Senate Iraq Debate Stalls — For Now

By CBSNews.com Senior Political Editor Vaughn Ververs.

The Bush administration would like to avoid a vote that would result in the passage of anything opposing the policy, even if it is just a non-binding resolution. In recent weeks, the president has seen support for his troop surge plan slip among Republican senators, including key members like John Warner of Virginia, a co-sponsor of one of the resolutions. A repudiation of the surge would damage the administration's standing and serve as a vote of no confidence in the policy.

But several Republican Senators with an eye on re-election in 2008 risk a fate similar to the one many in their party suffered last year if they are seen as too supportive of the president's policy. Vulnerable GOP Senators up next year include Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Susan Collins of Maine, both of whom crossed party lines and voted with Democrats to move the resolution forward.

Republicans are asking for a debate and vote on four separate resolutions, all with varying levels of support or opposition to the troop surge. Giving lawmakers a choice of options to vote on could keep any single one from getting the 60 votes needed to pass and allow the administration to dodge a public rebuke —or at least increase the chances of passing something less critical of the policy. Senate Democrats want just two of the versions — a bipartisan resolution expressing opposition to the surge and another which calls for a series of benchmarks but does not oppose a troop increase.

Still, it is not entirely clear how passage of any non-binding resolution would be received by the American public. President Bush's troop surge was opposed by two-thirds of voters in a CBS News poll conducted last month. But Americans were evenly split over their support for a non-binding resolution by Congress, with 42 percent supporting it and 42 percent opposing.

Wide majorities want Congress to oppose President Bush's Iraq policies in substantial ways. According to the CBS News poll, 72 percent said the president should get congressional authorization before sending more troops to Iraq, and 69 percent said Congress should block funding for the surge. But with a razor-thin majority in the Senate, and 60 votes needed to accomplish almost anything, the reality is that a non-binding resolution is about as far as Democrats can go right now.

It's a reality Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledged in her speech to Democratic Party activists last weekend. Speaking over a handful of protestors calling for an end to the war, Clinton said, "There are many people who wish we could do more. But let me say that if we can get a large, bipartisan vote to disapprove this president's plan for escalation, that will be the first time that we will have said no to President Bush and began to reverse his policies." Senate Democrats "have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding," she added.

Other Democratic presidential candidates are taking a tougher line on the war, looking to capitalize on the strong anti-war sentiment within their party. Speaking to the same audience as Clinton, former vice presidential nominee John Edwards said, "We cannot be satisfied with passing non-binding resolutions that we know this president will ignore."

Some, like former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, called for an immediate end to the war. But that would mean stopping funding for the war altogether — something that is practically impossible in the current environment and a direction that would leave the party open to the charge that it does not support the troops.

It's in the interest for a growing number of members in both parties, then, to be on the record opposing the president's troop surge. Some Republicans need it to demonstrate independence on the war for next year's elections, while Democrats need it to capitalize on public sentiment against the surge and deliver for their party activists.

By Vaughn Ververs