Congressional Democratic Iraq War Bills - Update

My previous post made mention of several Democratic proposals aiming to end our occupation or at least prevent further escalation of it.

At the end of the post I predicted that a lot of those Republican "defectors" would fail to have the courage to put their money where their mouth is and actually do something to end the war by voting in favor of these Democratic proposals. I wanted to be wrong....

And it seems, I was wrong about a lot of them (so far).

The Webb Amendment referenced in my previous post was defeated but there were 7 Republican defections.

As anticipated, Sen. Jim Webb's troop-readiness amendment just failed to overcome a GOP filibuster, garnering 56 votes, just four shy of the needed 60. But Webb did manage to peel off seven GOP votes:

Chuck Hagel (co-sponsor)
Olympia Snowe
Susan Collins
Gordon Smith
John Sununu
John Warner
Norm Coleman

This outcome might require a bit of explanation because some of you might be asking: "How does an amendment with 56 aye votes fail (out of 100)?

To put it simply, this is technically not a vote for passage of the actual amendment. The Republicans filibustered the amendment. They moved to keep the debate on the bill to go on indefinitely in an attempt to keep the amendment from actually being voted on (which can win with a simple 51 vote majority).

Here's the rub, in order for the amendments supporters to defeat the filibuster it has two options:

1) It can wait the Republicans out: In order to maintain a filibuster the GOP has to actually have people talk, talk, talk, talk for the whole time it filibusters. I've heard of examples of cots and blankets in the hallway, taking shifts etc...all to maintain a filibuster.

The pro-amendment group may simply try and wait them out until they give up the filibuster, but this is very time consuming and makes it impossible for the Senate to deal with any other pressing matters and bills.

2) Amendment supporters can call for an motion to end debate (kill the filibuster) and begin voting on the amendment BUT...That motion requires 60 votes to succeed. That is why a filibuster is such a useful tool for a minority party in the Senate. Because with as little as 41 Senators it can effectively stop the majority from passing legislation it does not like - by never allowing the bill or amendment to be voted on in the first place. Most times, when there is failure to kill a filibuster the amendment is withdrawn for practical purposes.

So...that explains why the Webb amendment failed with 56 ayes.

But there is nonetheless reason for optimism from this vote. It garnered more votes (more GOP defectors) than the same type of amendment last time around. So the trend is of more republicans in the future defecting...all the Dems have to do is continue to re-introduce these things until we have enough.

These Republicans should be commended for finally taking a stand for a correct policy but special criticism should go to the cowards who didn't have the fortitude to do more than talk:

Senator Richard Lugar, and Senator Voinovich. Especially Sen. Lugar after his big speech about changing our ways in Iraq and his change of heart...He was too cowardly and weak to do anything the first time Democrats tried to end this war, and now he's shown himself once again to be a man of little courage and integrity.

Republican Senator Olympia Snowe should be further praised for co-sponsoring an Iraq Pullout Bill

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine will co-sponsor a Democratic troop-withdrawal amendment that would bring U.S. troops home from Iraq by April 30, 2008, CNN learned from an aide Wednesday.

The senator from Maine became the second Republican to sign on as sponsor of the proposal by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Michigan, and Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, that calls for a withdrawal to begin within 120 days of the bill’s passage. Gordon Smith, R-Oregon, also backs the measure.

Good to hear. I'm not completely sold on these "defectors" quite yet though. Voting for the Webb Amendment requiring more rest and better readiness for troops (indirectly scaling back our 'surge' by consequence) is one thing. But how many of those who vote 'aye' for the Webb amendment will vote for something more direct and substantive such as withdrawal timetable, funding cuts to force withdrawal, and war deauthorization?

There may be a couple 'defectors' who support it, but how many more?

--------

That handles the Senate side yet the Democrats of the House of Reps are also doing their best on the Iraq issue:

Just yesterday the House passed a Democratic plan to withdraw US troops (Associate Press)

The measure passed 223-201 despite a veto threat from President Bush, who has ruled out any change in war policy before September. (snip)

A few hours after Bush's remarks, the House plunged into debate over legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops to begin within 120 days, and to be completed by April 1, 2008. The measure envisions a limited residual force to train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.

Personally, I don't think it is a good idea to retain ANY residual force in Iraq so I'm not completely square with this plan. Those residual forces will remain targets in Iraq, only there will be so few of them that they will be at even more of a disadvantage. In other words this residual force will find it hard to carry out their limited mission of protecting US assets. Withdrawal is good, but for the love of God leave the residual force language out of this or you risk making those troops who do stay behind easy targets.

It would all be vetoed anyways.

But the pressure is on and all those Republicans up for re-election know that their no votes will be used against them come election time. Imagine the ads:

-- Senator "X" claims he supports our troops, yet he voted against legislation that would have ensured that those troops would be in maximum fighting condition before returning to Iraq. He voted against yada yada, he voted against yada yada.

"generic region" deserves a Senator/Representative who does more than pay lip service to our troops.--

I'm sure the professional will do a much better job, but I know that this is the direction that Democrats will hit Republicans.

Like I said before: If you support bad policy, why shouldn't you be punished politically for it.

And we should help facilitate that punishment.

This post is more focused on the domestic politics of the Iraq Debate, but tonight I'll have more on other aspects of the Iraq catastrofuck