Senate rejects U.S. troop pullout in Iraq

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-15-06 02:48 PM
Original message

Senate rejects U.S. troop pullout in Iraq

Senate rejects U.S. troop pullout in Iraq By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
6 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Senate rejected a call for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by year's end on Thursday as Congress erupted in impassioned, election-year debate over a conflict that now has claimed the lives of 2,500 American troops.

The vote was 93-6 to shelve the proposal, which would have allowed "only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces" to remain in 2007.

The vote came alongside a daylong debate in the House, where Republicans defended the war as key to winning the global struggle against terrorism while Democrats excoriated President Bush and his policies.

Snip...

The Senate voted unfolded unexpectedly as the second-ranking leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., introduced legislation he said was taken from a proposal by Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and war critic. It called for Bush to agree with the Iraqi government on a schedule for withdrawal of combat troops by Dec. 31, 2006.

more...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_19

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Greeby

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-15-06 02:49 PM
Response to Original message

1. Goddammit

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

still_one

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-15-06 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. did you really think it would make it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Greeby

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-15-06 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #2

5. Certainly I didn't think only 6 Democrats would not want to shelve it

Shows what I know :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

still_one

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-15-06 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #5

7. After six years of watching what has been done

and every hope for at least a courageous fight dashed, I have become cynical in my old age

That is why I have started to look at things on a much smaller scale. For instance, I am supporting people like Ned Lamont, and win or lose it indicates a very important shift. We are challenging incumbent Democrats who have never been challenged before. We are challenging incumbent repukes whose seats have never been challenged before.

It will be a very long and slow process, but the seeds are being planted now

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-15-06 02:55 PM
Response to Original message

3. Frist forced the vote!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1436156&mesg_id=1436156

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

still_one

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-15-06 02:58 PM
Response to Original message

4. This is why the Democrats have lost their way

and I wouldn't count on us winning in November. I am just looking at this realistically, and of course I will support the Democratic candidates, but until the Democrats stand for something as a group in Congress, the Democratic party is irrelevent

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Robbien

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-15-06 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #4

9. This is the problem

You say the Democrats don't stand for anything as a group and is irrelevent but of course you support them.

That is why they know they can get away with doing crap like this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

arcane1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-15-06 03:03 PM
Response to Original message

6. ahh, the joys of the 'two-party' system

:puke:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

still_one

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-15-06 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #6

8. Unfortunately, because we do NOT have proportional voting

a third party can never suceed on a national level today

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

arcane1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-15-06 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #8

10. to hell with a 3rd party, I would settle for two distinct parties

as opposed to the current single-party system

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

still_one

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-15-06 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #10

12. not only single party, but also only one branch of the government

that controls everything

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

rucky

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-15-06 03:43 PM
Response to Original message

11. Why did they vote on this STUNT?

what a waste.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Clarkie1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-15-06 11:00 PM
Response to Original message

13. I don't support Kerry's proposal, but I wouldn't have voted to shelve it.

Debate on an issue as crucial as this is crucial. Eventhough I do not support a fixed deadline for withdrawl (because it ties our hands in an evolving situation), I would have like to have seen the debate take place.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 15th 2024, 07:58 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.