I believe Harry Reid sincerely wants to end the war but he, and the Democrats in general, are not exactly thinking outside the box that is the prison of the reckless Bush war.  For that, we deserve blame too.  The real question is whether the House Resoultion was an end or was it a first step toward Congress asserting it's constitutional authority.  Keeping the Republicans in session, defending the war, would have been a gutsier course for Democrats, even if it would have inconvenienced the many Democrats who wanted to be in Iowa, New Hampshire & South Carolina.  If they don't want to be tied down in the Senate, they should resign.

I think Reid's agrees with Schumer--that the Republicans themselves are going to have agree to a withdrawal plan before 08. The longer they delay facing this reality, the more tightly is the war tied 'round their necks.

They'd rather humiliate the republicans than end the war quickly.

This may backfire, of course.  If they continue to take weak, symbolic action, they may end up not being able to define the republicans as the sole supporters for the war.

I don't think you really understand this. It doesn't matter if this passes or not, it's non-binding. What matters is forcing a number of embarassing votes onto the Republicans. They won't even vote against a non-binding resolution against the war. How do you think that is going to look in 2008?

The war won't end until 2008. We just don't have the votes to do anything to end it until then. Why waste time and effort on something that can't pass. Red meat to the base? Think about this for a moment. The best chance to end this war is after the 2008 elections. Everything we do from now until then has to be to set us up to be in a position to do so.

I like Reid. I don't like Matt's tone.

But I certainly agree that having the Senate Republicans complain about having to be in session during the weekend, when brave American soldiers are dying in an unnecessary occupation, only helps us and weakens their position.

I don't know... I think this continues to play badly for the Republicans.

  The general pattern I'm noticing is that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of passion on the Democratic leadership side for ending the war. These anti-war gestures seem to be borne out more of ticket-punching and token base-appeasing than of a genuine desire to stop the madness and mindless waste.

  Let's put it this way: The Democrats aren't anywhere near as gung-ho about getting us out of Iraq as the Republicans were about getting us into it.

 Given that the Democrats were thrust into power precisely because the public was fed up with the Iraq debacle, this doesn't reflect well on either their true priorities or their political instincts. I guess some of our "leaders" are privately enjoying this war, and don't really want it to end.

 I'm understanding much better why the party has such a hard time winning consistently.

I've got to agree with SoulTim on this one and some of the other comments. I think Matt has the right ideal in mind and that is certainly the tough Democratic party we should be aiming to have, but we're just not there yet.  A forced longer session might just crack the Dems too.

Put it this way too, if the Repug Senators go back and acutally listen to their constituents and everyone at home is like "hey Senator [blank], get us out of this war" then maybe (just maybe) the next time there's a vote to stop the war we'll have a few more of them on our side and we can really make some progress toward a new middle east strategy.  

And as for the Dems getting blamed for not stopping the war, i think Matt has it backwards, or at least that should be the narrative every Dem worth his/her grain of salt should be pushing.  It's Bush's fault and the obstructionist Repuglicans that made sure the war would go on.  Just keep sayin it again and again and again.  

The idea that the Dems have the power to end the war but they just aren't using it is simply wrong.  The war can only be ended when a. enough of the GOP abandons the war or b. we get a Democrat in the WH. There is no sign of a. because the majority of Republicans still support Bush and his war, and that leaves b. Rather than constantly complaining that the Dems don't do the impossible, our job should be to ensure that the Dems sweep the next election by tying the war around the GOP's necks. Frankly, I don't see Matt's posts on this subject as helping in that effort.

The vote on cloture was effectively the vote on the resolution, Matt. Reid is saying as much. It doesn't matter that the resolution did not pass. It was a non-binding resolution.

Matt, just what do you propose Reed do? I'd like to hear the answer, I really would.

There's so much criticism from the left over this non-binding resolution, but a lot of it seems kind of silly. If there aren't enough votes to pass even this resolution (get over the fillibuster), does anyone think a stronger position or bill opposing the war is going to work in the Senate?

I understand there is a lot of frustration but a lot of good people are trying to do something. Instead of blaming Reid, people should be blaming the senators that won't even allow a debate to proceed.

Democrats have a majority in the Senate just barely but its not a real majority. To do anything regarding the war at this point requires 60 votes. Instead of complaining about inaction, people should be writing letters, calling their representatives, etc. Pushing the debate and pushing Senators that haven't quite realized where the American public is on this issue.

The fact that Reid wasn't even willing to force the Senate to give up recess time to debate the war is pathetic.

WTF are you even talking about?  1) Reid did force them to give up recess time for the cloture vote, and 2) Reid does not have the power to force a debate on the war (ie, getting cloture) without GOP support.

Reid endorses Hillary.

Who cares, it was just a non-binding resolution. And Matt Yglesias makes a good point, you can't really blame Reid for the war, and you can't really expect the democrats to end it right off the bat, so don't be so tough on him. I realize another two years could suck, but the war will be over soon enough, and it's going to come down to funding anyway, which they can stop much more easily. (Not that I expect them too)

It's always easier to not do something to do do something.

it won't end on the hour.

What very few people understand about this is that the Founders wrought an extremely subtle structure when they created the Constitution. The key force driving the engine of state is the will of the people  but the founders were suspicious of that; good property owners that they were so...

They created a structure were the people's representatives had to obey the will of the people but...

they didn't, indeed, could not do it quickly.

What's going on now is every Senator and Representative in Congress is being forced to bend to the people's demand that we leave Iraq.

So what if the non-binding resolution was stopped? The Republicans stopped it Matt and the people know that.

They stopped it this time but...

Reid has vowed to bring it back as many times as it takes. In this, he and his party have no choice.

The citizenry demands it. It will happen.

And every time it comes back their will be fewer Republicans willing to vote for it because their constituents will be screaming in their ears:

Get the Fuck Out!

And every time this happens the Republicans will be seen to be for the war and you can be sure the Democrats will be holding up a big sign saying:

The Republican Party supports the war and it's architect President Bush.

It will end with a veto-proof majority to defund the war which Bush will be powerless to stop.

Like the engineer on a coal-fired steam engine Harry Reid is stoking the fire building up a head of steam that will flatten Bush and the ReThugs.

Not necessarily because he wants to but because he has to.

The people of this nation are demanding it.

And I for one do not think they are going to change their mind.