Senate Votes Against Considering Resolution Opposing Troop Buildup in Iraq

[jfuh]

This is so hot off the press there isn't even an article for it yet.
Seems the Senate took the cowering way out, instead of voting on the issue at all, it's blocked from a yay or nay. I assume many key senators up for an election don't want to cast a vote.

 

[jfuh]

Move to Debate Iraq Resolution Fails in Senate

OK here's the new article that goes with this title.

The Senate gridlocked on the Iraq war in a sharply worded showdown on Saturday as Republicans foiled a Democratic attempt to rebuke President Bush over his deployment of 21,500 additional combat troops. The vote was 56-34. That was short of the 60 needed to advance the measure, which is identical to a nonbinding resolution that Democrats pushed through the House on Friday.

Source
Seems the republicans don't want to seem to be conflicting with the white house.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Move to Debate Iraq Resolution Fails in Senate

OK here's the new article that goes with this title.



Source
Seems the republicans don't want to seem to be conflicting with the white house.

Or, to look at it another way, the Republicans didn't want the Senate to waste its valuable time debating non-binding resolutions.

 

[reaganburch]

Re: Move to Debate Iraq Resolution Fails in Senate

Or, to look at it another way, the Republicans didn't want the Senate to waste its valuable time debating non-binding resolutions.

Exactly, just like the House Resolution, this one was a complete waste of time... a complete vote of symbolism over substance...

Although, I did watch some of the pre-vote debate on C-Span and I thought Robert Byrd was going to have a stroke!!! Anybody else see that? The whole pre-vote debate was HIGH comedy(not Robert Byrd), but the whole thing... I laughed my *** off listening to the partisan rhetoric on both sides...

 

[jfuh]

Re: Move to Debate Iraq Resolution Fails in Senate

Or, to look at it another way, the Republicans didn't want the Senate to waste its valuable time debating non-binding resolutions.

I don't understand why the whole non-binding issue at all - matter factly; however it doesn't seem it's that it was non-binding that the republicans were against it.

Republicans blasted him and the Democratic leadership for refusing to allow a vote on an alternative that ruled out any reduction in money for troops in the field.
''A vote in support of the troops that is silent on the question of funds is an attempt to have it both ways,'' said Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the GOP leader. ''So we are asking for an honest and open debate.''

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Move to Debate Iraq Resolution Fails in Senate

I don't understand why the whole non-binding issue at all - matter factly; however it doesn't seem it's that it was non-binding that the republicans were against it.

That's the Republican's point - they didn't want to bother with a simple non-binding resolution, they wanted to force the Democrats to go on the record as saying either yes or no to a possible reduction in funding for the war. Understandably, the Democrats did not want a roll call vote on that point, so they quashed the motion. It's one of the benefits of the majority/pains of the minority, so the Reps just have to live with it.

 

[jfuh]

Re: Move to Debate Iraq Resolution Fails in Senate

That's the Republican's point - they didn't want to bother with a simple non-binding resolution, they wanted to force the Democrats to go on the record as saying either yes or no to a possible reduction in funding for the war. Understandably, the Democrats did not want a roll call vote on that point, so they quashed the motion. It's one of the benefits of the majority/pains of the minority, so the Republicans just have to live with it.

Thus it doesn't seem that it's a matter of wasting time or not, but rather they want it all there.
Frankly I see a non-binding resolution without any teeth. Only one that does mention something about funding do I see any teeth on.
On the other side it is a non-binding resolution so then why must it go into any details of funding? Seems just an excuse from the republican side so as to not vote on the measure.
Now is this whole matter just hyper Boyle and bs? Yes absolutely and I believe it's perhaps serving it's purpose that the dems intended it to; putting republicans on the spot as the nation in general is not supporting of this war.