Republicans Plan to Block Iraq Debate

The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, in the Capitol with fellow Republican Senators Jon Kyl, left, and Trent Lott, right. Carol T. Powers/Bloomberg News

The headline just says it all here--talk about hilarious! The story is from The New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 — Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said Friday that his party would unite to block Senate debate next week on a bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq unless the Democrats allowed votes on at least two Republican alternatives.

Mr. McConnell said even Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who is the chief author of the bipartisan proposal, and other Republicans backing his plan had agreed to prevent the resolution from reaching the floor Monday if Democrats did not agree to that demand.

“We’re in a position to insist on a procedure for considering these matters that we think is fair to us,” said Mr. McConnell, who has been negotiating the framework of the debate with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader. “We can’t dictate the outcome necessarily, but we’re insistent upon a process that we are comfortable with.”

Mr. Reid responded that the Republican leadership was essentially filibustering a debate of Iraq policy to avoid a judgment on Mr. Bush.

The poor Senate Republicans--them mean old Democrats, who control the Senate, are not allowing the Republicans to make their own minority voice be heard for supporting the troops. What is so funny about this is that the resolution that is getting the most support from both Democrats and Republicans is the Warner resolution. But the Republicans don't want to place this resolution on the floor of the Senate unless they can add even more of their own resolutions, thus muddying the waters of this Bush troop surge criticism. According to the Times:

Lawmakers and senior Senate officials said they believed that an agreement would ultimately be worked out, since Republicans do not want to risk being accused of shutting off criticism of Mr. Bush on such a major issue, while Democrats are eager to get Republicans on the record on the troop increase.

Mr. McConnell’s threat also reflects the Republican leadership’s strategy to force a Senate review of a series of competing resolutions, muddying the outcome with multiple votes, rather than allow the focus to be on a central proposal objecting to the troop buildup.

[....]

Senate Republicans have also been squeamish about Mr. Reid’s decision to debate the Iraq policy in the form of legislation, which would be sent to the president if passed as such. They see such a move as overly confrontational, even though Mr. Reid has said the Senate will ultimately convert the proposal to a resolution to avoid having to send it to the White House.

The Democrats want to get the Republicans on record as to whether they support the Bush administration's troop surge or not. In doing so, the Democrats could then use this resolution against the Republicans during the 2008 elections. The Republicans don't want to fall into this trap. They don't want to be placed on record as to being forced to either support or oppose the president on this troop surge--especially since a majority of Americans oppose the Bush surge plan, and events are spiraling way out of control in Iraq. So what do we get? We get this Republican demand to introduce two other resolutions into the debate:

Republicans say they want votes on at least two alternatives. One is a resolution made public Thursday by Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Joseph I. Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut, among other lawmakers. Mr. McCain and Mr. Lieberman support the president’s plan to increase troops.

Their resolution lays out 11 goals the Iraqi government should meet, including disarming militias and distributing Iraqi resources without regard to religious sect. It declares that Congress should ensure that American forces “have the resources they consider necessary to carry out their mission.” The resolution does not say what the United States should do if the Iraqi government does not meet the goals.

A second likely alternative would be a Republican-backed resolution opposing any cutoff of money for added troops, a potentially tougher vote for some Democrats who want to retain that as a future option.

You've got to love the GOP resolutions--one resolution introduced by two of Bush's staunchest war supporters McCain and Lieberman demanding that both the Iraqi government meet certain goals in the war, and that Congress continue supporting Bush's war. The second resolution calls for Congress not to cut off funding to the troops. In other words, the Republicans want to place the Democrats on record as to selling out the troops and losing the war in Iraq--the Democrats are unpatriotic! They are not allowing Bush win the war in Iraq! The Democrats don't support the troops! The Democrats are aiding the terrorists. And you can bet that the Republicans will use these resolutions against the Democrats during the 2008 elections.

The real wildcard here is going to be the Iraq war itself. The NIE summary that was released yesterday shows that Iraq is continuing to descend into chaos. The Bush administration is grasping at optimistic straws in hoping that the situation could improve with its troop surge plan. The problem is that the events of Iraq have left the Bush administration's optimistic plans in the trash heap long ago. By the time the 2008 elections roll around, the Republican resolutions demanding support for the troops may end up being meaningless.

More to come.