Ending The War In The Senate

by Chris Bowers, Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 03:43:58 PM EST

There are currently four sitting Democratic Senators who have announced that they are also presidential candidates in 2008: Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, and Barack Obama. All four have now introduced legislation to end the war in Iraq. And yet, despite this, we still aren't getting anywhere in the Senate.

We need a Democratic Party that is willing to work together to end the war, instead of a Democratic Party whose most visible leaders are more willing to one-up each other in an ongoing attempt to burnish their anti-war credentials to the primary electorate. Unfortunately, right now we have the latter, instead of the former.

More in the extended entry.

Biden wants to revoke, or at least re-write, the authorization for the use of military force:

The best next step is to revisit the authorization Congress granted the President in 2002 to use force in Iraq. That's exactly what I'm doing.

We gave the President that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein.

The WMD were not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq.

I am working on legislation to repeal that authorization and replace it with a much narrower mission statement for our troops in Iraq.

Clinton wants withdrawal to begin in 90 days:

US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has called for a 90-day deadline to start pulling American troops from Iraq.

Senator Clinton, the wife of former president Bill Clinton, has been criticised by some Democrats for supporting the war in 2002 and for not renouncing her vote.

"Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorisation for this war," the New York Senator said in a video on her campaign website.

She was repeating a point included in a bill she introduced on Friday.

Dodd wants to cap troop levels, favors a timetable, and probably wants to rewrite AUMF as well. Here is one bill he introduced:

[My bill] says that, prior to sending any more troops -- the 20,000 the president wants to put into Iraq, 17,000 of them into Baghdad, a city of 6 million people -- it would require a prior authorization by the Congress.

And why do I do that? The authorization which allowed the troops to go in in the first place was based on two conditions. One is because there were weapons of mass destruction, which we now know is false; and that Saddam Hussein was a terrorist and causing serious problems. Obviously, he's gone.

Today we're faced with the civil war in Iraq -- a very different fact situation than we were even told existed five years ago. MSNBC, Jan. 17

Barack Obama has also introduced binding legislation, designed both to stop the escalation and to begin withdrawal at the start of May:

U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today introduced binding and comprehensive legislation that not only reverses the President's dangerous and ill-conceived escalation of the Iraq war, but also sets a new course for U.S. policy that can bring a responsible end to the war and bring our troops home.

"Our troops have performed brilliantly in Iraq, but no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war," Obama said. "That's why I have introduced a plan to not only stop the escalation of this war, but begin a phased redeployment that can pressure the Iraqis to finally reach a political settlement and reduce the violence."

So, all four Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate have now all introduced binding legislation designed to stop the war. Given that Democrats in the House appears to have a single, specific plan to stop the war (the Murtha-Pelosi plan), and that the House plan actually has a real chance of passing, why is it that seemingly every Democratic Senator, especially those running for President, has introduced a different legislative plan, and that none of those plans have a real chance of passing?

I know that our majority in the Senate is nowhere near what it is in the House, and that the Senate offers numerous ways for the minority party to thwart the majority party's legislative agenda on top of that. However, it strikes me that another serious problem we face in the Senate when it comes to actually ending the war are the gigantic egos of the people in the Senate. Why is it that all of the different Senators who have introduced legislation to try and end the escalation and / or the war actually work together to develop a joint plan to end the war? It seems that by consistently introducing wide varieties of personalized legislation that have no chances even of passing our of committee, individual Senators are far more eager to prove to prospective Democratic voters that they are against the war rather than actually trying to end the damn war. Where is the sense of shared purpose? Where is the internal organization? In the Senate, I really don't see it right now.

At some point, if we are ever going to get anywhere on ending the war in the Senate, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry and Obama--all of whom have introduced different types of binding legislation to end the war--should sit down and fashion a combined bill legislative plan of some sort. Ideally, this bill / legislative plan would work in concert with the Pelosi-Murtha plan in some fashion, and it would also be something they can force the Senate leadership to get behind. While I realize it still probably would not reach 60 votes, it would, at the very least, put us in a situation where we know how many more votes we need to reach, which Senators we need to target. It would also provide us with a concrete plan and sense of shared purpose--insiders and outsiders, establishment and grassroots, House and Senate. That is desperately needed in what has so far been a chaotic movement to end the war that has constantly been moving in several different, yet all ineffective, directions at once. If we are all working together, we can all but end this thing over the next twenty months. When it comes to those who wish to lead us, I would like to see some leadership to make this happen. Right now, it just isn't there.

Tags: Democrats, Iraq, President 2008, Senate (all tags)

Comments

46 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

First step seems to get a consensus on defunding vs de-authorisation vs mandated withdrawal. Even before it comes to discussing the merits of any particular bill it would make sense for Democrats to align with at least one of these strategies. I would like to email my representative and senators and ask them to support something, but what?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-18 03:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

In many ways, that is organizing they need to do on their own. They should know better than us which strategy would be more successful among their colleagues. I don't think this is one where we can show them a specific path. They have to step up on their own, and then we can come in to help them achieve that strategy as much as possible.

by Chris Bowers 2007-02-18 03:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

Well, I don't see it happening, yet. Maybe I should email them and tell them that. I am frankly quite disappointed at the apparently fractious approach so far.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-18 04:10PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

While I realize it still probably would not reach 60 votes, it would, at the very least, put us in a situation where we know how many more votes we need to reach, which Senators we need to target. It would also provide us with a concrete plan and sense of shared purpose--insiders and outsiders, establishment and grassroots, House and Senate.

I think you answered your own question, Chris. The reason there are so many different plans, each trying just to impress the voters, is that the alternative isn't anything that different. It's one set of symbols for another, and no end to the war.

Moreover, seeing as we can't even get the votes to debate Iraq, why not have the debate occur in the form of legislation? It gets press at least.

Matt Yglesias has a good post on this.

by CT student 2007-02-18 03:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

One plan that would end the war and get the most votes possible would be far, far more valuable than a zillion different plans that have widely varying amounts of support. With the former, we could all work together, we would know how far we are from achieving victory, where we can target our pressure to achieve that. With the latter, we are all just running into walls achieving nothing, and with no hope of ever achieving anything.

by Chris Bowers 2007-02-18 04:08PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

Furthermore, the closer we get to actually voting on legislation (rather than everything being stuck in committee because no one wants to get any of the bills out), the more ammunition we'll have against Republicans in the 2008 campaigns. This is not to minimize the importance of actually getting out of Iraq, of course.

by Fran for Dean 2007-02-18 04:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

I have been really frustrated with posts that assume with a snap of the fingers Democrats can pass legislation and end the war. With the Senate equally divided it seems more like herding cats.

But I like the question Chris is asking--why can't Senate Democrats lock themselves in a room and come out with a unified position--you know, like negotiating with their colleagues? If they care as much as they say they do they would do this to help focus the debate. The House is better organized.

by anothergreenbus 2007-02-18 06:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

clever title! n/t

by Fran for Dean 2007-02-18 04:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

First of all it has to be brought up as a bill after the introduction. Second, you have to have the votes. couldn't get a bitty non binding thru so how are we suppose to pass anything with teeth right now.

by vwcat 2007-02-18 04:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

It isn't about passing it right now. I tis about moving in a direction where we could pass something down the road. choosing one consensus plan and pushing that forward is a workable strategy along those lines.

by Chris Bowers 2007-02-18 05:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

I think you're getting the knack of this, Chris.

by blues 2007-02-18 05:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

The oil factor probably makes this 'war' a bigger mess than Vietnam. Not to mention the civil wars. Not to mention the Saudi quicksand. Not to mention the Iran, Russia, China team. Not to mention the loose Pakistani nukes. Not to mention Etc!

The invasion of Iraq was the stupidest blunder in all of history. They fixed the data, but now they cannot fix the damn war.

I keep saying it. Don't scavenge those old auto alternators for their copper. We will be needing them for windmills.

by blues 2007-02-18 04:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

Then there is always the Israel nightmare. At least we are better off than they are. That government wants to take on Iran. Their very own Stalingrad.

by blues 2007-02-18 04:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Harry not keen on the Murtha plan, apparently

As Harry said last week,

"The answer is no," Reid said when asked whether there are any legally binding measures he's prepared to support.

And his TV appearance today gave no sign of a change of heart, to judge from the transcript.

Given that there's no real chance of passing anything binding, the extent of Harry's influence over his guys (not exactly a rule of iron at the best of times) will be not much at all on this matter.

And, when you say,

If we are all working together, we can all but end this thing over the next twenty months.

regretfully, I have to disagree.

Except if we get US casualties in one incident on the scale of the Beirut barracks bombing in 1983, or some other event of similar shocking scale - in that case, all bets are off, and the I'd expect the numbers to shift in Congress such as to make a Congress-driven end to the war feasible.

But, failing that - I can't see it happening.

by skeptic06 2007-02-18 04:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

I agree that they should call a major leadership summit and come up with a joint resolution that they all sign onto. Something signed onto by Clinton, Obama, Biden, Dodd, Kennedy and Kerry would have MAJOR media play. It would show a united front and would have tremendous star-power that the MSM would go wild over for a few newscycles.

On the other hand, if we all agree that we simply don't have the 60 votes to get anywhere with any resolution, it is largely symbolic anyway. However, a joint resolution signed on by all those heavyweights would carry a lot of "symbolism" punch. That is indeed missing, although I do like the drip-drip-drip MSM discussion of the various proposals to continually embarass the GOP. Unless things change in regards to people's perception of the Iraq war, that should pay dividends in 2008.

One more thing about defunding the war: It is possible to simply not pass Bush's budget demands for the war and then the war would run out of funds. I know it would be sold as "Democrats are against troops," but it seems to be the only way remaining to stop the war, as that can be done by simple majority vote. Of course, defunding is not very popular, according to polls, and some of the good-will Democrats have received could evaporate. But, since that is the only real option Democrats have it should not just be wiped off the table as politically unpopular. It should be used as a bargaining chip, if nothing else.

by georgep 2007-02-18 04:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

To quote my own, disgustingly purple, prose, the Dems trying to end the war by defunding is like playing Russian roulette with one empty chamber.

Even the slow-bleed Murtha Proviso is a rather thin cloak to withstand the assaults guaranteed from the usual suspects.

Harry doesn't want to do it, or anything like it (see above). And I can very well see why.

by skeptic06 2007-02-18 04:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

Polls have shown this option to be close to 50%. I believe the last few polls have it at around 54% against, 46% for, or 56% against, 44% for. Very close. Sure, not the majority positions Democrats are accustomed to these days, but we are not talking wildly unpopular, just slightly.

I am not convinced that it will take a major event, a massive purge of US troops, to change that sentiment. I think that eventually the American people will get so frustrated with this war that they will embrace the defunding option. I am not sure why you believe it is that much of a disaster for Democrats. The "usual suspects" will be the "usual suspects," but the Democrats will have the sentiment that Americans want out of Iraq on their side. At the same time Bush is so unpopular with the populace that "not giving him all the funds he wants" could be packaged in such a way as to make him look like the irresponsible party who is asking for major, major amounts to expand the war. Don't cut funds off altogether, just a good chunk, which ties in with other legislation on the ducket to "defund the surge" itself.

by georgep 2007-02-18 05:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

What you're asking is for a bunch of guys who have proved themselves risk averse time and time again to make a move, based on 50% public support, that could mean they trash their hopes of retaining the majority - something they are really getting to love right now! - in 08, and of getting it back for a long, long while.

On 50% support?

That is a crazy bet. It would be like Nancy having put Hastings in as chairman of Intelligence - and made Jefferson chairman of Ways and Means to boot!

Only a lot worse.

Plus - we already know that Harry really doesn't want to do even the Murtha Proviso. Levin, his SASC chairman isn't keen.

Plus - how much do we really know about the nature of voter sentiment on the war? OK, they think it's going badly - but then, why do half of them think that, in the end, the US is going to make a success of it?

This needs heavy-duty work with focus groups and anything else the polling boys have to offer.

And, even with the best quality report conceivable on public opinion, I very much doubt that the Dems will bite.

by skeptic06 2007-02-19 02:25AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

Look at it the other way. Right-wingers routinely advanced bills that either did not enjoy a majority position at all or were at best 50% divided. Yes, they had a friendly president in Bush, but they did not necessarily look at the safest way to see how the country is going in polls, just what THEY thought was right. Sure, they are no longer in power, but that does not change the fact that in certain areas we should be able to emulate that approach.

It usually goes: We are asking for the moon, we are fighting for the moon, at the end of the day we'll get a nice Shuttle-trip 50,000 miles out, which is what we wanted to begin with, anyway.

In other words: Use the good-will you have with the American people and sell them on defunding. Start off with complete defunding (your bargaining chip) by withholding all funds from the budget. Who is to say that a budget stalemate would be blamed fully on the Dems? Chances are the GOP will be seen as the culprits because of the unpopular war (as it was when Clinton and the GOP had their budget standoff.) Then sit down with the minority and hammer out a compromise that gives part of the budget, just not all. Not enough for the surge, not enough to expand in any way.

Thus, you get part of what you were going out for by "asking for the moon" at first. The American people will continue to blame Bush and the unpopular GOP for any and all aspects of the Iraq war.

As for Reid: He needs to be convinced by others that that is the right thing to do. The budget demands have to be described to the American public as proof that Bush wants to expand into Iran, perhaps Syria, which is obviously highly unpopular. If enough Senators put up a fight on the budget, we get at least partially what we set out to do, what the American people want.

by georgep 2007-02-19 07:04AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

Just on the 60 votes, it was awfully damn close last time. Very close. There must be some other leverage which could come into play.

Personally I think the Republicans are terrified and I would like to see it stay that way.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-18 04:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

Catch and release, I think

I'd need a lot of persuading that there was ever any danger of cloture being invoked yesterday.

I'm fairly sure that some kind of senatorial catch and release was in operation.

If McConnell had been in genuine danger of losing, he'd have adjusted his tactics, and played the martyr as Harry filled the tree.

He could have comfortably bet the farm that, after that performance, he'd block cloture on the bill itself.

by skeptic06 2007-02-18 05:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

My bet is that the only way this thing can end is to stop feeding it money. I would also bet that the American people, not known for political astuteness, would wish for that. They know who will get stuck with the tab. That is really the only answer. Let the chips fall where they may.

Bush and Cheney get impeached five minutes after the first soldier runs out of ammo.

Not only that: In about 18 months this will turn into a solution that imposes itself.

by blues 2007-02-18 04:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

Work with funding bills. The Republicans won't block debate or votes on those.

by macamma 2007-02-18 04:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

At this point for the anything to happen the Democrats are going to have to sway 4 more Republican senators.

by orin76 2007-02-18 04:35PM | 0 recs

permalink

Reid.

They don't call him Senate majority leader for nothing. I've been disappointed with his leadership. So far he has refused to use hard-knuckled tactics against Senate Republicans. If there ever were an issue where hard-knuckled tactics were necessary, it is the Iraq War. Reid has been good at blaming Republicans and calling them on their obstructionism and deservedly so. But it won't work forever.

by cilerder86 2007-02-18 04:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Reid.

Actually, the Majority Leader has very limited leverage.

Generally speaking, he's entitled to:

1. Set the agenda;

and

2. Have precedence of recognition on the floor.

As Lyndon Johnson found, his real power comes from the relationship that he may or may not have with the Speaker of the House.

by andgarden 2007-02-18 08:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

Maybe the question is how do we elevate this so that Harry Reid and ALL the senators seeking to be President understand that what all of us really want is PROGRESS. I'm not interested in which of them has the best individual idea or even which of them can make the Republicans look more hypocritical. Teamwork and actually getting something positive accomplished is the key now. Democrats need to show that we can govern.

Do we mount an email or phone campaign or what? What gets their attention?

by Mooncat 2007-02-18 04:47PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

There seem to be two issues fighting for prevalence in the Senate: the Iraqi occupation, and 2008 Presidential politics. Which one will prevail?

Well, let's say that a certain Senate Leader agrees with one of the presidential contenders, that voting for Bush's War was not a mistake?

Has the destination of this Democratic Senate train become a little more clear?

by leonard145b 2007-02-18 04:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

I think it's slowly becoming quite clear that unless you have 60 votes in the senate and the house you aren't on an equal footing with the president

by orin76 2007-02-18 04:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

So which bastards do concentrate on running out of the Senate in '08. We need 10, as I want to have a Holy Joe proof cloture vote. As part of the 10, we need to convince guys like Mark Warner to run. If Mark runs, will John Warner really want to go through a tough re-election battle?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-18 05:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

You don't need 60 votes to PASS a bill that comes to a vote. Putting stipulations (as per Murtha) in a military approriations bill that the Republicans don't dare block means they pass with a simple majority.

by macamma 2007-02-18 05:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

Good. I think you are right. That is the sort of avenue we can pursue. This is the type of stuff we need from our Senators. Find some way--it doens't have to be an entirely new bill, that this could work.

by Chris Bowers 2007-02-18 05:23PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

I think they might this is about power

by orin76 2007-02-18 05:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

The most important thing is not ending the war, but taking actions that secure our national security and provide SOLID groundwork for future Iraqi security. That's what so many miss

Chris Bowers said:

"...instead of a Democratic Party whose most visible leaders are more willing to one-up each other in an ongoing attempt to burnish their anti-war credentials to the primary electorate."\

So true. That's why it's not about 'ending the war'. So we pull out. And Shia vs. Sunni violence goes well beyond what we see today. Maybe Iran gets strenghtened. Maybe western Iraq becomes a haven for al Queda. Maybe we see an al Queda insurgency directed at a Shia dominated and Iranian-allied governmnet that goes well beyond what we see today. This drives other Sunni Arab countries in. Iran battles back and there's more chaos in Lebanon as a result. Which affects Israel. Maybe Arabs resent the Kurds successes. Maybe the Kurds want independence. Maybe the Turks want to stop the Kurds from having that independence. Maybe we've spent so much time with Iraq, the Taliban really do make a comback in Afghanistan.

Those are the risks that Bush & Co. have brought us. I'd like to someone on the Dem side talk big picture and not rely on quick soundbites about dates for withdrawal.

by jptrenn 2007-02-18 05:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

It is in our National Interest to end Bush's Iraqi occupation - now. Every minute spent on military debacles takes us further from our national interests, and debilitates our international ability to secure our interests. Look at North Korea - Bush couldn't even get a better deal than Clinton!

by leonard145b 2007-02-18 06:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

There is simply no possible way that the Senate can pass any sort of binding resolution or legislation to end the war even if the Democratic party is totally unified and all the presidential candidate were willing to give up their posturing. The votes just are not there. They are not even close to being there. What they can do is to prevent future funding from being spent to expand the war, and restrict future funding to uses that diminish our involvement. That only becomes possible when those appropriation bills are considered sometime in the future. So I think we need to work on convincing the Democrats and a few reasonable Repugs that that is the thing to do rather than complaining about their not doing enough now.

by herodotus 2007-02-18 05:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

There is much truth in what you just said, jptrenn, and up-thread, I have begun addressing the consequences of a US withdrawal. They are probably not very pretty. On the other hand, no one has much of a clue as to what they might be. Not to mention that there is probably not that much we could do about them if we did.

The reality is that the US of A is rapidly going bankrupt while the Bush cabal, which plans to move to Paraguay, is getting filthy rich. There is a clock running on this occupation, and our collective wealth is its spring.

by blues 2007-02-18 05:57PM | 0 recs

permalink

Not Pretty

Actually the most destructive outcome of loss in Iraq would be the collapse of the US dollar. Without our military muscle exerted both on the Iraqis themselves and Iran/Russia by extension oil bourses in Euros will start being opened around the world. That reduces the value of the dollar as a reserve currency and will cause the dollar to drop precipitously. In a way, that's not actually a bad thing....it will solve our trade deficit and a few other problems. Many US firms though may be casualties and leaping to your death on Wall Street may become a fad again. America's young and poor will survive though and rebuild the glory of our nation.

by risenmessiah 2007-02-18 06:47PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Not Pretty

No the debt we are building up off the books and on it is going to collapse the us economy. We are pretty close to the breaking point in realation to the National debt.

by orin76 2007-02-18 06:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

The GOP has the Dems blocked

I think the ONLY opportunity is going to be the Budget. Budgets cannot be filibustered so a budget only needs 50 votes.

Murtha has the right idea. The only power Congress has is the purse. This was never going to be easy to drag Bush kicking and screaming out of Iraq. The Bush enablers in the Senate will fight delaying tactics.

by bakho 2007-02-18 06:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The GOP has the Dems blocked

There is another area where Congress has power and that's in oversight hearings. If enough administration people tied to military waste, corruption and war profiteering have to defend where the money to "support the troops" actually went, it might sway a few more Republican Senators to come over.

by macamma 2007-02-18 06:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The GOP has the Dems blocked

My understanding is that only the budget reconcilation bill (which occurs this time of year) cannot be filibustered because debate is capped at a certain number of hours. It would seem simplest to simply mail in the Pelosi-Murtha bill but....I think that's not actually going to work.

Instead I agree with Biden that the Congress should simply argue that the Baathist regime is over and that since there is no longer any claim or evidence of WMD the 2002 resolution has expired. And if the President demands more specifics...the attitude has to be (and I think this is more or less accurate) because Saddam Hussein is dead the 2002 resolution no longer applies and that the Congress has the prerogative to approve or disprove President Bush's future designs on Iraq.

Bush will squeal and squeal like a stuck pig...but then the Congress can say....failure to do so will require a suspension of funds.

This is the whole irony of the situation. Dems and GOP alike want to make cutting off funding the policy itself when in fact that suspending funding should be used as the inducement for the President and Congress to ennumerate a policy.

by risenmessiah 2007-02-18 06:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

I love the blog that you have. I was wondering if you would link my blog to yours and in return I would do the same for your blog. If you want to, my site name is American Legends and the URL is:

http://www.americanlegends.blogspot.com

If you want to do this just go to my blog and in one of the comments just write your blog name and the URL and I will add it to my site.

Thanks,
Mark

by JMEnglish 2007-02-18 06:06PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

Hey Mark. That's spam comment. Not cool.

by jptrenn 2007-02-18 06:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

The Senate Battle, rather than ending, is just taking shape.
Senate Leader Reid's son, endorses Hillary.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/1 9/ap/politics/mainD8NCGQHO0.shtml

by leonard145b 2007-02-18 06:36PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ending The War In The Senate

Its not about the Senate, its about the House, which controls funding. That's where the real battle will be, especially in the next war appropriation.

Here's a chance for the House to have a real effect on the war by deciding how funds can be used and real limits and constraints. Republicans will be forced into either voting for no funding at all or funding on Democratic terms

And however the House appropriation comes to the Senate, a fillibuster won't happen or if it did would be disastrous for Republicans. Republicans and Democrats alike will be forced to make a vote. And Bush's veto options are pretty limited. He'd rather have something than nothing at all.

by okamichan13 2007-02-19 04:58AM | 0 recs