BREAKING: Senate agrees to begin debate on Iraq pullout

[babylonsister]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17610442/

Senate agrees to begin debate on Iraq pullout
89-9 vote paves way for consideration of a withdrawal date for U.S. troops

BREAKING NEWS
Updated: 19 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Breaking a parliamentary roadblock, the Senate voted Wednesday to begin its first formal debate on the Iraq war since Democrats took control of Congress in January.

The 89-9 vote paved the way for consideration of a Democratic measure that calls for — but does not require — President Bush to pull U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by the end of March 2008. The vote came after many Republicans abandoned the tactic they had used twice earlier this year to prevent the Senate from considering legislation aimed at forcing an end to the war.

Despite the vote, most Republicans opposed the Democratic bill and it was expected to eventually fall short of the 60 votes it will need to pass. Even so, the debate would give Democrats a chance to put Republicans on record as opposing a timetable on the war at a time when most American voters oppose.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

“This is the message the American people delivered to Congress on Nov. 7, 2006, and this is the message we must send to President Bush,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., referring to an election day in which Democrats captured both chambers.

The Senate breakthrough came after Republicans abandoned demands for assurances that a debate on the war include consideration of various GOP proposals, including a resolution vowing to protect funding for troops. Fearful such a measure would undercut the anti-war message Democrats wanted, Senate Democrats had refused.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

1. Woo Hoo!

Does this mean the war is over?

:sarcasm:

[maggiegault]

31. How Many Soldiers Have Died While These People Dicked Around?

[w4rma]

36. Rethug obstructionism. They finally quit filibustering the debate. It's interesting that big media

never mentions that the Repukes were filibustering. Only that there was an elusive "parliamentary roadblock" that could have been anyone's doing.

[maggiegault]

40. Yeah, I Saw That

And I have also seen that, yet again, the bloggers like you and me are asking the hard questions that our fucking MEDIA should be asking.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

48. To answer that question....

I think we could say 210. According to the Iraq Coalition Casualties website, that's how many GI's have been killed since January 1st. Toss in amother 681 who have been wounded (that's just for January and February).

Note to Nancy and Harry: Hurry the hell up or this is going to be YOUR WAR, TOO!

[Dinger]

2. Will Everything Happen At Once?

bu$hCo is going down, down, down, and the flames wil go higher, to quote a Johnny Cash (My Hero) song.:)

[Roland99]

3. "It is a clear statement of retreat from the support the Senate only recently gave to Gen. Petraeus"

That quote is from one of my lovely Senators, Mitch McConnell.

I just got off of the phone with Sen. McConnell's office explaining to the woman who answered the phone that this resolution is about the will of the people and not about the will of the neocons or the military-industrial complex. I also explained that the people of KY are in the majority in wanting the troops out of Iraq and that if Sen. McConnell wished to remain in office, he'd better start listening to those who put him there, not the neocons.

[lyonn]

33. Great rant for McConnell, that guy makes absolutely no sense

Hope the jerk's e-mails get clogged with protest.

[Olney Blue]

41. Good job, Roland.

:thumbsup:

You are speaking for all of us- not just KY!

[Roland99]

43. Thanks. I was fired up and I'm sure that came thru in my voice!

:D

[job777]

4. Problem

Even though there will be debate, Harry doesn't even have 50 votes to pass a bill.

[LSK]

7. doesnt matter, its about getting the GOP on the record with a vote

Bush wouldnt pass it anyways.

[blm]

11. We'll see - I think some GOPs facing tough re-elects in 08 will look out for their own

asses at this point.

[lyonn]

34. Watch C-span, this is being discussed

Until this issue is put on the table for all to see of course there won't be more than 50 votes. The repubs. are coming up for re-election, they know this war is going nowhere. The Dems will show why it is going nowhere.

[DFLer4edu]

5. Why does it take 60 votes to pass??????

Or have they just added in the 10 votes it takes to break a filibuster without saying so? It seems to me a lot of articles have been saying it takes 60 votes to pass anything out of the Senate, without mentioning it is due to the filibuster, never mind the fact that the Republicans threatened to go nuclear if we filibustered anything.

[eagleswing963]

29. 60 Votes is what they call a "veto proof majority"

No DFLer4edu,

The 60 votes is needed to pass a resolution Bush can't veto.

Bush can veto anything passed by a less then 60 vote majority.

[w4rma]

37. No. 2/3s is veto-proof. Which is 67. 60 is for a filibuster. (nt)

[LSK]

6. who the hell wrote that story??? it passed but needs 60 votes??

:wtf:


ps: Not attacking the OP but the author of the MSNBC story.

[DFLer4edu]

8. This has become fairly common in news stories

to just add the votes required to break a filibuster into the equation without saying so. Start reporting them to media matters.

[Mass]

9. The vote that passed is the vote on "cloture on the Motion to Proceed"

They still have to vote on the Motion to Proceed, then eventually on a motion for cloture of the bill itself, before they are allowed to vote on the bill.

Right now, they are debating on whether they will debate on the bill.

Motion to Proceed

A Motion to Proceed seeks to bring a bill to the Senate floor for debate and amendment.

Senators often debate the merits of the pending bill during the debate on the Motion to Proceed.

Motions to Proceed are fully debatable, and therefore can be filibustered.

A Motion to Proceed requires a majority vote for adoption. If it is filibustered, it requires a 3/5 vote.

Of course, AP cannot be bothered explaining all that in simple terms.

[LSK]

10. im still totally confused

They voted on motion to proceed but havnt voted on motion to proceed????

I didnt know there was such a thing as a vote to proceed which was different than a vote to limit debate aka cloture.

EDIT: This was a vote on cloture to the bill:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00074

[Mass]

13. They voted on breaking a filibuster on the motion to proceed.

They got enough votes to stop the filibuster, so now, they will be able to vote on the motion itself.

Clearly, the GOP will pull all procedural tricks to make sure the vote will be as delayed as possible.

The Motion to Proceed brings the bill to the floor, so that it can be debated. Then, cloture on the bill ends the debate on the bill.

Let's just say the bill is not yet on the floor, and they still have to vote for the Motion to proceed before this happens (except if the Motion to Proceed is now accepted on Unanimous consent).

[TayTay]

18. Let me confuse you further

Motions to Proceed

Alternately, the majority leader may instead offer a motion that the Senate proceed to consideration of a measure, particularly if he has been unable to negotiate a unanimous consent agreement to do so. Although this motion requires only a simple majority for approval, in most situations it is debatable. As a result, the motion to proceed is itself susceptible to extended debate. Even before a measure can itself reach the Senate floor, there may be a filibuster on the question of whether the Senate should consider it at all. The majority leader may attempt to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed, but may still be faced with a filibuster against the underlying measure. Since 1959, the rules of the Senate have allowed cloture to be invoked on the motion to proceed regardless of the type of underlying measure.

Non-Debatable Motions to Proceed. Under certain circumstances the motion to proceed is not debatable. In particular, the motion is non-debatable when offered on

• a conference report, or amendments between the houses;
  
• a measure considered pursuant to a rule making statute; or
  
• during the morning hour.
  

Although a non-debatable motion to proceed potentially could be made during the morning hour on a wide variety of measures, it is not a frequent occurrence. When the Senate adjourns often it will stipulate by unanimous consent that no motion to proceed be in order during morning hour at the start of the next legislative day. A motion made during legislative session to proceed to consider executive calendar business (described below) is also not debatable.

This is from documentation drawn up the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to explain the Rules of the Senate to unsuspecting newcomers and other innocents. http://lugar.senate.gov/CRS%20reports/How_Measures_Are_Brought_to_the_Senate_Floor.pdf

[DFLer4edu]

12. Right, but the actual bill only takes 51 votes to pass the Senate

What the AP is saying is that it takes 60. When the Republicans were in control they would have had a full paragraph explaining that it was 60 only if dems filibustered.

[LSK]

14. dupe delete

[LSK]

15. and therefore the AP story got it wrong

The vote needing 60 passed 89-9-2.

[Mass]

16. If the GOP filibuster the bill itself, the bill will need 60 votes.

[LSK]

17. but it passed 89-9

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00074

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider S. J. Res. 9 )

Vote Number: 74 Vote Date: March 14, 2007, 11:17 AM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Agreed to
Measure Number: S.J.Res. 9
Measure Title: A joint resolution to revise United States policy on Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 89
NAYs 9
Not Voting 2

[Mass]

19. There is the possibility of TWO filibusters: one on the motion to proceed and one on the bill itself

The one that passed was for Cloture on the Motion to Proceed.

Once the Motion to Proceed is accepted (by UC or by a vote), the GOP has still one chance to filibuster the bill itself (and therefore prevent a vote on the bill).

[krispos42]

23. Excellent point! n/t

[lyonn]

35. Thanks for info. nt

[LynneSin]

20. Republicans would probably filibuster

That's what I'm guessing

[eagleswing963]

30. The way the votes work

1) If no one filibusters a bill, it can pass by a simple majority vote.
But Bush can veto it

2) If the bill is filibustered, it must be passed by at least a 60-40 vote.
Bush can't veto it.

3) If no one filibusters a bill and it passes by at least a 60-40 majority
Bush cannot veto it.

So thats the reason for the 60 votes statement. Anything less then 60 votes and Bush can the Senate to f**k off.

[w4rma]

38. You're absolutely wrong. 2/3s is required for veto-proof: 67. 60 is the second filibuster. (nt)

[bdamomma]

21. Joe Biden's best line

but we already knew this many years ago.


http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/03/senate-votes-to-move-forward-on-iraq.html


But I think Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) said it best in a speech before the vote:

"Mr. President, you're leading us off a cliff. Stop!"

[jazzjunkysue]

24. Message to Joe Biden: Stop Following the Blow Monkey.

He's going off a cliff, and you're following him.

[bdamomma]

27. delete

[paulk]

28. really?

how?

Do you have an argument to make, or is this just a generic Biden slam?

[Contrite]

42. I'd like to know too. Joe kicked ass today.

He spoke for US.

[jazzjunkysue]

44. Joe and Hillary like to yell and scream and then vote with the GOP>

If he's going over a cliff, it's his fault for following this child.

We'll see if Biden actually does anything usefull. Mostly he likes to hear himself talk.

[Contrite]

45. I know but he was really angry today.

It was as angry as I have ever seen him. His entire demeanor was different. Maybe it's because he is running for president--but he seemed very genuine to me. However, like you, I wait for the action to match the words and the emotions behind them.

[cadmium]

49. Biden gave a powerful address. This is the forum to get it out there. I

think he is genuinely disgusted.

[paulk]

51. "then vote with the GOP"

Prove it.

Show the votes - or you've just made another generic trash post, backed up by nothing.

----------------

And do you really think running around this board making accusations you can't back up against other candidates is going to help your man Edwards?

There's a lot of glass in his house, if you're going to start throwing stones...

[jazzjunkysue]

53. They both voted for the war and to approve most of the * appointees.

Honestly, this is not news.

[bdamomma]

22. oops double post

[jazzjunkysue]

25. Is the Senate going back to work, now?

Must have been tough-6 years with no work to do.

I guess they miss the good old days when they used to govern.

But if they got 89 votes to discuss, there should be way more than we need to set a date.

Looks like the damn will break for both, IMHO.

Great news for democracy!

Bad news for neo-cons.

[HappyWeasel]

26. hmmmm...

We could always threaten to begin impeachment proceedings if they start a fillibuster.

[lyonn]

32. Sen. Dorgan making great speech now. nt

[19jet54]

39. Bear with me...

A cocky Minnesota Department of Highways employee stopped at a farm and talked with an old
farmer. He told the farmer, "I need to inspect your farm for a possible new
road."

The old farmer said, "OK, but don't go in that field."

The Highways employee said, "I have the authority of the State of Minnesota
to go where I want. See this card? I am allowed to go wherever I wish on farm
land."

So the old farmer went about his farm chores. Later, he heard loud screams and
saw the Department of Highways employee running for the fence and close behind
was the farmer's prize bull. The bull was madder than a nest full of hornets
and the bull was gaining on the employee at every step.

The old farmer called out, "Show him your card!!

:rofl:
THIS JOKE REMINDS ME OF "W" & IRAQ - "JUST SHOW THEM YOUR CONSTITUTION GEORGE!!!"
:rofl:
He may have the authority, but it is a pretty stupid thing to do?

[teryang]

46. One Senator Could End the War

http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh03142007.html
How One Senator Could End the War
By JOHN V. WALSH

<The peace movement is now in a tizzy about the various "antiwar" resolutions proffered by the Democrats. Earnest and heated discussion of the minutest details of these various bills is clogging up the UFPJ (United For Peace and Justice) discussion groups and other channels of the official peace movement. But unfortunately all this frenzy is destined to come to naught. None of these bills will survive a Republican filibuster in the Senate or a Presidential veto. And the bills are all subject to challenge in the courts on the basis of which powers the Congress and Executive have over the conduct of war. These measures are designed to do no more than save face for the Dems and allow them to continue to bash Bush. But the bills will not and cannot end the war.

There is but one way for the Democratically controlled Congress to end the war and that is to stop the funding. So far the "antiwar" Democrats refuse to do that. So they now own the war every bit as much as Bush does...

...

Of course the Democrats must be shaking in their boots over the possibility of a filibuster. They have had the power to filibuster supplemental appropriations since the very beginning of the war, with more than 41 Democratic Senate votes every year from 2002 until the present. Their majority is far from "razor thin" when it comes to a filibuster since they now have a Senate majority. And the Republicans in their first weeks in the minority have used this option twice to prevent even a feeble resolution against the "surge" from coming up for a vote. >

Time for the troops to pack up and come home.

[paulk]

52. "So they now own the war every bit as much as Bush does..."

typical "Counterpunch" horsehit.

hey, maybe Walsh should run for the Senate?

[19jet54]

47. Give "W" a Viagra...

Bush doesn't want to pull out of Iraq because he has not climaxed yet?
This guy has a sick fetish for sure!

[cadmium]

50. Kit Bond just gave a speech that exemplifies the

Bush supporting Republicans' most effective rhetoric. In effect he was playing on the proving to the "terrorists" that we are weak if we withdraw. People are still susceptible to getting baited this way.

Spector is on now blabbing away.