Yesterday, I was breakfasting in Manhattan, reading the complimentary New York Times that my Midtown hotel laid neatly on the floor outside my door every morning (except Sunday -- God forbid they spend a few extra dollars on guests spending $300 a night).
On the front page was a photo of a room full of cots, lined up like grave stones at Arlington cemetery, in case our senators needed rest during the all-night debate that Majority Leader Harry Reid had planned. The NYT headline was "Democrats Lack Support to Force Vote on Pull-Out" (a reference to withdrawing troops from Iraq, not the moronic method of contraception).
That headline blamed the mostly Democratic senators who are actually trying to end the Iraq war, as though they failed to force their colleagues to support our troops by supporting troop-withdrawal.
The NYT headline should have been: Certain Senators Talk the Talk, Then Fail to Get it Up at Crunch Time.
Less than four weeks ago, Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) publicly blasted President Bush's long-failing Iraq war strategy -- even wrote a letter to Bush. How did Voinovich respond to Reid's attempt to force a troop-withdrawal vote?
About senate Democrats, Voinovich said: "You wonder if they are more interested in politics than dealing with the substance of this." Upon reading this, I coughed up orange juice, compelling my teen-aged nephew to laugh up cheese danish.
Less than two weeks ago, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) publicly gave detailed criticism of Bush's Iraq war strategy. Sen. John Warner (R-VA) publicly applauded Lugar's stance.
Where did Lugar and Warner stand yesterday? They had a plan, of the Maxwell Smart caliber: "force" Bush to reconsider his Iraq strategy (whatever that means) through a non-binding vote. Let me get this straight. Our bellicose President wants to stay in Iraq for 50 years and he's itching to bomb Iran (though, he's leaving it to others to publicly advocate attacking Iran). Clearly, our Commander in Chief is detonator happy, yet a non-binding senate vote will compel him to withdraw troops?
Yesterday, Reid swayed some of his Republican colleagues to force troop withdrawal but not enough: the vote to break the filibuster was 52 to 47, eight votes shy of what was needed to force a vote on troop withdrawal (Washington Post). What are his opponents saying? That Reid (and the Democrats) are merely playing politics.
Given that more than 60% of the American public opposes the Iraq war, it seems reasonable for Reid to force every senator to at least go on record as either supporting or opposing Bush's war. I'm not saying that all-out troop withdrawal right now is the answer, but allowing politicians to hide behind congressional procedures does not serve the public.
According to WaPo, the failure to bring troop withdrawal to a vote yesterday will give Bush another 60 days to "make his case that the war is making progress" (despite an avalanche of evidence to the contrary).
Sixty days? Since Bush started the Iraq war, we've lost 3,600+ American soldiers. This year, alone, we've lost, on average, about 100 soldiers a month. How many more parents and spouses and children must mourn before our representatives in Congress grasp that we're not talking about mere numbers on a page?
I think certain GOP Senators would like a few non-binding resolution test runs so that they can get used to the taste of pride/crow.
Posted by: Dyre42 | July 19, 2007 at 03:55 PM
Well put!
Posted by: The Crux | July 19, 2007 at 11:14 PM