Politics Ties Up Debate in Senate About Iraq Impasse Surprises Even Some Lawmakers

By Carl Hulse

At a time when even President George W. Bush acknowledges that the war in Iraq is sapping the nation’s spirit, the Senate has tied itself up in procedural knots rather than engage in a debate on Iraq policy.

Given the influence that voter frustration with Iraq had on the November elections, the national unease with the mounting human and financial costs and the raw passion on all sides, even some lawmakers say they are astounded that the buildup to the Senate fight over Bush’s proposed troop increase has produced such a letdown.

“It just floors me,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar, a freshman Democrat from Minnesota who campaigned against the war, as the two parties pointed fingers Tuesday. The day before, the Senate had proved unable to agree on a plan for even beginning debate on a bipartisan resolution opposing the administration strategy.

“People in Minnesota, when they see a debate we should be having – whatever side they are on – blocked by partisan politics, they don’t like it,” Klobuchar said.

Democrats’ inability to pull together more than 49 of the 60 votes needed to break a procedural impasse on the resolution opposing Bush’s plan was a product of many competing agendas.

There was the Democrats’ desire to avoid getting tied up on any vote that could be perceived as undercutting U.S. troops or endorsing Bush’s plan. And a surprising number of Republicans showed that they were not yet ready to abandon the president, even though many blame him for their election losses in November and worry that he will hurt them again next year.

Then there were the presidential ambitions of several senators who are trying to distinguish themselves from others on the issue and have little incentive to seek common ground.

By the end of Tuesday, the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, said he saw little prospect that Democrats and Republicans could reach agreement on a plan to take the resolution to the floor. “The negotiations are over,” said Reid, who dismissed Republican efforts to force a separate vote on war funding as a ploy intended to distract the public from the issue of senators’ support for or oppose to the president’s policy.

Republicans spent the day trying to counter the idea that they had been obstructionists in impeding the debate. It was a label they had successfully hung on Democrats for years, and they did not appreciate the role reversal.

They said their main goal had been to ensure that the Senate could guarantee in a separate resolution that Congress would not endanger forces in the field by restricting spending in the future.

“I can’t believe that any parent, any husband, wife, son, daughter of any soldier serving in Iraq doesn’t expect the Congress to take that position,” said Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, who had made some retooled overtures to Democrats to try to break the deadlock.

But the lingering impasse forced the hand of House Democrats, who had become increasingly impatient waiting for the Senate to weigh in on the president’s troop plan. Unwilling to wait any longer, the Democratic leadership said it would set aside three days next week to deliver its own verdict on the administration strategy.

“The reason we’re going ahead is not because we don’t think the Senate will ever act,” said the majority leader, Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, “but we’re not sure when the Senate is going to act.”

Democrats believed they had successfully pinned most of the blame for the breakdown on Republicans and were more than happy to have the fight end for the moment, leaving the opposition trying to explain the complex Senate rules and the Republican unwillingness to go ahead.

“We have the high ground here,” said Senator Charles Schumer of New York, who is chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “We have the high ground substantively. We have the high ground politically. We’re not going to give it up.”

But some Republicans suggested that the public might grow frustrated with such political crowing. “I think most Americans view this as political theater, that it is more about us than supporting the troops,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

The Senate fight also exposed a weakness for the Democrats, one that will become more pronounced as the Senate moves from its inability to take up a nonbinding resolution that makes a statement about administration policy to more consequential votes on war spending.

Republicans had laid a bit of a trap for Democrats, seeking a 60- vote threshold for competing resolutions on the war.

They knew that the bipartisan plan by Senators John Warner, Republican of Virginia, and Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, did not have 60 votes. But the plan calling for no reductions in spending, written by Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, was likely to get at least 60 – meaning that the only resolution that would have passed would have been one that essentially backed the president.

Most Democrats are not yet ready to begin the politically charged discussion of restricting war spending. “There isn’t a Democrat here that wants to take monies away from the troops,” Reid said.

Democrats said that Republicans were simply trying to dodge the chief question at hand and that if Republicans had not had the financing proposal, they would have found something else to bog down the proceedings.

And there is little doubt that some Republicans are determined to save the president an embarrassing loss while others are just as determined to deny the Democrats a symbolic win.

Still, there was some evidence that the debate was moving beyond the bottled-up resolution.

Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois and a Democratic presidential candidate, renewed his call to begin redeploying troops in May.

And pressure from activist groups intensified on Democrats to take concrete steps like capping troop levels or blocking funds for new troops.

Ultimately, one senator said, lawmakers may discover that the rules of engagement for debating Iraq are not fully within their control.

“The reality in Iraq sets its own time limits, sets its own dimensions,” said Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island. “If it continues to be chaotic, it will accelerate calls for this vote – and calls for even more.”

(c) 2007 International Herald Tribune. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.