It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republicans Successfully Block Senate Debate on Iraq

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
I would like to point out that the thread header,AP and Senator Reid have spun this exactly backwards.

A vote for cloture is to CUT OFF debate and force a vote.

Your right, I thought they were voting on the resolution.

I'm not sure about what this means so I will shut up now.




posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
I would like to point out that the thread header,AP and Senator Reid have spun this exactly backwards.

A vote for cloture is to CUT OFF debate and force a vote.

The story shoud read;

DEMOCRATS LOSE BID TO STOP DEBATE ON IRAQ RESOLUTION

Saying that Republicans wanted to stop debate is spin for the masses who know no better.

I actually think you're incorrect; they were voting to end the debate on beginning the debate. In this case, if cloture had succeeded, then there would have been a debate on the resolution. It would not have passed the resolution.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I am totally lost on this one....did they vote to end the debate or vote not to have the debate?

[edit on 6-2-2007 by grover]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
The US presidential system should be crushed. No presidential veto. That blocks everything. Take advice when you do a revolution.

What does the veto have to do with this? It never made it out of the Senate.


And the majority of congress and senate should be able to pass things without the approval of the minority, hell, they have a majority. If you don't want any majority for one party, elect more parties like in Israël, so they are forced to create alliances.

So, same-sex marriage, abortions, stem-cell research, and every other issue should be decided if a party has a majority of +1, eh?:shk:



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

I am totally lost on this one....did they vote to end the debate or vote not to have the debate?

[edit on 6-2-2007 by grover]

Tell me about it. There are three votes that must each be successful in order to pass the resolution and make it official:

  1. A vote to end the debate on whether to begin debate on the resolution.
    Requires 60 votes. Result: the debate on the resolution begins.
  2. A vote to end the debate on the resolution. Requires 60 votes. Result: the debate on the resolution ends, and a vote may be held.
  3. A vote for the resolution. Requires 51 votes. Result: the resolution is passed.


    We're still on step one here. I hope that helps.

    [edit on 2/6/2007 by Togetic]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

I am totally lost on this one....did they vote to end the debate or vote not to have the debate?

[edit on 6-2-2007 by grover]



Under Senate rules it needed 60 votes before the 100-member Senate could begin debate. It received only 49, with 47 voting against in a largely party-line vote.

Edit: Attribute the above para to the source in the OP.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by jsobecky]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
So they voted not to debate... now as I understand it the Democrats objection were all the amendments that the republicans wanted to attach to it and if that is the case, then I totally agree...this is far too serious a subject to play that game... debate that amendment and only that amendment.... if it is the republicans trying to block debate on it, they are wrong. We all know what the baker commission wrote and this expansion is too dangerous to go unchallenged... If the republicans don't want to vote so there is no record of their opinion to come back and bite them in the ass in 2008 they are a bunch of cowards.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by grover]


DCP

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   
my understand was this was not going to be a debate, just a nonbinding resolution(s). Basically the Dems wanted to say "Bush is a poopy-head and war is really really bad" and have it change NOTHING. then go to their base and say see we think war is really really bad and Bush is a poopy-head, please give us MONEY.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Now that really is not fair.... with the Democrats in control of only half +1 of the Senate and the Republicans the other half, a binding resolution is not possible.... the Republicans would block every effort to make one, though I would love to see the Dems try.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 07:03 PM
link   
I still don’t understand why the vote failed to start the debate on the resolution. It appeared that Warner had enough support for the resolution and I would think these same people would vote to start the debate. This article even explains how some of the language was changed in the resolution to increase support and guarantee funding for the troops.



Warner had attracted at least seven other Republicans who were inclined to vote for his resolution. Scrambling to find additional support, Warner added language proposed by Sen. Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, that would protect funding for troops.

www.cnn.com...


So even with changes needed for support, the Republicans (including Warner) changed their mind and voted against starting the debate, which essentially means they can’t vote on the resolution, if I understand it correctly. The excuse was that Republicans could not get certain amendments to the resolution, even though the article I posted shows that they did.

From the OP article.



Republicans also said they voted against the measure in protest because they could not get amendments considered on their terms.


This sounds to me like someone (Bush) pulled some strings over the weekend. I don’t think it is about anyone being afraid of going on record against the surge in troops. I think they were somehow coerced.

Does this mean the resolution against the surge in troops is not going to happen?



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
So they voted not to debate... now as I understand it the Democrats objection were all the amendments that the republicans wanted to attach to it and if that is the case, then I totally agree...this is far too serious a subject to play that game... debate that amendment and only that amendment.... if it is the republicans trying to block debate on it, they are wrong.

Please, with the drama. The R's wanted the promise to have the chance to debate both sides of the issue.


Now that really is not fair.... with the Democrats in control of only half +1 of the Senate and the Republicans the other half, a binding resolution is not possible.... the Republicans would block every effort to make one, though I would love to see the Dems try.

I find it amusing that the main whiner here was Harry "We killed the Patriot Act" Reid.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000

This sounds to me like someone (Bush) pulled some strings over the weekend. I don’t think it is about anyone being afraid of going on record against the surge in troops. I think they were somehow coerced.

Does this mean the resolution against the surge in troops is not going to happen?


I guess you are right an I will not rule out that somebody got a nice bribe.


I think the resolution is going to happen.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
The R's wanted the promise to have the chance to debate both sides of the issue.

Where did you hear this? The reason given in the OP was that R's protested that amendments could not be added. How can the Dem's keep the debate one sided? Can they do it by choosing who will speak and not allowing an opposing voice?



Originally posted by marg6043
I think the resolution is going to happen.

I certainly hope so, but if it doesn't happen soon, it will be too late.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
This sounds to me like someone (Bush) pulled some strings over the weekend. I don’t think it is about anyone being afraid of going on record against the surge in troops. I think they were somehow coerced.

Does this mean the resolution against the surge in troops is not going to happen?

I don't think Bush has the power to do anything right now. He's totally neutered.

I don't know if the resolution won't happen, but it looks bleak. It's not like it wouldn't do anything, anyways.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000

Originally posted by jsobecky
The R's wanted the promise to have the chance to debate both sides of the issue.

Where did you hear this? The reason given in the OP was that R's protested that amendments could not be added. How can the Dem's keep the debate one sided? Can they do it by choosing who will speak and not allowing an opposing voice?

The Dems did not want to include the Gregg Amendment, which would have assured that funding for the troops would not be cut off. Most R's want to give the Iraq effort six more months.

The Dem's only wanted to express lack of support for the troop urge. What purpose does that serve, other than to show the world that we are divided? It's a shallow political move, with no teeth in it.



[edit on 7-2-2007 by jsobecky]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
The Dems did not want to include the Gregg Amendment, which would have assured that funding for the troops would not be cut off. Most R's want to give the Iraq effort six more months.

It looks like Warner did change it to include that, but maybe Levin didn't like it, so if it wasn't added, then I can understand the protest. I just haven't seen that written anywhere.



The Dem's only wanted to express lack of support for the troop urge. What purpose does that serve, other than to show the world that we are divided? It's a shallow political move, with no teeth in it.

Sure, I think this resolution would show we all don't agree with the president and shows we are divided, but isn't that the truth? It might also show the rest of the world that not everyone in America has gone off the deep end. It depends on how you look at it.

If the new strategy in Iraq works, I would be the first to say "good job Mr. President", but I don't think it will and it's time the Iraqis take responsibility for their own country. IMO, we have done all we can for them, and they are ungrateful.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000

Originally posted by jsobecky
The Dems did not want to include the Gregg Amendment, which would have assured that funding for the troops would not be cut off. Most R's want to give the Iraq effort six more months.

It looks like Warner did change it to include that, but maybe Levin didn't like it, so if it wasn't added, then I can understand the protest. I just haven't seen that written anywhere.


It's been reported in a lot of sources:

www.slate.com...



The Dem's only wanted to express lack of support for the troop urge. What purpose does that serve, other than to show the world that we are divided? It's a shallow political move, with no teeth in it.


Sure, I think this resolution would show we all don't agree with the president and shows we are divided, but isn't that the truth? It might also show the rest of the world that not everyone in America has gone off the deep end. It depends on how you look at it.

The main problem is the message that it sends to the troops. What the rest of the world thinks doesn't matter to me, since they have been sitting on their hands since the graft pipe got shut off in Iraq.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
It's been reported in a lot of sources:

www.slate.com...

Thanks, that article helped explain what happened, but I still see it as a stall tactic. Gregg did not need to propose the third resolution as it did not have anything to do with the surge, and I don't think it was enough for a protest against an important issue. In other words, while they are battling it out, essentially everyone looses.



The main problem is the message that it sends to the troops. What the rest of the world thinks doesn't matter to me, since they have been sitting on their hands since the graft pipe got shut off in Iraq.

At this point, I also don't care what the rest of the world thinks. Our credibility has already been damaged, and we deserve it. As far as the signal it sends to the troops, I think they already know how the majority of the country feels and this will not be a surprise. Many have done several tours already and have done their duty. IMO the best thing we can do to support our troops is to let them come home.

Regards.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   


So, same-sex marriage, abortions, stem-cell research, and every other issue should be decided if a party has a majority of +1, eh?

That's democracy my friend. If you don't like it, move abroad.

Same-sex marriage: For it.
Abortions: For it in certains circumstances.
Steam-cell research: For it.

That's democracy, so a few can't impose their views, if you destroy corruption like they do in China and illegalise lobbying aside from grassroots lobbying.

Now Bush is not being democratic, so do you like his regime? I bet you don't if you have at least a sense of reality. Majority against the Iraq war, continue and increase. Majority against Iran war, he's going in by end of february. Majority against police state laws, he go forwards... It's not a democracy anymore, it's tyranny.

[edit on 7-2-2007 by Vitchilo]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 06:34 AM
link   
The Dems are right... this is too damned important to be dilly dallied with. The only reason the Repubs want to attach amendments is to avoid voting up or down and having their names on record. A shabby ploy when lives are at stakes from a party that has becoming increasingly shabby. It will come back to haunt them.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by grover]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join