trolls need to STFU.