Skip to comments.
Senate rejects bill calling for start of Iraq troop withdrawal within 120 days
MSNBC ^
| 3/15/2007
| MSNBC
Posted on 03/15/2007 1:22:41 PM PDT by tobyhill
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
Just banner at this point but couldn't even get a majority. Now voting on guaranteed funding.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraq
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-53 next last
1
posted on
03/15/2007 1:22:44 PM PDT
by
tobyhill
To: tobyhill
It was 50 NO...and 49 Aye.
The dems didn't even get a majority.
2
posted on
03/15/2007 1:29:58 PM PDT
by
Txsleuth
(I don't know who I am voting for yet...just window shopping.)
To: tobyhill
yahoo.news: Senate GOP turns back Iraq pullout plan
In the Senate, after weeks of skirmishing, Republicans easily turned back Democratic legislation requiring a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days. The measure set no fixed deadline for completion of the redeployment, but set a goal of March 31, 2008. The vote was 50-48 against the measure, 12 short of the 60 needed for passage.
3
posted on
03/15/2007 1:30:50 PM PDT
by
TomGuy
To: Txsleuth
Tim Johnson is still recovering from his massive stroke.
4
posted on
03/15/2007 1:31:21 PM PDT
by
msnimje
(True Conservatives will not support a pro-abortion candidate.)
To: TomGuy
Please forgive my ignorance--why does it need 60 for passage?
5
posted on
03/15/2007 1:32:55 PM PDT
by
American Quilter
(You can't negotiate with people who are dedicated to your destruction.)
To: tobyhill
Yet another crushing defeat for the defeatists and traitors, but God forbids that some on our side will give credit to the Republican Party and the President of stopping the traitors from achieving anything meaningful.
6
posted on
03/15/2007 1:33:37 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
To: msnimje
Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson both voted NO.
7
posted on
03/15/2007 1:34:00 PM PDT
by
Txsleuth
(I don't know who I am voting for yet...just window shopping.)
To: Txsleuth
R's better get act together and stick together...
the D's are out to kill everything they can, while
they can, and that includes trashing everything in
sight...Libby was just tip of the iceburg..they
are after everyone from President on down...This is
the sneaky Bast...d modus operandi...sooner it is
stopped..better 2008 will be... JK
To: American Quilter
It needs 60 votes for cloture to end the debate and hence allow a final vote. The democrats are never going to get 60 votes on any of their defeatists and treasonous resolution or bill to pass in the Senate, and hence even if the House pass such a bill, it wont matter because it is dead for not passing in the Senate.
9
posted on
03/15/2007 1:36:13 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
To: msnimje
Absent a filibuster and with Johnson it still would have been 50-50 with Cheney as tie breaker.
10
posted on
03/15/2007 1:37:51 PM PDT
by
tobyhill
(The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
To: jveritas
Thanks for the good answer.
11
posted on
03/15/2007 1:38:16 PM PDT
by
unkus
To: unkus
12
posted on
03/15/2007 1:40:11 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
To: jveritas
One reason to be grateful for Joe Lieberman. Besides, I get a thrill out of knowing he irritates the heck out of his party.
13
posted on
03/15/2007 1:40:42 PM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(Peace without victory is a temporary illusion.)
To: Txsleuth
I'm glad to hear this; we knew LIeberman would vote NO, and I'm really glad to hear that Ben Nelson voted NO as well. He is another democrat who undertands and works, for the most part, for the betterment of the country rather than the betterment of his party.
14
posted on
03/15/2007 1:42:33 PM PDT
by
Laverne
To: cripplecreek
Despite that we differ with Senator Lieberman on almost all fiscal and most social issues, he is with us on the most important issue of the day: The war on terror. For this we should be very grateful for this man.
15
posted on
03/15/2007 1:43:18 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
To: American Quilter
Please forgive my ignorance--why does it need 60 for passage?
Because Trent Lott (R) made a deal with Tom Daschle (D) to institute that ridiculous rule in the early part of this century.
16
posted on
03/15/2007 1:43:54 PM PDT
by
TomGuy
To: Laverne
I just heard McCain didn't even vote so it would have been 51-48 against this bird brain Traitorcrat idea.
17
posted on
03/15/2007 1:47:05 PM PDT
by
tobyhill
(The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
To: TomGuy
Although is hurt us before, this rule is helping us now not just to defeat the traitors and defeatists when it comes to the war but also on other issues. Do you know that the minimum wage bill is still stuck in the Senate because Republicans are not accepting it? Imagine how impotent and weak the democrat are in the Senate because of this 60 votes rule, at least for the next 2 years it is not a bad thing at all :)
18
posted on
03/15/2007 1:47:23 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
To: tobyhill
19
posted on
03/15/2007 1:47:36 PM PDT
by
batter
("Always take the offensive...Never Dig in." - Gen Patton)
To: tobyhill
Toby
I think this great news should be in the breaking news section. You may want to ask the moderators if they would like to move it there.
20
posted on
03/15/2007 1:49:57 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-53 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson