Senate Vote on Bush Plan for Iraq: Painful Timing for Republicans
The bipartisan measure, which is sponsored by Senators Joe Biden (D-DE), Carl Levin (D-MI), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) is slated for Foreign Relations Committee vote next Wednesday, the day after the President's State of the Union address, and soon after, is expected to be put to full Senate vote.
Read this cut-to-the-chase resolution at Text of Senate Resolution S.CON.RES.2 on Iraq War Policy.
While the measure is a non-binding "Sense of the Senate" bill (read About "Sense of Congress" Resolutions), this vote is awkward and politically embarrassing for Senate Republicans for two reasons:
1. Most Republicans will be on record as voting to support the Bush plan to escalate the Iraq War, a move strongly opposed by the American public; and2. Of the Senate's 49 Republicans, 21 of their seats are up for reelection in 2008.
Yup... fully 64% of all 2008 Senate races involve incumbent Republicans, and it couldn't come at a worse time for them. Or a more advantageous time for Democrats, who hope to tighten their tenuous contol of the Senate.
Actually, one Republican senator has already begged off a 2008 run: Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado.
And at least 5 others are expected to face troubled runs: Susan Collins (R-ME), Norm Coleman (R-MN) and John Sununu (R-NH), all from Democratic blue states; Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), who chaired the failed 2006 Senate Republican reelection committee; and James Inhofe (R-OK), the former chair of the Senate environment Committee who famously claimed that there is "compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax."
And two of the crankiest, and most senior, members of the Senate... long-time Republican Senators Ted Stevens of Alaska and Pete Domenici of New Mexico... are also up for reelection in 2008.
Of course, I'm pleased that all senators will be required to publicly state whether they support or oppose the Bush Administration's disastrous plan to escalate the Iraq War.
Americans deserve to know exactly where their elected representatives stand on what Republican Senator Chuck Hagel terms "a dangerously wrong-headed strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp" and "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam."
And hopefully, Americans will vote these blind-and-deaf supporters of the Iraq War out of office.
Just like they did in 2006 when U.S. voters tossed 6 incumbent Republicans out of the Senate.
Recommended Reading
Text of Senate Resolution S.CON.RES.2 on Iraq War Policy
Profile of U.S. Senator Joe Biden, Chair of Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Speaker Pelosi, Sen. Reid Send Letter to Bush: "No Troop Surge in Iraq"
New York Times, Jan 18, 2007: Measure in Senate Urges No Troop Rise in Iraq
Additional Recommended Reading
New York Times, Jan 11, 2007: Promising Troops Where They Aren't Really Wanted
New York Times, Jan 7, 2007: Bomb's Lasting Toll: Lost Laughter and Broken Lives
Comments
Thank you for an interesting post. Isn’t Joe Biden on record as saying
“There is nothing a United States Senate can do to stop a president from conducting his war”? [from the Washington Post as recorded at http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3707. He would seem a strange one to lead the charge against the fantasy invasion.
I do not want to shoot at friendly forces, but I cannot help but think that, if they really wanted to end the occupation, they would push through a bill cutting funding for it. Too many political efforts by those on the left of the American spectrum have been dashed by the mellowed/compromised efforts of ’seasoned’ politicians. Last I knew, the power of the purse was a power granted to the Congress by Section 8 of the Constitution. Or, dare I ask, did that go the way of habeas corpus?
Ali, you’re a great credit to the About network, I think. Loved your post in my MLK thread, and your post here is equally insightful.
In political terms, something like 40% of Americans support cutting funding for the war and 52% believe troops should be funded as long as it’s in effect. The problem–and this is, I believe, what made Kerry’s vote against the $87B such a serious political liability–is that Bush will continue to go to war, funding or no funding. If funding is cut, he’ll simply make the troops go without body armor and other appropriate gear–he has already demonstrated his willingness to do this–and Congress will be blamed for it.
A better option, I believe, would be censure and threat of impeachment. That’s even less popular right now, but it would not give Bush an excuse to put more troops’ lives in danger.
Cheers,
TH