Following up on yesterday’s item, the [tag]Senate[/tag] took up a measure to remove a [tag]withdrawal[/tag] timetable from the spending package that pays for the [tag]war[/tag] in [tag]Iraq[/tag]. As recently as a few days ago, [tag]Republicans[/tag] appeared confident that they had the votes. They didn’t.
Senate Democrats scored a surprise victory yesterday in their bid to force President Bush to end the Iraq war, turning back a Republican amendment that would have struck a troop withdrawal plan from emergency military funding legislation.
The defection of a prominent Republican war critic, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, sealed the Democrats’ win. Hagel, who opposed identical withdrawal language two weeks ago, walked onto the Senate floor an hour before the late-afternoon vote and announced that he would “not support sustaining a flawed and failing policy,” adding: “It’s now time for the Congress to step forward and establish responsible boundaries and conditions for our continued military involvement in Iraq.”
Democratic leaders think the 50 to 48 victory greatly strengthens their negotiating position as they prepare to face down a White House that yesterday reiterated its threat of a presidential [tag]veto[/tag]. The Senate vote was also the first time since Democrats took control of Congress in January that a majority of lawmakers have supported binding legislation to bring U.S. troops home.
I appreciate that there’s some general impatience with Congress, particularly since the election, and its inability to take a firm stand against the president’s misguided war policy. We hear the legitimate explanations — the Democratic majority is too narrow, congressional Dems are divided amongst themselves, too few Republicans will listen to reason — but wonder when something substantive is going to happen.
Yesterday, it did. The House and Senate, after extensive behind-the-scenes work, are sending the White House an unmistakable message: Bush doesn’t get a blank check and he doesn’t get an open-ended war.
The WaPo described this as a “surprise” win for Dems, and to a real extent, it was. Just two weeks ago, the Senate considered a similar measure with withdrawal language and Dems came up several votes short. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken.), as recently as Monday morning, told reporters that he expected a similar outcome.
But a few changes of heart mattered a great deal. The full roll-call vote list is here, but Sen. [tag]Chuck Hagel[/tag] (R-Neb.) deserves kudos for his vote for a change. For months, if not years, he’d talk tough on the Sunday morning talk-shows, but on the floor, Hagel has voted, albeit reluctantly, with his caucus. This time, he and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) actually followed-through on their commitments and took a stand against the president’s policy. It’s about time.
As for the big picture, yesterday’s victory gives Democratic leaders leverage in negotiating with the White House.
Speaking to reporters, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) was conciliatory, but only to a point: “We ought to reach out to the president and say, ‘Mr. President, this is not a unilateral government. It is a separation of powers, and the Congress of the United States . . . has taken some action. You obviously disagree with that. Where are the areas of compromise?’ ”
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said he was skeptical about proceeding too quickly. “Of course, we should reach out to the White House, and I’m happy to do that,” he said. But, he added: “They have been very uncooperative to this point. Hopefully, they will cooperate with us.” Referring to the president, he said, “I would like to have a bill that he wouldn’t veto.”
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said, “When it comes to the war in Iraq, the American people have spoken, the House and Senate have spoken. Now, we hope the president is listening.”
It would be out of character for him, but we can hope. At this point, it’s a debate he’s losing. Badly.