Chuck Hagel and Sam Brownback both voted against debating the escalation of the Iraq war today. The vote was on cloture for the Warner-Levin resolution – a non-binding objection to the escalation of the war. Every single Republican, save Norm Coleman and Susan Collins, voted in support of President Bush and John McCain’s plan to send tens of thousands of more Americans to Iraq. Hagel and Brownback had both garnered much attention in their opposition to the escalation, but neither had the courage to codify their objections in the form of a vote to even debate the war (John McCain did not vote).
Chuck “Not A Maverick” Hagel had previously said that refusing to debate Iraq was weak, yet today refused to debate Iraq. Kos notes that by Hagel’s own logical construction, he is “weak.”
Today’s vote is as clear a reminder as any that the Republican field of candidates does not want to block the escalation of the war in Iraq, let alone end it. The whole lot of them must be hoping that by November of 2008 no Americans will care about the war and the continued failure of the Bush administration to either win the war or keep our troops safe in Iraq. Hagel and McCain have laid claim to the war. It is now theirs just as much as it is Bush’s or McCain’s. They shall be judged accordingly.
Technorati Tags: Chuck Hagel, Iraq, Sam Brownback
13 Responses to “Hagel, Brownback Fall In Line On Iraq”
This is more proof that Bush will bring the GOP down with him.
Who votes against their own resolution? Only Senators that have been ‘gotten’ to.
At this rate, nobody will re-elect a Republican to office.
People should look into what “cloture” actually means. Hagel was not somehow voting against the very resolution he’s been supporting. It’s clear from his remarks in the Senate yesterday that he is expecting the Majority and Minority leaders to work out a procedure to debate and vote on the Warner-Levin resolution and that he still supports that resolution.
If anyone wants to get mad about the debate (or lack thereof) in the Senate, my suggestion would be to pressure Reid and McConnell rather than toss around wild accusations about Hagel.
I enjoy “The Colbert Report” as much as anybody, so I understand that Wikipedia can be manipulated. But, to quote Wikipedia:
“In parliamentary procedure, cloture (pr: KLO-cher) (also called closure, and sometimes a guillotine) is a motion or process aimed at bringing debate to a quick end.”
“After cloture has been invoked, the following restrictions apply:
* No more than thirty hours of debate may occur.
* No Senator may speak for more than one hour.
etc.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture
“As form of obstructionism in a legislature or other decision making body, a filibuster is an attempt to extend debate upon a proposal in order to delay or completely prevent a vote on its passage. The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a supermajority group of 60 Senators brings debate to a close by invoking cloture.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F....._tactic%29
In fact, yesterday’s remarks by Hagel in the Senate included remarks both supporting the resolution and debating his colleagues (a video of these remarks can be found at http://hagel2008.blogspot.com/). While invoking cloture would have forced all of the Senate to immediately deal with and vote on the Warner/Levin resolution, not invoking it does not somehow block all debate on the matter.
I still maintain that this cloture motion is simply part of the tactics of how the debate on this and other Iraq resolutions will go forward. We (and I believe Senator Hagel as well) want to have the Senate pass a resolution against the President’s troop surge—it just takes some maneuvering in order to make it happen.
I should have realized earlier (it would have been helpful for my earlier comments) that Reid himself voted against the cloture motion, as can be seen by clicking the first link in the original post. This further confirms my point about political tactics regarding this resolution; Reid is not being “weak” about debating the issue, I’m pretty sure.
My point was not that Reid has been (or should be) accused of anything. My point was that a “no” vote does not automatically equal being “weak” on the resolution.
It gets back to the main point of the original post: the claim that “Today’s vote is as clear a reminder as any that the Republican field of candidates does not want to block the escalation of the war in Iraq, let alone end it, etc.” I do not think that this has been proven. There’s plenty of opportunity left for debate and a vote on the resolution, there’s nothing to say that the vote cannot happen fairly soon, and (as we agree) Hagel should end up voting for the resolution (something we can be happy about).
Let’s see how the maneuvering goes over the next few days.
Yes, Reid’s vote was procedural; in case some of the other readers didn’t know, my current understanding is that Reid voted “yes” then changed to “no” in order to reintroduce the motion later in accordance with the Senate’s rules. Again, this shows that a “no” vote on the cloture motion does not equal a “no” vote on the resolution or necessarily indicate some kind of attempt to silence debate on it.
For purposes of discussion, let’s assume that Hagel is not being a hypocrite or a weakling on the resolution, and let me put myself in the shoes of Hagel as things stood on Monday. As Hagel, I’m pretty sure of a majority on the resolution, but most of the people in that majority are from the other party, there’s probably not 60 votes for the resolution, there’s my own party’s pressure to vote against cloture at this time, and Reid and McConnell are publically claiming to be negotiating in good faith for a way for all of the resolutions to be debated and voted upon. So, I’m probably looking to boost support for the resolution from within my party, with the particular goal of getting at least 60 solid (i.e., predictable) votes. I could vote for the cloture motion. But, it still wouldn’t pass, and doing so might alienate some of the very people I’m trying to win over. On the other hand, if I vote against it I might look somewhat bad. But, I also would have some time and goodwill towards winning over some of my fellow Republicans for the resolution, knowing that there will be increasing political pressure to get the resolution voted on soon. And, I could use the opportunity in the debate on the cloture motion to make my pitch for the resolution itself (as he actually did; see the video on the website I linked to above).
As for how the process might go forward, I do not think the Senate rules require that a cloture motion has to be passed in order for the resolution to be voted on. Again, Reid and McConnell might agree to an orderly procedure for further debate and a vote (or votes). If the negotiations between them are indeed deadlocked right now, then there are various pressures that can be brought to bear. For instance, the House is going forward on an Iraq resolution, and this might persuade the Senate to go forward out of a sense of institutional pride. There are a few resolutions and bills that are being floated about which might affect negotiations. There is the pressure from the people who are writing some of these senators and telling them to move forward. And, if I were Hagel, I might be trying to work behind the scenes towards getting a solid 60 votes for both cloture and the resolution itself, so that if the votes were there another cloture motion—one that could pass—could be introduced if McConnell ends up being too stubborn.
As a followup, see this story about Hagel, Warner and others protesting the stalling being done by Reid and McConnell:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/.....646869.htm
An excerpt:
“Seven Senate Republicans on Wednesday blasted their own leaders and Democrats for stalling the debate on the resolution to oppose President Bush’s plans to send more troops to Iraq, and they vowed in a letter to push through a vote one way or another.
‘The current stalemate is unacceptable to us and to the people of this country,’ said the letter signed by Sens. John Warner of Virginia, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Norm Coleman of Minnesota and George Voinovich of Ohio. ‘We will explore all of our options.’”
And later in the story:
“In the letter Wednesday, the senators said their Monday votes ’should not be interpreted as any lessening of our resolve’ to advocate against a troop increase.”
Something to say?
GOP Presidential candidate John Cox Opposes Bush’s Proposed Troop Surge for Iraq;
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Contact: Stephen Abbott, communications director, 603-391-5138
John Cox, the first announced Republican presidential candidate, released the following statement this evening:
“Pres. Bush’s plan for a ’surge’ in troops to Iraq and an additional $1 billion or more in taxpayer handouts is the wrong approach and will not lead to victory.
The people of Iraq live in economic despair every day. They lack hope, and many are turning to terror and violence as a result.
Sending more American soldiers into Fallujah with virtual targets on their backs fails to address the economic realities on the ground.
Simply sending more troops and another billion dollars of taxpayer money to Iraq is foolish and wasteful, and will not solve the economic problems of the Iraqi people.
Lifting people and the economy up out of the chaos they are in must be part of the solution.
I have called on Pres. Bush to implement what I call “Operation Economic Opportunity” to ensure that nation’s oil capacity is brought fully online, so they can sell oil on the open market and build their own schools, roads and military – with their own money.
We must get our troops off the streets and get them guarding the oil pipelines and refineries immediately.
We must reform the government bureaucracy in Iraq that is keeping funds from reaching the rebuilding projects that they so desperately need.
Productive, happy and gainfully employed people do not turn to terrorism.
In a nation of 25 million people, an estimated $75 billion more in annual oil revenue could lift the nation out of poverty, and bring hope and prosperity to a nation sitting on an ocean of oil.
By building up the Iraqi’s economy by returning oil production to full capacity, they can become self-sufficient, and then we can leave, knowing we have ensured a lasting peace.
We must give economic hope to the Iraqi people. America can give them hope for the future through economic opportunity and the personal and financial rewards that brings.
The Iraqi people must feel they have a share in their nation’s prosperity and success. Only then will we be able to leave that nation, knowing we have made it a shining star in the region and an example for others to follow.”
*******************************************
Join the Team Today
Cox2008.com
Left by Colton
February 6, 2007 at 8:25am