Senate Blocks Iraq War Resolution

Just one day after the House passed the non-binding Iraq war resolution, the Senate gathered on a Saturday and voted against it.

It was the second time this month that minority Republicans successfully filibustered a nonbinding resolution opposing the troop buildup.

Senators voted 56-34 to invoke cloture and proceed to a floor vote on the resolution, with seven Republicans joining all the chamber's Democrats in calling for an end to the debate. But the motion fell four votes short of the threshold needed under Senate rules.

Here are the Republicans who voted for the resolution:

In the Senate, the seven Republicans who voted to advance the measure were Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Susan Collins of Maine, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and John Warner of Virginia. All but Snowe and Specter could face the voters in 2008.

Then there's Joe Lieberman. It's no surprise how he voted:

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, sided with Republicans on the vote.

< Hillary Urges Start of Troop Pullout in 90 Days | Marine to Serve 8 Years for Killing Iraqi Civilian >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    hmm (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jarober on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 12:27:14 AM EST
    You liked the filibuster when it was used against judges.  Now, not so much.

    I'd flip jarober's statement on it's head ... (3.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Sailor on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 09:28:48 AM EST
    ... rethugs were shouting for an up or down vote then, now they're afraid to even discuss the matter.

    and it's just a sample of their ... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Sailor on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 12:04:34 PM EST
    The Senate is considering a change to a provision of the Patriot Act that gives the Justice Department authority to make interim appointments for an indefinite time period. The bill to put a 120-day cap on interim appointments had bipartisan Judiciary Committee support, but is being blocked from the Senate floor by Republicans in a procedural move.


    Hmm (none / 0) (#4)
    by jarober on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 11:25:59 AM EST
    I think Sailor doesn't really get a filibuster.  It doesn't close down debate; it extends it indefinitely.  Yes, it prevents a final vote on a matter, but it most assuredly does not "close down debate".  Quite the opposite, actually

    Jarober, be honest (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Dadler on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 11:39:14 AM EST
    Just state that you don't think free Americans should be able to debate the conduct of a war through their elected representatives, no matter how mistakent and pointless and wretched that war is.

    Just say that and stand by it.

    Your argument boils down to this: you don't think there is any way for free Americans to get their free country out of an idiotic war.  Free Americans just have to accept that their country is blowing it, is destroying people, for no reason, and those same Americans, to you, must simply say "Fight on, do it some more, let's make it an even worse mess."  And don't deny this, because when you eliminatepassionate critical debate you eliminate all prospects for learning and doing better (and getting out). Hell, you don't even think freely elected democratic representatives should represent their constituents on this matter by just TALKING about the war in open debate.

    Talk about the cowardice of tyranny.



    Daler (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 01:23:46 PM EST
    Dadler - Just as you didn't want to debate the judges, eh?

    What goes around comes around.


    it wasn't a filibuster (none / 0) (#6)
    by Sailor on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 11:54:51 AM EST
    The Senate on Saturday narrowly rejected an effort to force debate on a resolution opposing President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq, but Republican defections emboldened Democrats to promise new attempts to influence the administration's war policy.

    The 56-to-34 vote in a rare Saturday session was the second time Republicans were able to deny opponents of the troop increase a debate on a resolution challenging Mr. Bush, and it came just a day after the House formally opposed his plan to increase the military presence in Iraq.

    But the outcome, four votes short of the 60 needed to break a procedural stalemate

    the republicans refuse to allow debate on the war. Spin it any way you want, but rethugs are using procedural rules to avoid discussing the war.

    Sigh (none / 0) (#8)
    by jarober on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 12:14:32 PM EST
    Replace "war" with "judges" and we can reverse the parties.  This is the way the system works - we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic.  

    If the Senate worked the way you want it to here, then between 2001-2006, Bush would have gotten every judge he wanted confirmed.  Somehow, I doubt that you wanted that - and at the time, this site (and the commenters here) were quite pleased with Democratic Senators using procedural rules to stop that.  

    hypocrisy (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 12:42:05 PM EST
    rethugs spent years yelling about up or down votes (while getting almost all of bush's picks appointed; something that clinton was allowed), and now their hypocrisy is evident when they won't even allow discussion about the war.

    Sailor (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 01:26:47 PM EST
    And you can now spend years yelling "stop!"

    Don't you wish you hadn't opposed changing the Senate rules to a simple majority to shut down Repub debate.... (That's what Demos call a fillibuster..)


    Shoe, foot (none / 0) (#10)
    by jarober on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 12:49:14 PM EST
    Sailor, how is that different from Democrats decrying the lack of an up or down vote on this resolution, when they've previously been more than happy to use the same tactics?

    Heck, grow up and start understanding the way the system works.  Each party uses the levers available to them - always have, always will.  If either party  wants a free hand, then they need two things:

    -- a clear majority in the House
    -- 60 reliable votes in the Senate

    It's been that way for a long, long time, and - as I recall - everyone here was quite pleased with the Senate rules when they were being applied in ways they approved of.  You don't get to have your own set of rules just because you have a thin majority in the Senate.

    Senate Rules (none / 0) (#13)
    by mjvpi on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 10:37:10 PM EST
    The Democrats didn't threaten the "Nuclear Option" of changing the rules if there was a filibuster. The minority party used the power that it has. The Dems respected that. The threat that was made to change the rules by the republicans was on a whole different level.

    Sailor for Senator (none / 0) (#14)
    by bx58 on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 11:02:37 AM EST
    She/he could bang the gavel,scream "Off-topic trollpost" and limit anyone he/she disagrees with to four comments per day.

    Those "rethugs" would be proud.