New twist in the Senate — high-profile Dems to oppose resolution

February 1, 2007

After weeks of fairly intense wrangling, it looked as if the Senate was ready to approve a bi-partisan, non-binding resolution in opposition to the president’s escalation strategy in Iraq. Dems wanted a more assertive resolution with stronger language; Republican war skeptics preferred a watered down measure; and a compromise measure landed somewhere in between.

As of last night, the Dem leadership was elated. Thanks to the compromise, the Senate would likely pass a resolution with broad support. I heard a rumor that Dems hoped to get as many as 70 votes, which would be a surprisingly powerful statement for the chamber. The House could (would) then pass the same resolution, and congressional Dems could use this as a platform for additional action. Earlier this week, filibusters and GOP obstructionism made it look as if no resolution would pass. Now, everything was falling into place.

Senate leaders, however, didn’t count on anti-war Dems bolting in the other direction, insisting that the resolution is just too weak to support. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) was the first to step back.

“I oppose the weak Warner-Levin resolution as currently written because it misunderstands the situation in Iraq and shortchanges our national security interests. The resolution rejects redeploying U.S. troops and supports moving a misguided military strategy from one part of Iraq to another. The American people have rejected the President’s Iraq strategy and it’s time for Congress to end our military involvement in this war. We must redeploy our troops from Iraq so that we can focus on the global threats that face us.”

Feingold was first, but he wasn’t alone.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), a presidential aspirant, was even more forceful.

The legislation on which Senators Warner and Levin compromised last evening is essentially an endorsement of the status quo. It is flawed in very fundamental ways:

First, It doesn’t oppose a surge in our forces per se — it simply states that the 21,000 is too high a number.

Second, it doesn’t contemplate the phased redeployment from Iraq, quite the contrary, it says that the legislation “should not be interpreted as precipitating any immediate reduction in, or withdrawal of, the present level of forces.”

Third, it refuses to endorse one of the most critical element of the Baker Hamilton plan — namely engaging all of Iraq’s neighbors in a region effort to bring peace and stability to Iraq.

That is why Senator Dodd intends to vote against this bill when it comes to a vote on the Senate floor unless it is significantly changed. He believes that now is the time for meaningful action on Iraq.

As of this morning, the central question on the Hill was how many Republicans would have the courage to buck the will of the president and back a resolution criticizing the White House strategy. As of this afternoon, the central question seems to be how many Democrats (particularly those running for president) will say the resolution is too weak and is therefore undeserving of support.

This escalating “arms race” dynamic keeps playing out, and I wonder if it’s poised to happen again. Two weeks ago, Dodd, Biden, Clinton, and Obama scurried to show that they opposed the president’s policy more than their rivals. Are they now going to fight over the resolution?

It gets a little complicated, doesn’t it? If Dodd’s statement is any indication, real opponents of the war are supposed to vote against a resolution condemning the president’s escalation in Iraq.

If these leaders want to try and one-up each other on who wants to fight the White House most, that’s just fine with me, but I have a hunch this one’s going to get kind of confusing.

Post Script: For Dems who look at the watered-down resolution and think “close enough,” but are suddenly worried about Dodd flanking them on the left, they might get a little cover from MoveOn.org, which has endorsed the Warner-Levin compromise resolution. MoveOn.org Political Action DC Director, Tom Matzzie, said:

We are pleased the Senate is headed to a bipartisan vote disagreeing with President Bush’s escalation in Iraq. This is an important first step towards Congress blocking the escalation and stopping the war.

The compromise language would not constrain the Congress from using all of its powers to stop the escalation and force President Bush to implement an exit plan. The “power of the purse” has been wrongly caricatured as “cutting off the troops.” That has never happened in U.S. history nor should it. However, Congress has several times used its powers to stop a president’s use of military force.

If, after the vote, the president fails to respond to the will of a bipartisan majority in Congress, the American people and the Iraq Study Group then the Congress must without hesitation use all of its powers to stop President Bush and get America out of Iraq.

Opposition is a good first step but Congress must stop President Bush.

So, what’s an anti-war, anti-Bush, seeking-higher-office Dem to do?

First of all, any non-binding resolution is….non-binding. So would a stronger non-binding resolution be any better than a so-called weaker one? I think not.

The point is that *any* resolution passed with a significant Republican participation would be not only unprecedented news but a major headache for the White House.

So, for God’s sake, never mind if it’s not the best it could be. The headline would be the same so just pass the sunnofabitch, dammit!! 🙁

  • while i am disappointed that the resolution has been so watered down, i think i agree with curmudgeon. i have come to look at this resolution, in whatever form, as the first in a very long series of steps that will eventually lead to our troops getting out of iraq. if this resolution is approved broadly, it will be accepted positively by the majority of americans, and will encourage those who may have been unsure to take the next step. democracy, when it works well, does not work fast. i’m not a very patient person as a rule, but i’m going to give it a try here. i think its the better way to go right now.

  • So, what’s an anti-war, anti-Bush, seeking-higher-office Dem to do?

    Vote for the resolution, douchebags.

    The consensus of the public is that Bush is screwing it up. The Dems have to do everything they can to remind people of that consensus. A 70-30 or 80-20 resolution – esp one with opposition from both extremes – does that. A 51-49 resolution does not.

    Remember, the resolution is non-binding. Bush is going to do whatever the f— he wants anyway. Our political system, unfortunately, gives almost all war-fighting powers to the executive. The point is to send a message. And 51-49 won’t send it.

    We already know where you stand, Feingold & Dodd. State your reservations right after your vote, see if we care. The point isn’t to craft the perfect Iraq policy – the point is to bring a halt to one that patently isn’t working. And the only way Congress can do that is to yell at the top of its lungs.

    Good ol’ Dems – back to the circular firing squad.

  • Nicely put, JB. And I apologize for my bad temper at the end of my post, I just hate to see folks try to pull defeat from the jaws of victory with a lot of hair-splitting.

  • Can a Senator add a “Signing Statement” to a resolution?

    Of course they would have to monitor these for content, “cause I can imagine someone like Senator Brownback adding something like “Hillary is a stinky butt.”

  • Oh crap. We’re back to the more righteous than thou vein in the Democratic party. Feingold and Dodd, hold your nose and vote for the damned thing. It’s how I’ve been voting for Democratic candidates for the Presidency for years.

  • So, what’s an anti-war, anti-Bush, seeking-higher-office Dem to do?

    Well you don’t play politics with war, but then again you don’t compromise with war either. I say pass the strongest measure even if it’s just Dems and then use the failure to sign against Republicans next year. If things get worse in Iraq the Republicans will have wished they had signed and perhaps some of them realize that right now.

  • Just to elaborate, I think he is the only politician who has been consistent in his position. He thinks Bush is a criminal and will not give him an inch. He is helping to define all positions to the right of him, something that he started when he opposed the surveillance and any number of others civil liberty violations. He is the only one striving to uphold the constitutional checks and balances. So I don’t think he should hold his nose and vote for it. I applaud his well-conceived consistency of position (unlike Bush’s, which is consistency for consistency’s sake or other ulterior motives).

  • Yep. This is a classic Overton window playing out for our side for once, and they should just go with it. Getting large numbers of Republicans on record as agreeing that the war is going poorly and there’s no hope for change or improvement as things keep going important, and it’s just a first step.

    The hardcore Republicans will freak out, as they’re already even doing to freaking Boehner in the House, but it’s just more cracks in the base. Some of the Republican senators, I’m sure, will get galvanized by the attacks of them, and later votes against the administration will be easier to make.

    But most importantly, it’s inevitably pushing *coughs* mainstream *coughs* discourse in our direction. The question is no longer “Is Bush screwing up the war?” but “How badly is Bush screwing up the war?” Let those floodgates fly open.

  • I like #5 Buzzmon’s signing statement idea.

    Really the only important part of this resolution is the name of it. If it can be called Resolution Against the War or Escalation or anything that sends the message to the People that it is anti-War then it’s okay, because that is all most people will know about it. The name will define it and its effect.

    I haven’t read the thing so I don’t know if Dems are snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory or whether they are just rolling over for Reps again.

  • The purists on the left are just engaging in bad politics on this one (from a group sense – any one of them with Presidential ambitions may be engaged in good politics from a selfish POV).

    Now is not the time to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and the time horizon is likely short: fleeing Dems will give R’s cover to bail as well, sensing they may be able to stop any resolution from passing.

    Moreover, while there are times when the left moving, well, left can be helpful to the Dems by letting the governing majority of the party look more moderate, this is not one of them. This turns leadership into the “Gang of 14.” Much better to force the moderate Rs to join a group that includes even the farthest left Senators. This best isolates the far right, and helps us keep the public’s perception of the “center” shifting leftward.

    I am all for every D signing on to this, even if imperfect, because the value is in the headline “Overwhelming Bipartisan Senate Majority Breaks Rejects Bush.” The details most voters will never read.

  • As Curmudgeon rightly says — it’s “non-binding.” Simply getting it passed as soon as possible is the logical thing to do. By a few senators whining that it’s not strong enough, the Dems, as a whole, risk being accused of hippie pacifism. Once again, it’s non-binding, and I, for one, have lost track of what the hell all these versions say.

    If the Congress is really serious — as serious as the crisis demands — it should forget resolutions, binding or not, and get busy with impeachment.

  • let me try that last thought one more time:

    I am all for every D signing on to this, even if imperfect, because the value is in the headline “Overwhelming Bipartisan Senate Majority Breaks Rejects Bush.”

    Too many thoughts at once there.

  • If any one expects Russ Feingold to compromise his principled opposition to Bush’s war in Iraq, they might want to remember how he voted on the Patriot Act. So I have no problem with him wanting something more than mush to sign on to.

  • Thank you Senator Perfect World Feingold – why don’t you go vote for Ralph Nader for President while you’re at it?

    Never ever doubt the ability of lefties to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory so they can dance with the angels on the head of a pin.

    Now we see why I wouldn’t have voted for this fuckhead for President under any circumstances. What a FUCKING MORON!!!!!!

    Dodd can go stick his head back up his ass and go back to breathing that Chanel No. 5, too.

  • Does it include the promise not to defund, which will be interpreted as not escalating the funding as well. If so, I am glad they are holding out. Otherwise it will be held against them. Can’t you just see Bush, “Well Congress promised not to stop the funding our troops need”, even if those are another 20,000 at the end of the year. It will definitely give Bush the same funding power he has enjoyed for the past 4 years.

    “So, what’s an anti-war, anti-Bush, seeking-higher-office Dem to do?”

    And let’s be clear, Feingold, is not running for higher office, which is the whole argument or at least a pretty important point of this post.

  • LOL, this reminds me more than anything of a game theory class in college. One professor (an especially bad one, but that didn’t prevent me from remembering this particular class) pointed out that in a bipolar system like ours, there’s incentive to be just a little bit to the side of “the center,” so that you can theoretically capture all voters to your side of it. Centrist third-party candidates, or primary candidates in the center of their own party, could only capture the two or three percent between the other major candidates, so whichever major candidate is closest to the center, or else is on the side of it that’s larger, has a good chance of winning.

    The current situation is like a twist on that. Politicians seem to agree — that is, they’ve finally, blessedly noticed! — that “get out of Iraq soon” is the centrist majority position, and is if anything getting more popular. Politicians are still leery of being tarred as leftist extremists, but no one wants to be to the right of that position, especially not one who has to get through a Democratic primary first. So they’re edging each other left — slowly, but surely.

    Good.

  • Tom. Feingold is being rigid, but this is pretty important stuff, and he speaks for me. I say make it harsh, get some of these “up for election” people off the fence. This is a fence vote, it’s watered down just enough that someone can claim they voted for this or that reason, instead of actually voting against the escalation and more importantly the war..

    I am all for compromise, but America has got their backs on this one, so why compromise, why give in, if it’s non-binding, why not make it hardcore. Really, what is the point of a soft-core non-binging resolution anyways ?

  • I gotta disagree with the majority of you guys. I think the watered down version is a poison pill that only provides cover for the Republicrooks, and it should never have been contemplated. Those who vote against the bill aren’t going to enable Bush, he’s already fully enabled unless and until they start cutting off his funds or impeach his sorry ass.

    The situation right now is moving rapidly, and Bush is dropping like a rock. In a few more weeks, the Libby trial will have reminded everyone that this war was founded on lies, and even the wingnuts will have to admit it.

    Put forward a resolution that America would like to vote for, not one that the Republicrooks want.

  • As long as the resolution puts Bush’s actions regarding Iraq in a bad light, I’m not as concerned about how bad a light it is. Thinks headlines. If he headline says “Congress Roundly Rejects Bush Iraq Plan” that’s what will leave a mark in the public consciousness. If the measure doesn’t pass or barely passes than it was a partisan attempt to hurt the president. Just speak with as loud of a collective shout as possible saying no.

  • Interesting move by these guys. The Democrats should rally behind the stronger resolution and not return to the old one unless and until the new one is voted on and fails.

    In the meantime they should fill any statements with whatever brimstone they can muster. Have your most brilliant and best staffers visit you and say, “Look on the Internet, I want you to put a list of 50 of the worst things going wrong in Iraq in an hour.” Take what they brainstorm and pick out the 10 or 12 most terrible or most interesting from it. When you give a statement from the House floor you’re going to work it into that speech. In one sentence tell them exaclty what the list is and how you compiled it. Start with the worst example and then backtrack down. So you say, “For all this war, all the X number of casualties, X number of dollars spent, the electricity is only on in Baghdad such-and-such hours a day about four years into this war, the Iraqi police training facilities are crumbling even though our such-and-such department was supposed to be over-seeing its construction,” and so on. And then you say, “…and this is only the top ten items on the list. It’s time to bring these troops home to honor the American people and their sacrifice properly and rethink how we are going to support the Iraqi experiment in democracy, militarily and otherwise, from here on in.”

    This should not drag on. Things should come to a vote. But while it drags put the Republicans through the gauntlet and make the most of it.

  • I definitely understand the idea of wanting the headline, the attention-grabber, of the Dems getting a watered-down version of the resolution passed (and have advocated in favor of taking positions for the headlines here before). But I really don’t think this is the time to take that position.

    I think that the war is too important – lord knows we have all railed on about it here – to take the easy road to compromise. Remember, the GOP has done no oversight, never asked a single question about anything, shut the Dems out of everything. Now they come demanding a compromise. I applaud Feingold for sticking to his guns on this. Make the Republicans take a position and hold their feet to the fire. With a strong resolution, the Dems can say boldly, here is our position. Allowing the Republicans political cover is unwise here.

  • The Democrats should rally behind the stronger resolution

    When they Republicans they compromised with ask them “Hey, I thought we decided on that other amended version. What happened?” the Democrats should just say, “We changed our minds. It wasn’t strongly worded enough.” That’s enough of an explanation.

  • In the Mini-Report, Racerx had this to say (about Molly Ivins) and I think it is appropriate here:

    RIP Molly. We will never see your like again, and I will honor your memory by doing whatever I can to make sure the Democrats pound wooden stakes through the slimeballs you went after with such flair. I will do as you asked in your final column:

    We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we’re for them and trying to get them out of there. Hit the streets to protest Bush’s proposed surge. If you can, go to the peace march in Washington on Jan. 27. We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, “Stop it, now!”

    Her editor speaks most eloquently of her:

    http://www.creators.com/opinion/molly-ivins.html?columnsName=miv

    Comment by Racerx — 2/1/2007 @ 5:59 pm

    Now I’m even more in favor of Russ Feingold holding out….

  • It’s been a long time since the Senate was able to “walk the walk” on it’s own two legs, without the aid of a crutch. Sometimes that crutch was on the Right—and sometimes, it was on the Left.

    But just as with one who is recuperating from a leg fracture, those first, tentative steps need to be cautious, and small. They might not even seem like steps to someone who remembers once having the stride of a thoroughbred horse—but those tiny steps are steps, just the same.

    And those tiny steps are the beginning of the road to full recovery, good health—and being able to stretch out and run—once again—like that thoroughbred….

  • Feingold was first, but he wasn’t alone.”
    The first and for a long time lonely voice for an immediate whithdrawl has been Dennis Kucinich.
    For some reason people seem to think if it ain’t done by a Senator it ain’t serious. An American House of Lords. Most are gasbags and nitwits.

  • My understanding is that the Levin-Warner resolution has language that prohibits withdrawing funding for the war as a tool of resolution on this catastrophe of genocidal proportions.

    Although, in many ways, I would like to see Bush get wacked politically with this, it does not make any difference. Bush will do what he wants to do in an even more petulant manner (if possible), and he has nothing personal to lose, the only thing that ever mattered to him all his life.

    There are some people whose instincts I respect because of their perspective, their political insight and knowlege. Since she is on my mind so much today, I say that if Molly Ivins was agin’ it, I’d be agin’ it. Now. we’ll never know. Russ Feingold is one of the few politicians I have ever observed whose instincts I trust explicitly. If Russ is agin’ it, so am I.

  • Wow. I regret I don’t have time to read all the comments and my apologies if my scanning did not get an accurate reading of the developing consensus. My sense is that I fall outside that consensus.

    I am glad that Feingold and Dodd are taking a stand. I will not hold it against them if they choose not to “hold their noses” and vote for something they feel is too weak. A non-binding resolution – even one sold as a “first step” is a pretty anemic act. So, if that is the best our elected leaders can do, senators should stand where they feel they must. Perhaps Dodd and Feingold use their opposition to negotiate the addition of more “virtual” teeth to this toothless act. (I hold out no hope for this because these dweebs in the Senate are falling all over the asses of all their “good friends” to be “bipartisan”). I am no purist – far from it. But, the Criminal in the Whitehouse has made it clear that nothing short of pulling the funding plug is going to stop him. He will smirk and flip off whatever “headline” is generated. I don’t give a fig for the mathmatics of this resolution. The entire exercise is a farce.

    I am beginning to detest the almighty word “bipartisan” nearly as much as the monicker “Commander in Chief.” Both have become excuses to avoid true accountability. They all should go sell shoes.

  • I am really surprised no one has seen this the way I do. I believe Feingold is simply sincere. I believe Dodd is sincere, but ALSO using a political trick that Republicans have long used against the Democrats. (Nixon was a master of it.)
    By taking a position to the ‘left’ of the resolution, he is ‘providing cover’ for Republicans to join it. “See,” they can say, “we aren’t joining the ultra-liberals.” All of a sudden the resolution becomes ‘centrist.’ People like even a Jeff Sessions — who made some shockingly anti-war comments in his recent questioning — can afford to sign it.
    This one move, whether for priciple or politics makes me move Chris Dodd up the ladder as my choice for the Democratic nomination. (My first choice is Bill Richardson, now, but Dodd may be second. I still reject Hillary — and if she doesn’t fire Terry McAuliffe for his comments on immigration, I will sign a pledge to vote 3rd party if she is nominated. And I still worry about Obama as a candidate, though I think he MIGHT make a good president.)

  • An Iraq “Facts for Funds” Agreement could avoid separation of powers issues, while meeting the needs of Congress, the Administration, and Iraq.
    .
    If the administration volunteers to testify without restriction on Iraq/ Iran/ War-on-Terror, Congress could authorize funds for the Mideast in such a way that the agreement would be voided if anyone in the administration refuses to answer questions or testifies untruthfully.
    .
    Congress and the public would get the truth, which would indirectly influence the administration toward a realistic policy. The administration would get bipartisan support, which would help make the policy work.
    .

    • Comments are closed.