California Conservative

This afternoon, Senate Republicans successfully filibustered Harry Reid’s attempt to limit debate on non-binding resolutions to the Biden-Warner resolution. Here’s how USA Today described the filibuster:

Republicans blocked a full-fledged Senate debate over Iraq on Monday, but Democrats vowed they would eventually find a way to force President Bush to change course in a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops. “We must heed the results of the November elections and the wishes of the American people,” said Majority Leader Harry Reid.

I’d ask USA Today if they’d define “full-fledged Senate debate” as one that said “We’re debating a resolution that’s anti-victory” or if “full-fledged Senate debate” meant debating several resolutions, including a pro-victory resolution. It seems to me that debating the terms of American defeat isn’t full-fledged debate. It’s a debate over whether we’re spineless wimps who cave to biased public opinion polls or if we’re courageous people fighting for the enduring principles of liberty and self-determination.

Here’s why Reid doesn’t want a true debate:

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky described the test vote as merely a “bump in the road” that could possibly be overcome within hours. GOP lawmakers “welcome the debate and are happy to have it,” he said, adding they were insisting on equal treatment for an alternative measure expected to draw strong support. The proposal, by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., says Congress should neither cut nor eliminate funding for troops in the field. That measure takes no position on the war or the president’s decision to deploy additional forces.

In other words, the filibuster would disappear if there was a debate over whether the Senate was pro-victory or defeatist. That seems like a big enough thing for the Senate to debate. I suspect that America would be interested in listening to that debate. Instead, Dingy Harry doesn’t think we should debate it because they want to have it both ways. That’s exactly what Joe Lieberman accused them of:

The resolution before us, its sponsors concede, will not stop the new strategy from going forward. As we speak, thousands of troops are already in Baghdad, with thousands more moving into position to carry out their Commander’s orders. This resolution does nothing to alter these facts.

Instead, its sponsors say it will send a message of rebuke from the Senate to the president, from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. But there is a world beyond Pennsylvania Avenue that is watching and listening.

What we say here is being heard in Baghdad by Iraqi moderates, trying to decide whether the Americans will stand with them. We are being heard by our men and women in uniform, who will be interested to know whether we support the plan they have begun to carry out. We are being heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and by Al Qaeda terrorists, eager for evidence that America’s will is breaking. And we are being heard across America by our constituents, who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not just hollow posturing.

This resolution is not about Congress taking responsibility. It is the opposite. It is a resolution of irresolution.

For the Senate to take up a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle is unprecedented, but it is not inconsequential. It is an act which, I fear, will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies, and showcase our disunity. And that is why I will vote against cloture.

If you believe that General Petraeus and his new strategy have a reasonable chance of success in Iraq, then you should resolve to support him and his troops through the difficult days ahead. On the other hand, if you believe that this new strategy is flawed or that our cause is hopeless in Iraq, then you should vote to stop it. Vote to cut off funds. Vote for a binding timeline for American withdrawal. If that is where your convictions lie, then have the courage of your convictions to accept the consequences of your convictions. That would be a resolution.

The non-binding measure before us, by contrast, is an accumulation of ambiguities and inconsistencies. It is at once for the war but also against the war. It pledges its support to the troops in the field but also washes its hands of what they are doing. It approves more troops for Anbar but not for Baghdad.

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in General Petraeus, but no confidence in his strategy. We cannot say that the troops have our full support, but disavow their mission on the eve of battle. This is what happens when you try to wage war by committee. That is why the Constitution gave that authority to the President as Commander in Chief.

Cynics may say this kind of thing happens all of the time in Congress. In this case, however, they are wrong. If it passed, this resolution would be unique in American legislative history. I contacted the Library of Congress on this question last week and was told that, never before, when American soldiers have been in harm’s way, fighting and dying in a conflict that Congress had voted to authorize, has Congress turned around and passed a resolution like this, disapproving of a particular battlefield strategy.

I’ve long believed that Joe Lieberman was a genuine American hero. After reading his speech, I’m resolute in my belief that he’s a man of principle, courage and steadfastness. More importantly, he’s a man with the facts on his side. Contacting the Library of Congress about the history of resolutions similar to the Biden-Warner resolution gives these mice amongst men no cover whatsoever.

Frankly, I don’t know why Sens. Reid, Levin and Warner would want to continue this debate after Lieberman’s speech. I wouldn’t want to be fighting against a man as patriotic, well-informed and well-respected as Sen. Lieberman. That’s a fight you couldn’t win because Sen. Lieberman takes national security issues seriously.

Sen. Lieberman’s speech also put the spotlight on people like Hillary and Obama. They’re straddling the political equivalent of a electric barbwire fence with both feet on banana peels. They’re essentially caught in no man’s land. If their policies prevail, whatever the specifics, they’re cast as unilaterally surrendering the war. If the President’s policy prevails, they’re wrong on the biggest issue of this generation.

Contrast that with Rudy Giuliani’s interview with Sean Hannity:

Giuliani: I think he could go back and as we develop positions and explain things I think it’s quite appropriate to explain well I might have done it this way or more troops, I might have done it some other way. But here’s reality. We’re at war. And we’re at war because they’re at war with us. I mean sometimes when you listen to these debates in congress and listen to politicians debating, you get the impression that they think we’re in control of whether we’re at war or not. It doesn’t matter what we think. They want to come here and kill us. And they did on September 11th. And they did a long time before September 11th. Way back in 1993 they came to this city and killed people. So we’ve got to put Iraq in the context of a much broader picture than just Iraq. And getting Iraq correctly, in other words, getting stability there is real important. And I support what the President has asked for support to do and what general Petraeus has asked for support to do. Not because there’s any guarantee it’s going to work. There’s never a guarantee at war. But if we can come out with a correct solution or better solution that Iraq it’s going to make the war on terror go better. We got to get beyond Iraq.

Notice that Mayor Giuliani gets it. He understands that this isn’t just about Iraq. He knows that it’s about all the different pieces of the puzzle. Iraq is definitely a major piece to the puzzle but Iran and al Qa’ida are big pieces of that puzzle, too. His statement that “sometimes when you listen to these debates in Congress and listen to politicians debating, you get the impression that they think we’re in control of whether we’re at war or not” is a shot across Hillary’s bow. It’s a direct shot at her, saying that she doesn’t have a serious position on the war. She’s talked about it but it isn’t a serious position.

Democrats will lose ground on this issue if the debate is about whether there should be a full-fledged debate like Republicans want or if Democrats should be allowed to ram a defeatist resolution down Republicans’ throats. That won’t play well with the American people because the vast majority of them are pro-victory and because they believe in full debate, not a staged, tactical limited debate.

Technorati Tags: Media Bias, Defeatocrats, Hillary, Obama, Joe Lieberman, McCain, Giuliani, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 6th, 2007 at 12:37 am and is filed under Author: Gary Gross, Election 2008, Iran, Iraq, Middle East, Military, Subversives, Terrorism, W. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.