Levin-Reed Iraq Amendment Fails In The Senate
Yet another effort to pull out of Iraq has died in the Senate. The chamber just voted on the Levin-Reed Amendment, which would require a withdrawal from Iraq to begin in 90 days and end in nine months. It failed 47-47 — far, far short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened Republican filibuster.
The last time the Senate voted on Levin-Reed, it was blocked with 52 in favor to 47 against. Proponents of our continued presence in Iraq have held solidly together, with the same number of votes this time as they had last time.
Update: Just to clarify, this was not a toothless, non-binding "pretty please" measure. It was quite clear. From the text:
Deadline for Commencement of Reduction. — The Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Comments (8)
oleeb wrote on September 21, 2007 11:17 AM:Can we please see the roll call of who supported, who did not and who hid from the vote?
ttagaris wrote on September 21, 2007 11:17 AM:Then what?
Deadline for Commencement of Reduction. — The Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
And when they don't?
There is only one way to end the war in Iraq, and that is to use the Congressional power of the purse. This was a compromise measure.
Tim
Relevant Note: I work for Senator Chris Dodd
po wrote on September 21, 2007 11:19 AM:And also, just to be clear, let's emphasize that there was no filibuster, only the threat of a filibuster. This means that the Dems left the field without a fight. Good job, once again.
And just who were those 6 not voting?
disgusted wrote on September 21, 2007 11:32 AM:Yay, the Iraq war is succeeding...in the Senate! Five fewer Senators now represent the majority of Americans who want out of the quagmire.
Support the troops in Iraq...so we don't have to support them at home!
Of course, if the Democratic leadership had abolished the filibuster when we took control of the Seante, it would have passed the first time on a vote of 52-47.
Repeal the filibuster now.
Ferruge wrote on September 21, 2007 12:07 PM:"It failed 47-47 — far, far short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened Republican filibuster."
My goodness! The Republicans threatened to FILIBUSTER?? That is truly frightening! No wonder the Senate leadership wisely let this bill die the way it did - we certainly wouldn't want the Republicans to go on record for days on end thwarting the will of the American electorate. Why, that would be disastrous! We have important ad-condemning work to do!
You know, I used to think that 50 votes + 1 was a majority. I don't know where I got that idea. From what I can tell, 40 votes constitutes a majority if that group is REPUBLICAN. For the DEMOCRAT party, they need 67, or it's a failure. Thems the rules, according to Harry Reid.
DaveW wrote on September 21, 2007 12:45 PM:Seriously -- can somebody explain why the bill failed because of the THREAT of a filibuster? There has to be something I'm missing here. As noted above, the Dems are afraid they won't have time to cut the legs off more of their friends if the Reps are blabbering all day? Why in the name of hell wouldn't they let the Reps yap all month about how they don't want to end the war?
The only reason I can think of is that the Dems don't want it ended either.
breakspear wrote on September 21, 2007 12:51 PM:One would think that with an issue this important, the Iraq occupation and war, and with it affecting so many people, Iraqis and Americans, that Reid would just throw the Senate playbook out and utilize that 'nuclear option' to these 'endless war' Republicans from threatening a filibuster. Just have a simple majority, and that's it on these votes. then maybe they'd get somewhere. ah, but then whiney Lieberman would 'really' become a Republicant and just like that: McConnell would be Senate Majority Leader. If the Dems had at least one more Senate seat they might try the 'nuclear option' but the stakes are way too high for them politically. Oh well, it's a thought.
