Now we have to wait and see if the republican constituents chew the ears off those that voted for the escalation during the recess :popcorn:

Specter, Coleman and Hagel.

As I understand it, the Senate rules require a 60% majority to bring a bill to the Senate floor, rather than running it thru a committee hearing first. This was a vote to do that, and it failed.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Well, this is just blowing smoke, of course, but I can't see that the GOP is doing itself any favors by blocking a non-binding Sense of the Senate resolution. It's been in the news for a week, now; anybody who's following it knows it would pass if it were to come to a vote, and also knows it would be meaningless to the Administration, anyway. If the intent was to prevent a horrible black eye to their party, hell-looo, shiner.

If the democrats had a good propaganda machine like the republicans have, they'd keep pounding to Americans the refusal of republicans to seek a way out of the Iraq mess and opting instead for more war. The democrats should keep on emphasizing the additional costs in American dead and additional financial costs to this country and continue to ask, "Who's gonna pay for it?"

It won't take long for Americans to understand that message and then for the republicans to turn around and vote against this war, Iran included.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Good for them.

Tom

In contrast to the 7 that decided to vote for debate, 9 republican senators didn't even care enough about the war to show up and vote at all:

Bennett (UT)
Bond (MO)
Cochran (MS)
Corker (TN)
Ensign (NV)
Hatch (UT)
Kyl (AZ)
McCain (AZ)
Murkowski (AK)

McCain was busy eating ice-cream and keeping the hymens of America unbroken, I don't know what excuses the others have.

Possible other excuse - they're immoral idiots?

Tom

well, yes and no. It would have been a lot better if they (Specter and Hagel) had voted this way ten days ago. Not to just be constantly complaining, but maybe this second round would have gone better if more GOP senators had followed their consciences the first time,

A good first step in the process of withdrawl would be to decline the president's offer to commit 20,000 more troops to Iraq. That seems obvious to me... are you trying to make a serious comment, or just blowing hot air?

I'm not, are you blowing hot air?

Why stop there? Why not pull the plug now? Why not tell the president its over, we are not spending another penny on the war? See how your courageous stand holds up under the heat of public pressure.

Bush sticks to his guns, why are the Dems wavering. Have some balls and do it. Pull it now!

This bit about, let's not rush or...a good first step, or lets try this and see what the public reaction is, thats garbage. If you believe it, do it.

Anything less is nothing but a bunch of hot air to quote you.

Today's blockage by GOP toadies, more loyal to their corporate paymaster than they are to the American people,was disgraceful:

Is it not "strange" that when the GOP was in the majority in the Senate, they threatened to put a stop to the filibuster by Democrats?

Is it not "odd" that when the GOP was in the majority in the Senate, they howled, screamed & yelled at the Democrats about the need for "up-and-down" votes?

Is it not "bizarre" that when the GOP was in the majority in the Senate, they didn't care a whit about the "minority rights" of the Democrats?

[Not at all... For the GOPpers are hypocritical thugs! Those Senators who voted against cloture should be "re-called" (i.e. impeached) by the citizens of their respective states)!]

The Democrats in Congress should insist, in no uncertain terms, that any funding of this illegal and immoral war, be fixed along-side with tax increases on Bush's constituency of the hyper-rich, corporations, and Bush cronies!

Bush sticks to his guns, why are the Dems wavering. Have some balls and do it. Pull it now!

That Bush is a brave guy, isn't he? What skin does Dubya have in this game? He "sticks to his guns?" Why not? It isn't HIS kids (or heaven forbid his own ass) being blown apart for his bluster!

Don't pay any attention to TJ; he's just mad because you didn't continue his football metaphor. You see, these neocons see wars as sport, and when you don't simplify it like they do, they tend to call you names.

Like George Bush and Dick Cheney, they LOVE war; they just don't like to er........fight in them themselves (they have other priorities). Fighting and dying is for other people's children.

Jan Knaus

gqmartinez said:

The Dems are having a really hard time getting anything through the media filter.

That's really true. On the other hand, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough admitted last week that he had been totally misled about WMD and other issues by the Bush administration, and that he had been wrong to have supported the war.

So there are some holes in the filter here and there...

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

You fail to recognize, that it is not Home or fight.
The Democrats have not said IMMEDIATE withdraw. The Democrats want an orderly withdraw. The majority of American people are not willing to die for Iraq.

To bad we can't put it on a ballot, "Would you be willing to fight in Iraq, show up at such and such time for deployment" No excuses, no saying if I could I would. I don't need armchair warriors telling me how they would go, so therefore; I should go. If they want to say I'd do it, then by God grab your gun, load the plane and go fight Iraqi's,
We'll find someone to replace you in your absence.

Your President calls, long distance, he wishes you well, wishes he could be there with you, but he has to attend to other matters. Good luck

FU Put up or shutup.

We the people are counting down the days we can remove this liar from office. He has trampled our liberties, he has condoned torture, I despise those qualities.

I want a competent Commander and Chief, not a bully looking for trouble, who talks tough "Bring'em on " but he hides behind the flag.

Sure he can stir the patriotic fervor, but, when it came time, to answer the call of a nation at war during his prime, he hid behind priviledge.

Sign up Congress, if you feel this war is necessary, go, talks cheap, go, put your butts on the frontline. Or is it to easy for you to make someone else go. Telling everyone how patriotic you are because you support the troops. What crap.

Bush lacks the trust of many of us. So when he tells the nation, to trust him this time. Why? We know he's a liar.

It will be his legacy, that the American people will try to limit the power of the Executive as soon as we get control again. That's not a threat, that's a fact.

I do not think that requiring the Senate Republicans to make good on their offer of filibuster is the next step. I am concerned that too much time spent on these resolutions would be counterproductive. I do not want to see the Democrats open themselves up to the "They are using their majority to take political swipes at the President" argument. I welcome and enjoy debate on Iraq, but I do not want to see Dems spend their political capital on nonbinding resolution debate.

... immoral cowardly idiots or immoral idiotic cowards?

Tom

TJ,

Go do your tour of duty in Iraq or shut up. 

GOP/Bush are using distractions--like the Pelosi plane flap and "Iran is supplying armament to kill Americans"--to keep the media and the American public occupied and not looking at the Congressional votes. The Congressional votes are important as you suggest and I have faith that the American "public" will realize that.

I disagree with those who do not consider the non-binding resolution by courageous Democrats and Republicans in defiance of Bush's insane decision to escalate his war in Iraq, to be important.

It is necessary to have a debate, which should have taken place 5 years ago, about the wisdom of being embroiled in a Middle East war.

The Democrats are right to commence this debate by questioning the wisdom of Bush's newest diversionary-tactic (troop surge), as he "kicks the can" of his miserable failure down the road, for the next administration to clean-up. Bush should be held accountable for his failure. Moreover, it is incumbent upon to try to extricate ourselves from this disaster ASAP.

However, instead of being scapegoated falsely by the Republicans for supposedly "refusing to support the troops"-- it is necessary for the Democrats to conduct debates in Congress on Bush's reckless war- his disastrous decision-making- and, his unsound judgment. For the Democrats should not be "caught in the trap" by the Republicans, who would love nothing more than to blame Bush's failure on the Democrats.

Iraq is Bush & the Republicans' catastrophic failure-- and, the Democrats must commence a discourse showing the American people just why it is unwinnable. The non-binding resolution is the 1st step in that process. The American people need to be educated as to why Bush & the Republicans' mendacious rhetoric, including fear-mongering & scare-tactics is simply ludicrous.

Many thanks to Senator Reid-- and, let us hope that eventually a debate can and will occur in the Senate-- in order to clarify a new way forward and out of Iraq.

This isn't 3/5 of those voting right? 90 voted, 60% or 3/5 of those voting is 54. So it must be 3/5 of
the Senate, not just those present. Whst is the excuse for the 10 Repubs who didn't show up. I saw McCain at a speech in IA reviling it as a stunt but the others aren't running for pres or anything else
right now as far as I know.

The whole debate surrounding Iraq has been diluted into supporting the troops rhetoric that is has lost much of its relevance. I do blame this development solely on Republicans who have been diverting attention from their policy shortcoming and pretending that perpetuating an unneccesary war on foreign soil is somehow supporting American troops.

How are Democrats losing the "support the troops" argument? The administration is sending troops to their death, we're trying to bring them home and we're the bad guys.

Actually TJ the surge is forcefeeding units from future rotations that aren't yet adequately resupplied or retrained. Eventually we are going to have to negotiate a pullout with not just all parties in Iraq but with it's neighbors. By escalating the war now we're breaking the back of our Army faster and damaging what little leverage we have left.

The surge isn't new, we've been up to 160,000 troops a number of times. The tactics aren't new and thank God for that. Offensively we apparently are mounting large sweeps as opposed to embedding American platoons with Iraqi companies ala Kagan and Keane. That's just a recipe for getting American soldiers killed faster.

In keeping with your football analogy it's like being called for personal fouls on every play and doubling down by having your guards and tackles on both sides cut block the defensiwe ends in hopes they won't get caught. We're offering up more sniper bait to a populace that can only agree on one thing: they want the occupation to end. Our Army is crumbling. The offense is moving backward toward our own goalposts. It's time to punt.

As long as we remember that by dodging the vote they demonstrate that they are cowards.  Not even chicken hawks, just chickens.

Please advise why you are still a bigot and a Jackass that can't defend his own hatefilled blatherings. And by the way, Don't shut up. The more you spew the more asinine you look.

...like Gerald Ford did?

Tom

Snows comment explains the whole device in a concise manner. He said those voting against the resolution showed"this nations resolve in achieving success, supporting the cause of democracy and stopping terrorist forces in their ultimate aim of bringing the violence to our shores."

when all else fails, resort to Green Lantern style dialogue (maybe its the same writer?). Who can argue against success, democracy and protecting the homeland? He didnt have to draw a picture of the planes crashing into the towers.

Thanks Jan. I got a million of 'em. It goes without saying you should never hire a football coach who has only been on the field as a cheerleader.

--Or, for that matter, a Second-In-Command whose only experience with guns is shooting birds whose wings are clipped, and lawyers.

Jan Knaus

I am very tired of blow hard bigots that toss around hate speech, but are incapable of defending their points of view, because their lame arguments are non sensical gibberish. If having your remarks challenged scares you, then either defend them or don't post them.

Ron Wohlleben
Rather than debate the Republican argument that the war in Iraq is too important to loose, the Democrats need to cut to the chase and offer Congress and the American public a clear-cut choice: Either pull our troops back/out from both countries or fully commit to the effort by re-instituting the draft and raising taxes to pay for the war. Either get the hell out or get serious about doing the job as our military has know all along it should be done, probably with 250 to 400,000 troops.

As the debate stands, the Republicans have not been forced to admit that as much as they want to win the war, they do not want it bad enough to endanger their chances for re-election by suggesting a draft or (shades of '41) raising taxes. I believe the Democrats could carry the day with this argument. Otherwise we must wait for the Administration to figure out how to paint defeat as victory.