Will The Senate Vote On Iraq Troop Build Up?
In short: No.
My optimistic projection for votes to end debate was 57 (60 are needed). The actual vote was 56-34 -- meaning a lot of Republicans were able to skip the vote with no negative impact (except, perhaps, at the polls).
Republicans voting to open debate:
Norm Coleman (MN), Susan Collins (ME), Chuck Hagel (NE), Gordon Smith (OR), Olympia Snowe (ME), Arlen Specter (PA) and John Warner (VA). All but Snowe and Specter are up for re-election in 2008.
Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC)) argued that Reid refused to consider an alternative Republican resolution pledging financial support to troops. Reid noted in a press release that he offered Republicans the opporunity to vote on a measure supporting the troop escalation and that they declined.
Original Post: 1 am Pacific
Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has called a special session of the Senate (on a holiday weekend no less) to vote on the House resolution opposing troop build-up in Iraq ... there's no guarantee that the measure will come up for a vote.
If Senate Republicans stay together, they can continue to block any vote on the resolution opposing troop build up. However, last week, seven Republicans broke ranks with the party and pledged to support "full and open debate" on Iraq. Will this crack in the GOP widen?
Republican cohesion is important because it takes 41 Senators to prevent a bill from coming onto the floor for a vote. This procedure is called a filibuster -- and although Republicans criticized Democrats when the party in power was reversed, that didn't stop them from using it to block debate on the war resolution last week.
Of course, 49 minus 7 leaves 42 possible Republicans supporting the filibuster. But as Deborah White points out. Sen. McCain won't be there, so we're down to 41, the magic number.
On the other side of the coin, the Democrats need 60 votes. They have 50 (one member remains hospitalized - but let's say for the sake of math that he's there Saturday - and an Independent from Vermont) if they all hang together. Plus the seven Republicans from last week. They are still three short of 60, and we all know where Sen Leiberman (I-CT) is going to be on this measure and it's not with the Ds. Are there three GOP Senators who will cross the aisle?
What's not been widely reported in the traditional media is that Majority Leader Reid offered "another chance for compromise, suggesting the Senate debate one resolution in favor of escalation and one resolution opposed to escalation. Once again, Senate Republicans refused."
Instead, there will now be only one resolution offered. Reid says this is an historic moment, and he is framing the vote to begin debate as a de facto vote on the resolution:
The war in Iraq is the most important issue facing this country today, putting our national security, our strategic interests, and the lives of our finest men and women in uniform at risk. The American people deserve to know where every member of Congress stands on the President's escalation plan. This is a responsibility that transcends politics... Let us be clear: anyone voting 'no' tomorrow is voting to give the President a green light to escalate the war.
A History Lesson
This tension between the Congress and the White House over wartime funding and activity is not new. Like it or not, Congress is the body Constitutionally charged with declaring war and the body charged with funding it. The President is the Commander in Chief, in charge of managing the forces, ie, orchestrating battles. [But the founders did not anticipate a permanent, standing Army!]
From the Washington Post:
The first congressional investigation back in 1792 when George Washington was president looked into a bloody military defeat inflicted by Native Americans. Congress challenged the White House during the Mexican-American War and the Civil War, rejected the Treaty of Versailles negotiated by Woodrow Wilson after World War I, and tried to keep Franklin D. Roosevelt from aiding allies facing threats from Nazi Germany.
The clash between branches came to a head during the Vietnam War, when Congress rescinded the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that Lyndon B. Johnson had used to justify an escalation. A measure to cut off money for the war was rejected in 1970 but increased pressure on Richard M. Nixon to turn the fighting over to the South Vietnamese. As Nixon withdrew U.S. forces, Congress in 1973 cut off funding for "offensive" operations, in effect ratifying what by then was the president's stated course. A 1974 vote cut aid to South Vietnamese forces by 50 percent after U.S. forces were already gone, leading to the fall of Saigon.
So there you have it. Saturday's vote is not a vote on the resolution itself, but a vote to proceed. No holding of breath here in Seattle.
Technorati Profile
Comments
A little spin on the old current event reporting complete with a revisionist history lesson?!
Although I do love the wisdom exhibited by Congress in your quote where it says “[congress] tried to keep Franklin D. Roosevelt from aiding allies facing threats from Nazi Germany.” Such wisdom from Congress!!
Republicans were forced to vote on the Democrat’s measure since the Democrat’s refused to allow debate and a vote on an alternative measure that ruled out any reduction in money for troops in the field.
This is how the Democrats reach out for bipartisan support and support our troops?
The defeatist Democrat measure appropriately defeated in the Senate 56-34. A loss short twice as many votes as anticipated. A measure with no useful purpose other than political, promoted by the liberal left before the latest military approach by the commander in chief can be implemented and evaluated.
A measure condemning the very strategy the Democrats voted on General Petraeus to implement. Such hypocrisy.
And as this cowardly smoke screen continues, there are positive developments in Iraq, in Baghdad, where Iraqi soldiers and our troops are succeeding in their security crackdown.
But many in this country want this war to fail and will see the negative in the positive and will not report objectively but try and manipulate public ignorance and opinion just as in Vietnam.
Bob, please read the story.
I linked to Reid’s statement — where he said he tried to get Republicans to agree to a vote on support or opposition and they refused.
Are you saying he is lying?
Hi Kathy,
I did read your article and the link to Reid. As usual, he leaves out much, spins and misleads the American public. And then then the media simply repeats what he says. This is exactly my point about media bias in reporting current political events.
You have not presented any “counterpoint” to the debate Kathy. Just straight up Democratic viewpoint.
Even CNN, a liberal media source states the GOP wanted a “measure of fairness,” something not provided for with the new Democratic Congress “Republican leaders insisted that members get a chance to vote on two GOP alternatives, and that the process be conducted under rules that called for 60 votes to pass”
But let’s be clear, the House Democrats originally told Republicans they would be allowed to propose an alternative to the Democrats’ resolution. However, they then went back on that promise when the republicans wanted a resolution vote that maintained future war funding.
The House Democrats led by Pelosi refused to give the republicans the ability to debate this issue. Not a spirit of bipartisanship.
Reid and Senate Democrats originally implemented the same approach, trying to deny Republican senators not only a chance to debate and vote on future funding of the Iraq war but also on Iraq war policy resolution developed in the Senate.
BTW, here is a great WSJ article called “Awaiting the Dishonor Roll
Congress “supports the troops” while emboldening the enemy.” It pretty well sums up how a lot of Americans feel by saying “Congress has rarely been distinguished by its moral courage…we can only describe this week’s House debate…as one of the most shameful moments in the institution’s history”
Well said.
Regards,
Bob
[Editor: posts with more than one link are *automatically* held for moderation by the software. I don’t check the moderation queue very often because 99% of the time it holds only spam. If you have a post that does not appear in a timely manner, please do not repost it - send me a note to let me know that your comment has not appeared.]
Lets jack it up another 100,000 troops and finish this thing once and for all. But they will need MRAP vehicles before they go over!!
This post from Bob is not showing on the site - don’t know why. I’m reposting it:
####
Hi Kathy,
I did read your article and the link to Reid. As usual, he leaves out much, spins and misleads the American public. And then then the media simply repeats what he says. This is exactly my point about media bias in reporting current political events.
You have not presented any “counterpoint” to the debate Kathy. Just straight up Democratic viewpoint.
Even CNN, a liberal media source states the GOP wanted a “measure of fairness,” something not provided for with the new Democratic Congress “Republican leaders insisted that members get a chance to vote on two GOP alternatives, and that the process be conducted under rules that called for 60 votes to pass”
But let’s be clear, the House Democrats originally told Republicans they would be allowed to propose an alternative to the Democrats’ resolution. However, they then went back on that promise when the republicans wanted a resolution vote that maintained future war funding.
The House Democrats led by Pelosi refused to give the republicans the ability to debate this issue. Not a spirit of bipartisanship.
Reid and Senate Democrats originally implemented the same approach, trying to deny Republican senators not only a chance to debate and vote on future funding of the Iraq war but also on Iraq war policy resolution developed in the Senate.
BTW, here is a great WSJ article called “Awaiting the Dishonor Roll
Congress “supports the troops” while emboldening the enemy.” It pretty well sums up how a lot of Americans feel by saying “Congress has rarely been distinguished by its moral courage…we can only describe this week’s House debate…as one of the most shameful moments in the institution’s history”
Well said.
Regards,
Bob
[Editor: posts with more than one link are *automatically* held for moderation by the software. I don’t check the moderation queue very often because 99% of the time it holds only spam. If you have a post that does not appear in a timely manner, please do not repost it - send me a note to let me know that your comment has not appeared.]
Hello I am 12 years old and in 7th grade. I think we need to stop messing around and go full force on the enemy in Iraq.We think we can waltz in there and beat them and we can’t! Also we cannot fight an enemy that has no rules with rules! It is military suicide! Thank you,
cody