Senate Fails to End Debate on Iraq Resolution

CFISNOWHERESYFORUMS · Feb 5, 2007

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250403,00.html

WASHINGTON The Senate's Democratic majority failed Monday to shut off debate on a non-binding resolution that "disagrees" with President Bush's troop surge in Iraq, throwing debate on the policy into limbo and depriving Democrats of a bipartisan rebuke of the White House.

:clap:

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---49 Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---47 Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Not Voting - 4 Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)

burrow_owl · Feb 5, 2007

Two interesting votes: Reid voted N; McCain didn't vote.

chalice_thunder · Feb 5, 2007

mayatesnomas said:

horuhe00 · Feb 6, 2007

So, I think it's safe to assume some people here are for sending more Americans to Iraq to prolong the defeat of the invasion.

burrow_owl · Feb 6, 2007

Turns out Reid voted N for a procedural reason (it preserves his right to bring it for a vote again or something)

Billnew · Feb 6, 2007

I wonder why McCain did not vote?

He made it pretty clear what this resolution would do.

We support the troops, but we think(know) you will fail.
We're against sending you over to Iraq, but We don't want to take a stand that might hurt us in the future.
You may die, but at least we will still be in power.

Either they need to support the war, or they need to take a stand and defund the war. They won't take responsibility. They gave the president authority to
go to war. But its not there fault the countries in war.
They read the same reports that Bush read, but he tricked them into supporting the war. One man can trick that many politicians?

Not much hope for our leadership, if they are controlled by public opinion polls. Troops in because the people are for it. Oo, polls say the people are not satisfied, pull the troops.

There is no in between. You either believe this war will
work and you back the troops because itis right, or you believe all hope is lost in Iraq, and we need to pull the troops. A cry baby bill will not help our soldiers, and will help the enemy. They will see that our support is failing.

burrow_owl · Feb 6, 2007

An interesting thing I saw the other day: before the war, most people were in favor of the invasion. When asked if they'd still support the war if 50,000 troops were kept in Iraq and $15 billion were spent / year for several years, 55% opposed it. That tells me two things:

1) President Bush certainly knew that (Rove is a poll junkie), and he still didn't take necessary steps to carefully plan for the aftermath, thereby recklessly putting the troops into a war that would not have popular support;

2) the theory that the media is driving the unpopularity of the war is nonsense; people said they wouldn't support a multi-year occupation, and now they're making good on that.

horuhe00 · Feb 6, 2007

burrow_owl said:
An interesting thing I saw the other day: before the war, most people were in favor of the invasion. When asked if they'd still support the war if 50,000 troops were kept in Iraq and $15 billion were spent / year for several years, 55% opposed it. That tells me two things:

1) President Bush certainly knew that (Rove is a poll junkie), and he still didn't take necessary steps to carefully plan for the aftermath, thereby recklessly putting the troops into a war that would not have popular support;

2) the theory that the media is driving the unpopularity of the war is nonsense; people said they wouldn't support a multi-year occupation, and now they're making good on that.

That's very interesting. Got a link to that?

burrow_owl · Feb 6, 2007

Link. It's the last question.

Billnew · Feb 6, 2007

burrow_owl said:
Link. It's the last question.

The President has not defended the war enough.
He has let the opposition highlight the negitive
while no one highlights the good side.
In previous wars, the Presidents spoke(to the public) weekly or even daily while troops were in danger. How often does Bush speak (to the public)

When our troops are dying the American people need to know the President is on it. to know that some good is coming from the deaths of our soldiers.
All we hear is that our troops are dying along with thousands of Iraqi's, for no apparent reason.

When politicians play politics with American lives, it's time to call them on the carpet. Do what is best for our troops, Iraq and AMerica.
Get our troops to clean up the mess if it is fixable, or get them out of the area. Anything in the middle is just playing politics. Just trying to play both ends against the middle.
Either cut funding for Iraq, or shut up.

burrow_owl · Feb 6, 2007

When politicians play politics with American lives, it's time to call them on the carpet.

And that's exactly what Bush did. He knew the people would stop supporting the war at a certain point, and went ahead anyway.

He has let the opposition highlight the negitive

This poll was from before the war was launched, before there was any negative to highlight.

horuhe00 · Feb 6, 2007

From the link...

What's the chance you might change your mind on whether the United States should or should not attack Iraq - is there a good chance you might change your mind on that, some chance, little chance or no chance of it?

2/9/03 - (Good 38%) (Some 7%) (Little 26%) (No 33%) (No opinion 2%)

What if that means the United States would need to keep 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq for several years and would spend 15 billion dollars a year rebuilding Iraq. In that case would you favor or oppose the U.S. rebuilding Iraq?

2/9/03 - (Favor 37%) (Opose 56%) (No Opinion 7%)

Senate Fails to End Debate on Iraq Resolution

Amor verdadero no aprueba pecado.

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Senior Contributor

Legend

Senior Contributor

Contributor

Senior Contributor

Legend

Senior Contributor

Contributor

Similar threads