It seems to me, with as much credit as Webb got for his speech last night, we at least owe him the benefit of the doubt on this one.  It's not like he follows around Biden or anyone else like a toady.

Let's find out his explanation and see what we think of it.  We know he's no fan of escalation.

hearing and I kept hearing Biden say that there were 2 votes scheduled for the Committee

Does anyone know about the other one and what it was?

I caught the latter part of the Committee meeting on C-SPAN 3 about an hour or so ago.  I suspect it will re-air at some point today, and it is worth watching to hear the various Senators' cases regarding supporting/opposing the resolution (Webb, again, was very good).

Biden and Webb both mentioned that they wanted a clean resolution not layered with amendments to be voted on.  Biden also mentioned (Dodd was seated to his immediated left) that the amendments offered (Kerry also had an amendment) apparently would be re-visited down the road in the Committee.  

I could be mistaken, but I think the Dodd bill (he is the #2 Democrat on the Committee) will probably be brought up back up on its own.

I'm not sure such a bill would be constitutional. (?)

If I heard Biden's retort correctly, the vote could be construed to validate the status quo and allow Bush to not withdraw any troops.

I do not know if Dodd's proposed language would have that opening for Bush, but I would give Webb (and other Dem's not named Biden) the benefit of the doubt on an argument that Dodd's proposal would hamstring efforts at redeployment or withdrawal.

They have gone hand in hand since the first war was fought.   I think it is clear that some Democrats and Republicans who do not support the President on his plan, still do not want any part of the responsibility for the war, or its conduct, thrown at their feet.   Therefore, it is better to pass a resolution saying his plan stinks, than doing something to actually attempt to stop it.

Think about it.   What of Bush's plan is stopped?   What does he and every wingnut do next?  They say its not their fault the war is in the shape it is in, its the people that tied one hand behind Bush's back and stopped his plan before it could work(and just imagine how the plan will be portrayed over time if it were thwarted -  a year from now it will rank up there with plans drawn up by Washington, Sherman, Pershing, or Patton).

I also think some, and Webb may one of these, do not feel Congress has the authority, short of spending measures, to direct the President on the movement of troops during war time.  

Biden's running for President, and has his own bill.  The radio just said that his bill had been passed out of comittee, with a vote from its cosponsor, Hagel.  It's just political bullshit.  Biden wants his name on it, and Hagel wants his name on it, so they voted against Dodd's version.

Well, I was one of those Mfume guys, and while I was unpredictably disappointed in Mfume (didn't seem like his heart was in it), this was exactly what I expected and feared from Cardin.

I'm one of his constituents and will be on his case, but he, like Sen. Mikulski, is likely to be pretty people-proof.  Now if I owned a corporation ...

All you folks this morning yelling "Webb For President!!!"? Vote Biden. Heh.

At this point I have more confidence in Webb than in Dodd and I have no confidence at in Biden. I guess we have to go with the Senate we have not the Senate we would like to have.

Beats the heck out of me.  He sold Maryland by being anti-war from the start.  Yeah right.  May as well have voted for Steele.

With you, Robinpc.

I followed up on your suggestion and thanked Dodd for his bill.

Maybe the Dems are supporting a different measure. There are other anti-war resolutions being considered.  

Dodd's proposal, ostensibly capping the troop levels and requiring reauthorization before exceeding the cap, was genuinely flawed.  

1. It purports to tie the President's hands, but would require passage in the House and signature by the President.  Not. Gonna.  Happen.
   
2. The "cap" is, as Sen. Biden pointed out, not related to anything real, because the actual # of troops in Iraq shifts from month to month.
   
3. Actual increase in troops would be accomplished by simply retaining troops otherwise slated for rotation out, so the Dodd proposal would be impossible to enforce, even if adopted.
   
4. As drafted, it would have the appearance of ratifying current troop levels, which misses the entire point of the debate, which is not the size of the US involvement, but the direction of movement -- the public wants out, not in.
   
5. Further, by ratifying current levels of troop strength, it might even be read as ratifying continued involvement, despite the evaporation of the original justifications of the Use of Force Resolution.

IMHO, a quick and clean non-binding sense of the Senate (or even Joint) Resolution makes the point, moves the argument forward, and sets the stage for more forceful action.  

I cant't see the light, but I know it's a tunnel,
and the shouting up ahead is encouraging.

was a nakedly political ploy to garner headlines and give a boost to his flagging presidential bid.

There are already several bills circulating. Dodd could've signed on to one of those. Instead, he didn't bother seeking consensus and pushed ahead hoping to earn political support.

MoveOn, for example, refused to sign on to the Dodd bill since they are already invested in the Kennedy one.

The point of any current and future bill opposing the "surge" and our ongoing engagement in Iraq is to actually prevent this "surge" and end this engagement, and not to serve as some sort of symbolic but toothless gesture towards this end.

Reid's bill, while on the face of it symbolic and lacking teeth, has the merit of having at least two and likely more Republican supporters--including respected Foreign Relations committee member Chuck Hagel--which in effect gives it teeth, in that it further isolates Bush from his GOP base and makes it increasingly harder for him to garner broad public support for his war policy. It also serves to establish a small but crucial platform against the administration's case for continuing the war that future, more weighty resolutions, can then build upon.

Dodd's bill, on the other hand, while on its face seeming to have more teeth than Reid's non-binding bill, in fact has no teeth at all, because, as others have pointed out, it will in no way curtail Bush's ability to implement his "surge", because funds and means to do so can fairly easily be found elsewhere. It is not unlike those meaningless gun control laws that banned certain guns, but not the kinds that actual criminals often used in carrying out crimes. Furthermore, by being so impotent, if passed it would have actually diminished congress's ability to regulate a president's warmaking powers, not enhance it, by setting a precedent for meaningless legislative action, and further turned the senate into the imperial Roman's version, which said much but did little.

Webb is no dummy. Nor is he unserious about ending this war, unlike some of the other so-called war opponents who similarly say much but do little.

   Of course.  This is really very disappointing.  It should have gotten out of committee at least.  I guess I'll have to take Chris Dodd more seriously.  Biden is really a problem for us - maybe even more so than Lieberman right now.

Unless you really are aware of the parliamentary angles on this legislation, you (especially you, Chris!) should not be making the mistake of looking at one particular amendment and drawing sweeping conclusions about who does or does not support this or that policy.

That is a really dumb and amateur thing to do, and Chris you are neither dumb nor an amateur.

Dodd's measure was an amendment to the famed nonbinding resolution.  As a parliamentary matter, Dems appear to have decided to vote on the nonbinding resolution first.  Even there, there's two competing versions: Hagel's and Snowe/Warner's (one has harsher language than the other).    I can respect the judgement of a committee chair or chamber leadership to set aside certain types of amendments until after a certain other vote.  After all, the Senate would have to vote on the amendment to the bill before voting on the final bill, upperdown.

If Biden has decided, for parliamentary reasons, to schedule the vote a certain way -- and he has the support of half our committee members, many of whom we trust -- why are we presuming that he doesn't support the substance of the amendment because of the way he has decided to schedule it?  That is, like, 30-second-attack-ad kind of reasoning.

If you happen to know the ins and outs of the parliamentary, scheduling, process arguments, and you want to criticize Biden (and Webb and Cardin et al) on that, then by all means do so.  But show your work and write out your logic and show why Biden (and Webb and Cardin) need to be criticized for this or that parliamentary choice.

If you're not gonna do that, then don't go treating parliamentary maneuvers as if they were a real reflection of policy preferences.  Cause they aren't.  And you must surely know that by now.

===

I reread your post and my comment to make sure they're appropriate to each other, and they are.  You make sweeping, wild judgements about our Democratic senators based on what really is a scheduling vote.  As I said, surely you know better than that.

now sleep in it. this is what settling for centrist schumer picks gets you. i hope they'll bother to deliver on some of what they campaigned for, or else you all bought a false bill of goods. goed forbid we have to block another neanderthal SCOTUS appointment with these guys.

t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 t9 t10 t11 t12 t13 t14 t15 t16 t17 t18 t19 t20 t21 t22 t23 t24 t25 t26 t27 t28 t29 t30 t31 t32 t33 t34 t35 t36 t37 t38 t39 t40 t41 t42 t43 t44 t45 t46 t47 t48 t49 t50 t51 t52 t53 t54 t55 t56 t57 t58 t59 t60 t61 t62 t63 t64 t65 t66 t67 t68 t69 t70 t71 t72 t73 t74 t75 t76 t77 t78 t79 t80 t81 t82