July 18th, 2007
12:40 PM ET
3 years ago

Senate Republicans scuttle Iraq pullout plan

WASHINGTON (CNN) - As predicted, Senate Democrats failed to win the 60 votes they needed Wednesday to end debate and forward an amendment to that chamber's floor for a vote.

The Democratic amendment introduced by Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin of Michigan and Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, would have brought U.S. troops home from Iraq by April 30. The tally was 52-47.

Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Gordon Smith of Oregon voted with Democrats to advance the amendment.

However, Collins' spokeswoman said the senator still opposes the amendment.

Her spokeswoman told CNN the senator voted with the Democrats only because it was a procedural motion on whether to allow a vote.

Full story


Filed under: Uncategorized
soundoff (33 Responses)
  1. DS

    "Senate Republicans filibuster ending the Iraq War."

    Remember that headline, it's what will hand the Democratic Party a filibuster-proof congressional majority in 2008.

    July 18, 2007 12:54 pm at 12:54 pm |
  2. Jeff Spangler, Arlington, VA

    As we proceed to the 2008 election, the Repellicans will be forced to vote again and again to reveal their misguided support for a war that has no end. 8 votes will dwindle to 0. I favor defunding the war, but the Dems lack the guts to repeat this politically deadly move when it appears 2008 will be a big win.

    July 18, 2007 01:00 pm at 1:00 pm |
  3. joey hot springs, ar

    send the republicans sons, daughters, nieces, nephews, and grandchildren to fight the war. don't send my children it is not their war or my war to fight it is the repulicans war. when will the american public finally realize that. when the death toll starts to reach tens of thousands???? only a small minded person can think that this war is doing any good for this world. does everyone does realize this should be about the world and not america. ohhhhh that it is right it is hust about america plain and simple my mistake!!!!

    July 18, 2007 01:04 pm at 1:04 pm |
  4. Anonymous

    As expected...the so-called Republican protest was just for media soundbytes.

    Where were Domenici, Lugar and all the others that voiced opposition to the Bush policy in Iraq?

    What's with Susan Collins saying one thing then voting the opposite? Typical hypocrisy.

    Put the vote where your mouth is...or shut up.

    July 18, 2007 01:21 pm at 1:21 pm |
  5. Billy, Baltimore, MD

    I hate that you called it a "pullout" plan. But even C-SPAN was having trouble last night properly characterizing the Levin/Reed amendment. The erroneously displayed that it would "require troop withdrawal within 120 days". Does the media feel that words like "redeployment" are liberal buzzwords or talking points? At least you didn't call it a "cut-and-run" plan or a "surrender" plan.

    July 18, 2007 01:43 pm at 1:43 pm |
  6. David, Tulsa OK

    Since the Dems have a numerical advantage over the Republicans but the measure still failed, more Dems had to oppose the measure than Republicans did - why no mention of this or the names of those Dems who went against their leadership? Talk about bias.

    And Collins voting for it while she was against it? That's a Kerryesque moment.

    July 18, 2007 02:16 pm at 2:16 pm |
  7. CMS, California

    Both sides of the aisle are clowns. A waste of time and no productivity; if anyone ran a business like this, it would be bankrupt.

    Their dirty little secret is that they are voting this morning on a payraise for themselves. Funny how that isn't getting the press so that people can revolt like we did with the amnesty bill.

    They (R and D)continually play the public like a violin and a majority buy it. Wake up and don't be played off on each other any longer. Its time for moderates to unite for a viable 3rd party to start checking these charlatans.

    The war was a mistake, but we are there NOW and have an obligation to stablize the country before leaving. The fact is leaving prior to that would create the exact same scenario that happened in Afganistan (post-USSR occupation) which ultimately facilitated 9/11. It sucks I know, but it is reality. Decry my position all you want, but please tell me how you would avert a failed nation state.

    We made our bed and now have to sleep in it. Tough medicine to swallow, but Congress needs to be dealing with reality and not playing slumber party games with the future of our nation.

    July 18, 2007 02:23 pm at 2:23 pm |
  8. Vinny, Boston, MA

    David from Tulsa:
    This has nothing to do with any bias on the part of CNN, but more to do with your ignorance of Senate procedure and inability to read the article.

    "As predicted, Senate Democrats failed to win the 60 votes they needed Wednesday to end debate and forward an amendment to that chamber’s floor for a vote."

    "More Dems has to oppose the measure than Republicans did."
    That doesn't even make sense. The only "Democrat" that opposed the measure was Lieberman.

    You have all the facts wrong and your argument doesn’t make any sense. What a Bush-esque post.

    July 18, 2007 02:30 pm at 2:30 pm |
  9. Billy, Baltimore, MD

    The media keeps reporting this as a 52-47 defeat of this bill. This false headline is confusing those like David in Tulsa. This is not what happened. Readers, please take the time to see what was truly being voted on and why the Democrats needed 60 votes for this amendment. CNN and FOX, please report with more accurate headlines.

    July 18, 2007 02:55 pm at 2:55 pm |
  10. Pete, T.S. FL

    I am a little miffed that CNN uses censorship on these blogs.

    “WE THE PEOPLE”

    July 18, 2007 02:56 pm at 2:56 pm |
  11. Enustun, Indianapolis, IN

    Just once could one of you left wing fanatics please come up with one, just one, original thought and or plan that would even remotley entice someone on the "right" side to switch over. I know it may be difficult for you, after all it would be original thought.

    July 18, 2007 03:03 pm at 3:03 pm |
  12. DJ, Los Angeles

    The only Democrat to vote Nay was Reid according to the Senate website. Maybe he pushed the wrong button?!

    Also Johnson could not vote because he is still recovering from surgery.

    Lieberman no longer can be considered a Democrat.

    July 18, 2007 03:14 pm at 3:14 pm |
  13. Anonymous

    Sen. Collins should be banned for life from serving in public office. What was she talking about? That has got to be one of the most idiotic statement I ever heard.

    Oh I voted for it, but I really was against it??? Huh???

    July 18, 2007 03:21 pm at 3:21 pm |
  14. David, Tulsa OK

    In case anyone wonders why the tone in Washington is so intolerant and hostile, maybe that's just a reflection of the people - or at least people like Vinny from Boston.

    Yep I was wrong that more Dems voted against their leadership than Republicans did, but the facts are:

    a – The article did not mention at all any Dems who went against their party leadership - the AP reported that Harry Reid did, even though it was his proposal they were voting on, simply so he can resurrect it in the future. I would expect Lieberman to vote against it, but again no mention.

    b – The report only highlighted the implied fracturing of the Republicans and their failure to maintain party discipline.

    For what it's worth, I'm not a Bush fan and the Republicans deserved to lose their majority, given the way they became as corrupt as the Democrats they initially replaced.

    It's not my fault if you can't see past your ideology and apparent blinding hatred of Bush to try and see any position other than your own. Demagoguery is demagoguery and bias is bias regardless of whether or not you are sympathetic to the cause.

    July 18, 2007 03:58 pm at 3:58 pm |
  15. Mike, HI

    "We made our bed and now have to sleep in it."

    I didn't make the bed, and I will not sleep in it. The President and Congress are responsible, not me.

    Why are people having a hard time with Collins' decision? She wanted to bring the bill to a simple up-or-down vote, even if it meant the bill would be passed. She wanted to get the theatrics over with and go home, assuming the president will veto it anyway.

    July 18, 2007 04:25 pm at 4:25 pm |
  16. Erik, Austin TX

    Weren't the Republicans complaining about the Democrats' constant filibustering less than a year ago? I believe they were saying that filibustering was unfair, and that everything should be given a chance for an up or down vote. There was even talk of changing the Senate rules to eliminate filibustering.

    I guess filibusters are only undemocratic when it's the other side using them.

    July 18, 2007 05:03 pm at 5:03 pm |
  17. CARMEN MANCUSO ,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH

    THE VOTES BY THE REPUBLICANS AGAINST THE MEASURE WILL COME BACK TO HAUNT THEM COME SEPT. WHEN THE RESULTS IN IRAQ ARE THE SAME AS THEY ARE NOW. THE SURGE WILL BE A BUST AND THEY COULD OF SAVED MANY SOLDIERS AND CIVILIAN LIVES BUT THEY ARE LIKE THE PRESIDENT, HARD HEADED AND INCAPABLE OF THINKING WHAT IS GOOD FOR IRAQ AND THE US . THANK YOU SENATORS HATCH AND BENNETT FOR NOTHING

    July 18, 2007 06:12 pm at 6:12 pm |
  18. Patrick, Denver, Colorado

    There is nothing wrong with voting for a bill to allow it to be voted on, even if you are against it. I don't want us to pull out of Iraq but if there is enough support in congress to make it happen then let it be so. Congress is supposed to represent the people, filibustering only keeps the people's voices from being heard.

    I also don't understand people who don't understand that this is everyone's war. If Iraq fails and genocide happens that is on everybody who wants to pull out, not just the people who started the war. The easiest position is not always the right position.

    July 18, 2007 06:51 pm at 6:51 pm |
  19. Glen Parker, Glendora, CA

    There are 12 Democratic Senate seats up for reelection in 2008 and 22 Republicans. The GOP should get the message to not limit to debate on every issue. The republicans referred to a fillubuster as the "nuclear option" when the Democrats threatened it. The GOP does this on an every day basis.

    July 18, 2007 08:08 pm at 8:08 pm |
  20. JC

    I agree with Mike from HI. "We" did not make this bed. Who among us is willing to pay 10 billion a month to lie in it? I am not saying that we should not take the plight of the Iraqis for granted or the security of our loved ones but $10 billion a month indefintely just in Iraq is unsustainable. The arguments that are marshalled in favor of stay the course is basically "if you think this is bad, just wait" but I honestly do not understand why we have to spend so much time and energy treading water in Iraq when we ought to be making things uncomfortable for al quaeda instead of sitting as judge and jury over who is right Sunni or Shia. In fact if you wanted to fight a superpower, you would borrow a page out of reagan's playbook and make it spend itself into oblivion. we cannot clear hold and build the whole country. we need to stop banging our head against this wall and start thinking about how to make terrorism irrelevant and ineffective.

    July 18, 2007 09:32 pm at 9:32 pm |
  21. CMS, California

    Aloha Mike,

    I'm glad someone took the time to read and reply to my post, but can you answer my question?

    "The war was a mistake, but we are there NOW and have an obligation to stablize the country before leaving. The fact is leaving prior to that would create the exact same scenario that happened in Afganistan (post-USSR occupation) which ultimately facilitated 9/11. It sucks I know, but it is reality. Decry my position all you want, but please tell me how you would avert a failed nation state."

    I welcome a civil discourse on the subject.

    July 18, 2007 10:13 pm at 10:13 pm |
  22. Vinny, Boston, MA

    David from Tulsa,
    You don't seem to understand that

    1. The article didn't mention any Democrats voting against the leadership because there were no Democrats voting against the leadership! As you stated, Reid, THE LEADER of the Senate, voted against the measure so he can bring it up again. That doesn't qualify as a vote against the leadership. Lieberman is not a Democrat. No Democrats voted against the leadership. How then can CNN be biased? That doesn't make any sense.
    2. The article merely lists the Republicans that voted with the Democrats, and features the vote by Collins because she had indicated to the media earlier that day that she was unsure what her vote would be. Again, where is the bias?

    "It’s not my fault if you can’t see past your ideology and apparent blinding hatred of Bush to try and see any position other than your own. Demagoguery is demagoguery and bias is bias regardless of whether or not you are sympathetic to the cause."

    I don't know where you are pulling the blinding hatred of Bush from, and nothing in my post, nor CNN's posting of an AP article, suggests demagoguery. I can recognize bias in the media- there is plenty of it. I, however, can also recognize the absence of bias.

    July 18, 2007 10:27 pm at 10:27 pm |
  23. Billy, Baltimore, MD

    David in Tulsa: Watch out for Reed vs. Reid. Yep there are two. Reed is the Senator that co-sponsored the amendment with Levin. Reid is the majority leader.

    July 18, 2007 11:23 pm at 11:23 pm |
  24. Rick, Chicago Illinois

    Enustun, Indianapolis, IN ... "Just once could one of you left wing fanatics please come up with one, just one, original thought and or plan that would even remotley entice someone on the “right” side to switch over."

    Why would we want Righties to switch over to our side? You 30-percenters are doing fine aren't ya?

    Hell, I think you guys (and your President) are the gift that keeps on giving ... to the Left.

    Thanks for making every day like Christmas!

    July 18, 2007 11:39 pm at 11:39 pm |
  25. CMS, California

    Aloha Mike,

    Thank you for taking the time to read and reply to my post. Can you please address the question I posed in it?

    "The war was a mistake, but we are there NOW and have an obligation to stablize the country before leaving. The fact is leaving prior to that would create the exact same scenario that happened in Afganistan (post-USSR occupation) which ultimately facilitated 9/11. It sucks I know, but it is reality. Decry my position all you want, but please tell me how you would avert a failed nation state."

    I await a civilized discourse on the subject.

    Thanks.

    July 18, 2007 11:45 pm at 11:45 pm |
1 2