Talk:US Senate says no to pullout of US troops from Iraq

Is the whole, "how they voted" section necessary? Isn't easier just to say they voted along party lines except ... and then list those who didn't? --SVTCobra 21:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a terrible sentence

Throughout the night, the Senators took turns speaking with Democrats speaking while a large sign behind them annouced "Let Us Vote" speaking for the amendment and not allowing them a simple majority to vote for the amendment while Republicans took turns decrying it, noting that Democrats did the same when they were the minority and criticizing Democratic leaders.

Can anyone fix it? I can't figure out what the person that wrote it was trying to say exactly. Kaikopere 22:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be me, sorry, I was jumping around from parapgraph to paragraph, so it's a bit rusty. --TUFKAAP 23:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just short? ...On the proximity scale ranging from "Just short of" to "Not even close," the 52-47 vote is significantly far off. For example, passing the measure might have required three times as many Republicans to cross party lines and vote Aye, from 4 to 12. --98.194.83.52 13:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It would actually only be 10 Republicans, not 12. Sen. Johnson was not able to vote because of his recovery, but would have voted to invoke cloture. With him and Sen. Reid voting, it would have been 54-46. And with several Republicans, such as Sen. Voinovich, beginning to stake out positions against the war, those 46 votes may be rather soft. They may become softer still in the future. I'd say "just short" is a bit of an exaggeration, but "within striking distance" would be pretty accurate. Carter.kalchik 17:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

.ca

{{Editprotected}}

Hi! Please, add ca:El senat dels Estats Units rebutja retirar les tropes a l'Iraq. Thanks, ×α£đ~^es 20:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Done Tempodivalse [talk] 20:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)