| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Senate Republicans Block Floor Vote on Iraq Resolution |
| 2007-02-17 |
| Senate Republicans today blocked a floor vote on a House-passed resolution that expresses disapproval of President Bush's plan to send thousands of additional U.S. troops to Iraq, as a procedural motion to cut off debate on the measure fell short of the 60 votes needed. 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. Most Republicans objected to a rule barring amendments to the resolution and demanded a vote on a separate measure that pledges not to cut off funding for troops in the field. The seven Ten senators -- nine Republicans and one Democrat who is ill -- did not vote today. Among those not present was Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a contender for the Republican presidential nomination next year. Several other senators who are in the running returned to Washington for the vote, including Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who cut short an appearance in New Hampshire. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #11 I can't agree with you, VietVet68. The United States may not survive having a Democratically-controlled government after 2008. Between the stupidity over the war against islamism, global "warming", tighter control of EVERYTHING, and higher taxes, things can (and probably will) get much worse under a Democrat in the White House. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-02-17 23:26 |
| #10 #9: "With the Democrats fully in charge in ‘09, they will have to deal head on with this threat." No, they won't. They'll continue to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, even as they continue to make excuses for the iceberg. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2007-02-17 23:17 |
| #9 With the recent passage of the non-binding resolution against the Troop Surge, I have to make this comment. Clearly the Democrats do not understand the War on Terror or for that matter, what it really is, the war against radical islam. The Democrats believe the War on Terror is an overblown Bush administration tactic and that the War in Iraq does not figure into this at all. Twenty minutes of Googling will provide even a child with how the radical islamists feel about all this. So now, as a Republican, who was thankful that a Democrat was not President on 9/11, I feel now that I will have to vote for a Democrat President in ‘08. My hope is that we will have a Democrat president and a Democrat controlled Congress. This may be the only way that we can unify the country on the seriousness of the threat of radical Islam. These guys aren’t going away, no matter who is in office. With the Democrats fully in charge in ‘09, they will have to deal head on with this threat. Sure, they will be able to blame any terrorist strike on U.S. soil on George Bush for probably a year or so into their administration. But after about 2010, they will have to step up to the plate and all of America will have the opportunity to see what the Murtha’s, Pelosi’s, Feingolds, Obama’s, Hillary’s, et al, are made of when a nuclear device is detonated in one of our major cities. They will have two choices. They will either fold, kowtow, politic, delay, create commissions to explore options, negotiate, OR they will return to the Democrat Party of FDR and JFK and act decisively against radical islam. Hopefully, rags like the New York Times and Washington Post will not openly discuss or harm their tactics if the Democrats choose to act. Hillary, Obama, Gore, . . . It doesn’t matter who is in the White House but it has to be a Democrat for them to truly “get it” on this new form of global cold war. If a Republican is elected president, the terror threat will not go away but we will have another 4 or 8 years of a Democrat controlled Congress and a liberal press doing everything it can to destroy the ability of our military to do it’s job. No past administration dealt with the rising threat of radical Islam until we were actually hit on our homeland on 9/11. At that time, it was a Republican President. To respond to this threat, Bush had to break new ground. The cold war started after WWII and a succession of administrations, state departments, congresses shaped a policy to deal with that threat and each successive president built upon past successes and failures. Sure this administration has made mistakes but like the beginning of the cold war, we, that is, We Americans, are shaping policies to deal with this new threat. The Democrats need to be placed in the frying pan to either help shape this policy or get out of the way. Sadly, they have painted themselves into a the corner of wussys and if they are in charge after ‘08, Americans will die as they figure out if they have the mettle to deal with radical islam. |
| Posted by: VietVet68 2007-02-17 21:59 |
| #8 Here is the 's' for weasel; sorry. PIMF, really. |
| Posted by: USN, ret. 2007-02-17 21:42 |
| #7 When I went looking to the Weael list, I was expecting John McKerry's name to show up there, but that spineless POS didn't even have the balls to vote, EITHER WAY! At one time, I was an avid supporter of Big John, but then I took some EX-LAX and the feeling pased. And he wants to be Prez??? NFW! |
| Posted by: USN, ret. 2007-02-17 21:40 |
| #6 Remember the 56 names who voted FOR the resolution. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-02-17 21:07 |
| #5 The Dems have managed to whine and complain and undercut for literally years without offering a single interesting substantive criticism. The democrats have defined the debate without the republicans even challenging them about it. For almost four long years we have heard this constant cry of "Bush lied" trying to reneg on their vote for war. They need to be publically called to account for this perfidy. Now that the left has demonstrated it controls the democratic party it is time now to hit back hard. They have been defining the debate and now they have their debate. We need to paint them with the same brush that have been using to define the debate and reverse their commitment to war. How about this: "The democrats think the Iraq War is a Ninetendo video game, one which they can hit reset when things aren't going well. Tell your congressman war is serious. You can't hit reset then walk away. Commitment to liberty and lives are at stake. Tell the democrats NO to defeat..." Give ME a large budget for media buys and I will wreck the left's drive to kill more Americans within 18 months We need to hit back hard! |
| Posted by: badanov 2007-02-17 18:50 |
| #4 Here's the letter I just e-mailed to the Editor of the WaPo. I doubt they'll print it. February 17, 2007 To the Editor, Washington Post: Allow me to offer a short, to-the-point summary of the Democrats’ disgraceful “let’s surrender now before we win” resolution (and make no mistake, even with a few Republican votes, it is the Democrats’ resolution). Perhaps “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall NO LONGER pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. Particularly the liberty of Arabs. And particularly if a Republican is in the White House.” That whirring sound you hear is JFK spinning in his grave |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2007-02-17 18:04 |
| #3 Great quote, Icerigger, er, VDH! Nonetheless, this whole episode, and the surrounding national whining and hissy fit, are the most discouraging and troubling thing I can recall. It's not like the 60s or even 70s (was young but aware), when major social and other transitions/reforms were occurring. The Dems have (mostly) assumed a ferocious, reckless, empty, bad-faith approach to national security, on several fronts, not just Iraq. I am succeeding in avoiding almost all coverage/info on this stuff, but I did catch a quote from a new Congressman (Murphy, Iraq vet). Just a sound-bite, but still amazing and damning - something about risking our best/bravest to "referee" a civil war. As if Iraq wasn't a civil war since summer '03 (unacknowledged, "fought" intermittently and confusingly against the Sunni center-of-gravity by MNF-I and Casey and Zal with way too little force and way too much patience on political engagement), as if a "civil war" is somehow something we shouldn't touch even if it's in our interest to do so, as if a "civil war" is magical and not amenable to the application of power. The Dems have managed to whine and complain and undercut for literally years without offering a single interesting substantive criticism. Only the myths and poorly reasoned crap we hear from most commentators: disbanding the pre-disbanded and in any case useless Iraqi army, not starting with enough troops even though we would have quickly withdrawn most of any additional complement as there was nothing to do for months after the invasion and as if the mission, strategy, and ROE were not the problem, but merely the head-count. Capped by .... well, nothing. Just pull out, disengage. Not even a head fake at an alternative stragegy, not a hint of a responsible adult proposal to promote our interests, much less redeem the sunk cost of sacrifices to date. Even fresh Iraq vets going to the dome under Dem labels can't manage to say anything more intelligent or substantive or serious than the dumbest hack back-bencher from some gerrymandered "for life" district. And then the Republicans .... but that's enough for now. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-02-17 17:44 |
| #2 Quote to good to pass up: Victor Davis Hanson, "The Democratic Party reminds me of the Republicans circa 1965 or so—impotent, shrill, no ideas, conspiratorial, reactive, out-of-touch with most Americans, isolationist, and full of embarrassing spokesmen." |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2007-02-17 16:59 |
| #1 MSM Spin: Dems blocking action in Congress = "courageous" GOP blocking action in Congress = "obstructionist" |
| Posted by: DMFD 2007-02-17 16:38 |