Talking One Way, Voting Another

The Nation: Democrats Must Press GOP War Critics To Vote To Bring Troops Home

(The Nation)  This column was written by John Nichols.

---

A night of debate about the war in Iraq yielded two results:

1. Limited progress on getting an honest up-or-down vote on whether to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq on a schedule that might finish before the end of George Bush's presidency.

2. Confirmation that many Senate Republicans who delight in holding press conferences to talk about what's wrong with Bush's war are, in fact, the primary facilitators of that war's continuation.

The cloture vote on whether to allow consideration of an amendment to begin withdrawing troops needed the support of 60 senators.

Only 52 senators voted to get serious about establishing an exit strategy by opening debate on a proposal from Michigan Senator Carl Levin and Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days on a timeline that would be completed by April, 2008.

The good news, as Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold noted, is that "a majority of the Senate backed binding legislation with a firm end date to redeploy our troops from Iraq. This shows how far we've come since August 2005 when I became the first senator to propose a deadline to bring the mistake in Iraq to an end."

The bad news, as Feingold added, is that, "Although a number of Republicans have finally acknowledged that the President's Iraq policy is a failure, their filibuster of the Levin-Reed amendment shows they are still failing to back up their words with action."

The split in the Senate was not precisely along party lines, although there was no mystery about which party was challenging the president and which was doing his bidding.

Voting for cloture were 47 Democrats, Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders and four Republicans: Nebraska's Chuck Hagel, Oregon's Gordon Smith and Maine's Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Hagel, Smith and Snowe had committed to vote "yes," while Collins had been a possible "yes" vote.

Voting against cloture were 45 Republicans, Connecticut Democrat/Independent Joe Lieberman and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a supporter of cloture who voted "no" in order to retain the ability under Senate rules to raise the issue anew.

What is notable is that a number of Republican senators who have earned headlines in recent weeks as war critics — or, at least skeptics — voted with the Bush White House to maintain the war: Minnesota's Norm Coleman, New Mexico's Pete Domenici, Iowa's Chuck Grassley, Indiana's Richard Lugar, New Hampshire's John Sununu. Ohio's George Voinovich and Virginia's John Warner.

If those Republican senators had backed cloture, Reid could then have shifted his vote to reach a total of 60.

Reid's decision to keep the Senate in session all night yielded a measure of clarity. It also drew significant media attention, which highlighted the fact that Democrats and a handful of responsible Republicans are serious about bringing the troops home, while the vast majority of Republicans — including many who have raised objections to the Bush administration's approach — are unwilling to make a genuine break with the White House.

Reid and the Democrats ought not be satisfied. They have only begun a process of introducing realism to the debate. One long night is not enough. There will need to be a lot of long nights before Republican senators who have been playing both sides are forced to make a choice between the demands of the administration and those of the great mass of Americans who want withdrawal.

Reid, who has only recently recognized the need to highlight the abuses of the cloture process of Senate Republican leaders, will need to press the issue again — and again.

But he can't do it alone. And the fight can't just play out in Washington.

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, the national campaign by the Service Employees International Union, MoveOn.org Political Action, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, USAction, Win Without War, Vote Vets, the Campaign for America's Future, Working Assets and other groups, is organizing to "keep the heat on" senators — especially those both-sides-of-the-mouth Republicans.

That's critical.

"With their decision to filibuster, the Republicans have prevented the Senate from voting to bring the open-ended mission in Iraq to an end, and have once again ignored the calls of the American people," said Feingold.

The Americans Against Escalation in Iraq coalition will be working hard this summer to get Americans to turn up the volume on those calls, and the filibuster fight has provided citizens with all the information they need to target them.

[wogerwabbit]

This will all pan out in the '08 elections when republicans in congress become a rare as dinosaurs.

[rharrin1]

Same ole same ole republicans talking one way voting the other way they wanted change but voted STAY THE COURSE

bush said anybody involved outing cia agent should be punished turned around and commuted sentence

LIARS liars liars liars liars liars liars
LIARS liars liars liars liars liars liars
LIARS liars liars liars liars liars liars

[tucano2]

The most effective way to cause your enemy to disperse his troops ineffectively and leave the way open for your own forces to maximize penetration and gain is mis-information, dis-information, and deception. These things Bin Laden has done masterfully, with the result the USA and "coalition forces" are pinned down in a meaningless and insignificant location (Iraq). In the mean-time attacks elsewhere are carefully planned and coordinated. There is no way to "win" the Iraq conflict because that is not where Bin Laden plans his greatest confrontation; Iraq is but a side-show into which the USA has been sucked, denuding defenses where Bin Laden actually intends to strike. The strike zone is within the borders of the USA, and this is being reached via Mexico and our own porus southern border - just as Bin Laden has planned. As long as the USA establishment remains focused on Iraq Bin Laden cannot lose. To give the Devil his due does NOT mean joining him.

[xzavierbrown]

okay we withdraw our troops..

BUT MY QUESTION FOR THOSE DEMOCRATS..then tend to fall short on this little part (or the fine print per se) of the issue.

THEN WHAT?????????WHAT IS THE E'FFING PLAN TO STOP THESE TERRORISTS FROM PUTTING MY LIFE IN DANGER?????????????

WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAT??????

[blazercoach1]

The Nation is so stupidly predictable. Not a week goes by that you're not whining and complaining and bashing SOMEONE.

Just a couple weeks ago, you were bashing DEMOCRATS who vowed to stop the war and were doing "nothing" in your own opinion. Your negativity, pessimism, and cynicism were well placed. Oh how that must have pained you.

And pained you, it did. You have found that being honest in the placement of your relentless viciousness only resulted in self-mortification...more than you could bear. So thankfully for you, some Republicans have now seen how politically profitable it is to deceive Americans about the purpose of the war and have given you an alternate target.

You can b*tch and whine about the same topic but now can pass the bulls-eye on to your favorite punching bags meanwhile absolving or ignoring your "both sides of the aisle" Democrats who vowed to bring them home yet know the folly of actually doing so, therefore don't now that they got what they wanted: the fool's vote.

[sjc_1]

If one of the groups wanted to give a rally in my area I would help and attend. This is SUCH and important issue, everyone needs to be heard. No one should be "on the fence" on this one, there is too much riding on the line.

[ramos937]

This is no longer a one-party issue, it is an American issue. The question is do we want to stay in Iraq and continue to pay this terrible price? Or, do we want to withdraw, let the Iraiqs settle the problem among themselves and let the chips fall where they may if we withdraw? A very large majority of the American people has voted for withdrawal in a number of ways - the election of 2006, the various polls, demonstrations, etc. Long ago, the American people gave up on the Bush administration. The congressional Republicans that back the President on this issue will pay a very heavy price at the polls in 11/2008, 16 months from now. The very disastious effect of having only one national major party is very real.

[hungry1968]

THEN WHAT?????????WHAT IS THE E'FFING PLAN TO STOP THESE TERRORISTS FROM PUTTING MY LIFE IN DANGER?????????????

WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAT??????
Posted by xzavierbrown at 05:33 PM : Jul 19, 2007


What is the plan right now? The plan to keep the terrorists out of America is to attack and invade Iraq? We need to bring the 160,000 troops home safely and we can use them in our airports and ports to inspect cargo, people, and vessels coming into our country. I'd rather have armed soldiers patrolling our airports, than to have ONE MORE American soldier killed in Iraq!!

[roach9703]

Beds and Pizza...what wimps. Senator Eastland and Long and others would speach, read the bible for hour after and hour day after day with a few runs to the bathroom and these filibusters, pizza and motels... the state of politicians. Sacrifice for troops says Reid. He better "talk" to Long about what real a filibuster is. Let's bring back the "board of education" and branch water.

[sjc_1]

They are still going to need 67 votes in the Senate to make it a lock and override any veto. That would be 51 Democrats and 16 Republicans. They have 5 vote with 1 Independent and 4 Republicans. That leaves 11 more they need. Are there at least 11 Republican Senators running next November? I think there probably are 16 or more....we will see.

[brianbwb-2009]

xzavierbrown,

The answer to your question is simple, jail Bush and his co conspirators, which will cut off the funding for these so called terror groups.

You still cannot see by the pattern of events Bush refers to as "terrorism", these people are plants designed to scare you into your current mindset, that "anything Bush does is OK, "cause he is fighting terrorists". If there were real terrorists, we would have seen a lot more than just the inside job that was 9/11.

Do you really believe that the CIA, FBI, and the NSA, after decades of running fiefdoms, and general ineptitude, suddenly got their grits together on this one subject, and have been able to "shut the doors" on terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11?

Wake up, dude, he is not fighting them, he is creating and using them.

[elz523]

Good job Nation in pointing out the hypocrisy of these Republican dead-enders. What we are seeing here is the last throes of the Republican party for at least some time to come.

Next year there will be a Democratic president, with majorities in both house of Congress. The need for supermajority votes will be gone.

[ioweign]

What is the plan right now? The plan to keep the terrorists out of America is to attack and invade Iraq? We need to bring the 160,000 troops home safely and we can use them in our airports and ports to inspect cargo, people, and vessels coming into our country. I'd rather have armed soldiers patrolling our airports, than to have ONE MORE American soldier killed in Iraq!!
Posted by hungry1968 at 07:46 PM : Jul 19, 2007

I hope you are talking about the National Guard - the Regular Army can not be used that way.

[adian1-2009]

The most ridiculously hypocrite of all republican senators is Warner. What an unprincipled guy, Lord! I just can't wait to see him fall. And to call Lieberman an Independent/Democrat is not correct. He is not a democrat, and that is for sure. If he is independent is doubtful.

[sjc_1]

I can not understand the people of Connecticut reelecting Lieberman as an independent. What where they thinking? I can only guess that they wanted experience, because I do NOT believe that he represents the views of the people of that state.