The Senate speaks on Iraq

November 15, 2005

The Senate took up two measures today, both of which require the administration to provide lawmakers with extensive quarterly reports on progress in Iraq and call on the White House to lay out its strategy for ending the war. One passed.

The first vote was on a Democratic amendment that would have pressed Bush to outline a timetable for a phased withdrawal from Iraq. Ultimately, 38 Dems, one independent (Jim Jeffords of Vermont), and one Republican (Linc Chafee of Rhode Island) voted for it, on route to its 58-40 defeat.

The second vote went better.

The Senate voted 79-19 for a resolution saying the next calendar year “should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.”

The Republican resolution, sponsored by Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner of Virginia, largely mirrored a Democratic resolution, except for Democrats’ key requirement for a withdrawal plan.

Here’s the roll call vote, but keep in mind, those Dems voted against it because they didn’t think the amendment went far enough in ensuring accountability, while the Republicans voted the same way because they saw this as going too far in ensuring accountability.

In either case, I don’t imagine the White House will be happy that the Senate is finally demanding answers.

Why on earth didn’t the Dems in the Senate press this sooner? While the first vote wasn’t successful, that there was a vote at all puts at least some pressure on the White House to start being accountable. This is an example of how an opposition party should function. While they may not always be as successful as they’d like in their efforts to effect issues, by forcefully raising them they at least make those ideas a part of the discourse and broaden the range of debate. Then we don’t have a situation like we had during the 2004 elections where debate about the Iraq War among the 4 presidential/vice presidential candidates ranged from ‘staying the course’ to ‘support for the war with problems with how’s it being conducted’; so that our being there in the first place and how we are going to eventually extricate ourselves were essentially made non-issues.

  • I recently added two positive events to my US Deaths in Iraq graph: Cindy Sheehan’s Aug 6 launch of her Camp Crawford stand, and Harry Ried’s Nov 1 surprise. Neither has, so far, deflected that nearly 1,000-day red line from pursuing its steady, deadly upward climb. I doubt this resolution will do anything either, especially in its timid Repubican form.

    Side note: as it happens, everytime I start to write a comment here I can easily glance over to the lefthand panel where I see, under “Bush’s Watergate” (it’s really much more serious than that), a snarling Richard Nixon watching me key in words. Very disturbing.

  • well, obviously different people have different idea of when to pull out of Iraq.

    Even for those people who disagree with the war, some feel that pulling out now is bad for the country in the long run. Shouldn’t have gone in, but can’t back out like this. Etc.

    Why don’t the senate vote to investigate forcefully the prewar behavior of the top administration official. All those lies. Who knows what and when. Etc.

    That’s the vote I want to see.

  • Why don’t we as the collective American people, tell our members of Congress that they will not get our vote unless they move to impeach President Bush?

    Take hostage the careerism of the modern politician, and force them to actually act on behalf of the nation?

    Why not just invite him to a Stockholm cell for an extended stay for his various war crimes?

    Why do we as Americans allow the dullifying grasp of apathy to come over our neighbors?

    -Rys4K

  • While the White House may not be happy, they are much happier than they would have been had the Democrat’s amendment passed.

    And, I think that Republican leaders are happy with the vote overall: Yes, their current political quagmire showed its face in last week’s election, but these votes help distance the party and key members of Congress from the beleagured White House. However, they don’t enforce real accountability or a real plan for Iraq, which would need some kind of timetable.

    So, it’s good news that the Republicans are on the defense, but a real change in the political situation has not yet surfaced.

  • Let’s just get it over with already. Somehow the Brits are talking about the possibility of a withdrawal by the end of next year. The Iraqis seem to be reaching the stage of wanting us to leave. They’re close to being able to handle it on their own. I’m glad to see this resolution. The timing seems about right, maybe even a bit late.

    • Comments are closed.