Audacity of Truth
Rahmbo:
"Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn. He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."
-Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) on Obama's COS, 3/7/10
Velvet Lair- Legends March 18, 2010
- Some things are just not cute March 18, 2010
- The adventures of the lady spider killer continue March 11, 2010
- Intermission February 19, 2010
- People who allow their dogs to poop in other people’s yards February 16, 2010
- Big Government
- Hot Air
- Open thread: House votes coming; Update: Ryan, Pence videos added; Update: 219-212; Update: GOP’s hail mary fails
- Last gasp: GOP may try to kill the bill by forcing a vote on Stupak’s language; Update: Pro-life group strips Stupak of award
- Pence to Stupak: You traded 30 years of pro-life law for a promise from the most pro-abortion president in history
- Michelle Malkin
- Consequences: Stupak stripped of “Defender of Life” award
- The vote: Open thread; Reports: STUPAK CAVES; video flashback: the big lie exposed; 6:04pm Procedural votes underway; 8:20pm Debate turns ugly; 9:50pm Closing statements; Boehner: “Heavy heart;” “Have you read the bill…Hell, no, you haven’t!;” Pelosi: Health care a “right and not a privilege;” First vote: 219-212
- Wreckonciliation Sunday: The Demcare schedule in the House
- Jake Tapper
- Legal Insurrection
- Lynn Sweet
Senate Democrats once again fail to end debate on Iraq resolution
CNN reports:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Senate Democrats failed to garner the 60 votes they needed to consider a nonbinding resolution opposing President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq.
The vote was 56-34, with seven Republicans crossing the aisle to vote with senators who oppose the troop buildup.
The measure was identical to a nonbinding resolution the House passed Friday denouncing the plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.
[...]
The Saturday vote was a procedural decision on whether the Senate should move on to a final vote on a resolution that expresses opposition to Bush’s plan.
Republicans pushed for amendments that would address funding of the war, which they said would make the vote meaningful.
“Democrats are afraid to cut off funding,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said.
“If you believe this is a lost cause, and victory can’t be achieved, that our people are in the middle of a mess, a civil war and not one person should get injured or killed because we’ve made huge mistakes … then cut off funding, have a vote on something that matters,” he added.
Graham called the resolution “political theater.”
Senate Republicans succeeded earlier this month in blocking a vote on a similar resolution. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada urged Senate Republicans to drop their procedural moves.
In the House, 17 Republicans joined Democrats on Friday in passing the two-sentence resolution. It expresses support for U.S. troops in Iraq but states that Congress “disapproves” of Bush’s troop increase. (Full story)
On February 5, all but two GOP senators voted to block debate on the similar resolution. Saturday’s vote saw five more GOP senators join the Democrats.
That last part actually isn’t true. They didn’t vote to “block” the debate. They wanted to debate other Iraq resolutions, which Democrats didn’t want to do. Senate Dems wanted to force a vote on one resolution, without debating others.
Senate Republicans were a real disappointment when we had control of both houses of Congress. They’re proving to be our saving grace now that we don’t.
Hat tip: McQ
(Via Memeorandum)
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
8 Responses to “Senate Democrats once again fail to end debate on Iraq resolution”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
This is the latest Big Lie of the MSM. A brief recap of a few recent whoppers they have told:
- Koran-flushing is the US Army’s #1 sport.
- Monitoring international phone calls to suspected terrorists is “domestic spying”.
- Gitmo=gulag.
- $90,000 found in William Jefferson’s freezer is, ah, let’s talk about Iraq.
- No terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 is proof that al Qaeda is winning.
- WMDs found in Iraq are not WMDs.
- With Democrats, it is “constituent service”. With Republicans, it is corruption.
- Earmarks are not earmarks if Democrats use them.
- We went to war in Iraq to steal oil.
- Jamil Hussein is real to al-AP, even if no one else can see him (Kind of a journalistic Harvey).
Now the MSM tells us that “debate is censorship” and “censorship is debate”. Coming soon: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength.
What a sad, ugly week it’s been for Congress. We should thank those who stood up for standing firm, and never forget those who signed on for running away. History tells us their day of reckoning is not that far off.
Yet, what a promising, hopeful week it’s been for our troops and those of our allies. These folk are professionals, and as such, they’re used to political shenanigans of one form or another, and many will continue their military careers long after these next two years are in the books.
They won’t forget, and neither will we.
I guess there are 2 other resolutions in the senate that democrats are afraid of. Why aren’t the republicans allowed to bring thier resolutions to a vote?
I don’t even know exactly what they are about, but if we live in a democracy shouldn’t the 49 republican senators in the senate have some say in what gets brought to a vote? Or am I being naive?
If Lieberman decides to caucus with the Republicans, doesn’t control of the senate swing back to the republicans and Harry Reid lose his job as majority leader?
I believe Lieberman had stated he would caucus with the democrats.
Which surprised me especially after all the attacks they did on him when he wouldn’t drop out and when he ran as an Independent.
Sanity,
Say he changed his mind and decided to go with the republicans, wouldn’t that change control of the senate?
I seem to remember an a republican senator switching to independent status a few years back.