Washington – Republicans blocked a Senate debate and vote on the war in Iraq on Monday, stalling consideration of a resolution opposing President Bush’s plans to send 21,500 more U.S. troops to patrol the streets of Baghdad.
“You can run, but you can’t hide. … We are going to debate Iraq,” a frustrated Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, told his Republican foes. The Democrats who control the Senate “are not going to allow the situation in Iraq to continue.”
But Reid was beaten, 49-47, on the vote to stop a Republican filibuster. Without any GOP help, the Democrats fell far short of the 60 votes needed to cut off the filibuster and move toward a roll call on the resolution.
Republicans acknowledged that their party is divided on Iraq and that a number of GOP senators would join with the Democrats on the bipartisan resolution of disapproval if it comes to a vote. But the Republicans hung together and sustained their filibuster as a demonstration of solidarity.
“We’re not trying to stop this debate,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. “We are trying to structure it in a way that is fair to the divergent voices” in the Republican caucus.
Bush’s supporters sought a stand-alone vote on a measure that would put the Senate on record in opposition to a future cutoff of funding for U.S. troops in Iraq. The president’s critics are willing to vote on that issue, but only in the context of a broader resolution rejecting Bush’s plans for 21,500 more combat troops and thousands of additional support personnel.
As Reid and McConnell negotiated in private Monday afternoon, senators from both parties arrived at the chamber ready to debate the war. Many filled the time before the filibuster vote by speaking on the president’s proposal anyway.
Among the more caustic critics of Bush’s strategy were Republicans, some of whom have joined with the Democrats as authors of the bipartisan resolution of disapproval.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., was decorated for bravery and wounded in battle when serving in the infantry in the Vietnam War.
He said a Senate debate and vote was overdue and criticized the reasoning of colleagues who object because it might undermine morale among the U.S. forces in Iraq.
“In 1968 … the troops, the ones at the bottom doing the fighting, doing the dying, would have welcomed … somebody paying attention instead of just going along,” Hagel said. Open debate “is the strength of America, not the weakness of America.”
But Bush had at least one outspoken supporter in the Democratic ranks: Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
“The resolution before us … will not stop the new strategy from going forward. As we speak, thousands of troops are already in Baghdad,” Lieberman said. The Senate’s actions will encourage “thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and … al-Qaeda terrorists eager for evidence that America’s will is breaking.”
“This is a resolution of irresolution,” Lieberman said, “a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle. … It pledges its support to the troops in the field but washes its hand of what they are doing.”
Lieberman’s words spurred a response from Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia, a co- author of the bipartisan resolution of disapproval.
He chastised Lieberman for impugning the patriotism of those who support the U.S. goals in the fight against terrorism but believe Bush administration blunders have bungled the job.
In the end, however, Warner and Hagel and other GOP critics of Bush’s escalation stuck with their fellow Republicans on the procedural vote of cutting off the filibuster. Only Lieberman crossed party lines, voting with the Republicans.
Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., voted with his party, and Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., with the Democrats.
Staffing the Baghdad buildup
The U.S. and Iraqi militaries have for months been preparing a massive security initiative aimed at quelling daily violence in Baghdad. The U.S. military said Monday that the command structure and personnel leading the effort have been established. However, the additional U.S. troops have only begun to arrive. 2A
