Friday, February 16, 2007: Warner Will Support the House Resolution

[16:26]
Ted Stevens, AK.  The senior senator from Alaska says that the Iraq Resolution vote is nothing but "political posturing" and "political posturing at its worst."  Actually, he seemed more upset by the announcement that the Saturday vote would cut short the planned Presidents' Day recess.  That recess was planned more than a month ago! he shouted.  And I live a long way away!  And those of us who live a long way away rely on that!  He asserted that the Iraq Resolution vote was designed to make those Republicans who are coming up for election "look bad."  He said that the Senate had no right to interfere with troop funding levels.  He announced his support for the Gregg Amendment, which has been a sticking point in the Senate's attempt to debate Iraq.  That Gregg Amendment vouches on the part of the Senate that it will not interfere with funding levels for troops, no matter what the military mission.  In the words of the Amdt., it is "A bill to express the sense of Congress that no funds should be cut off or reduced for American troops in the field which would result in undermining their safety or their ability to complete their assigned missions."  As I read it, a President could invade Canada and point to the Gregg Amdt. as requiring that the Congress fund such a mission.  Nonetheless, it appears that enough Republicans will vote against the Iraq Resolution tomorrow as a protest.  A protest against Democratic refusal to allow the Gregg Amdt. to come to a vote.


[15:40]
Senators have continued to speak on the floor either in support or in opposition to the House Resolution on Iraq.  The resolution passed the House receiving 17 Republican votes.  It will need 11 Republican yeas in the Senate.  Based on how Durbin is talking right now, it sounds like the Dems don't have enough votes going into tomorrow's cloture vote.


[14:03]
John Kerry (MA) and Max Baucus (MT) rose in support of the House Resolution.  Baucus called Iraq a mess.

Now Saxby Chambliss (GA) is rising in opposition of the resolution (and in opposition to cloture).


[13:35]
John Warner, VA.  He will vote for cloture tomorrow (i.e. in favor of the House Resolution).  He will give his reasons at this time.  His thrust is that Iraqis should now take the main role in bringing security to Baghdad and to the rest of their country.  Our forces are actually not as adept as settling the conflict there as are the Iraqis themselves.  Our troops shouldn't be in there trying to decide: Do we shoot at a Sunni?  Do we shoot at a Shia?  He acknowledges that the last time he did not support the cloture motion because he was standing up for the institution of the Senate.  But now, he says, with the House itself passing the resolution, the circumstances have changed.

A quick recap on some other action this morning:

Russ Feingold, WI.  First time on the floor in awhile.  Two points.  The Republicans say that Democrats are (1) endangering the troops; and (2) emboldening the enemy.  Feingold responds: We endanger the troops by keeping them in Iraq, but putting them in harm's way there.  And who is the enemy?  The enemy is al Qaeda.  We are emboldening al Qaeda by bogging ourselves down in Iraq.  The Administration has taken its eye off of the enemy, off of the global terror threat, with this diversion in Iraq.

Ted Kennedy (MA) spoke on Iraq but I did not catch it.

Kit Bond, MO.  He wants to explain why there has been all of this attention on Iran in recent days/weeks.  Because they're the ones supplying the EFPs, he says, the explosive something penetrators, a particular kind of IED (improvised explosive device).


[12:02]
Time until 12:30 equally divided between majority and minority leader.  Then a period of morning business.  No roll call votes today.  Iraq cloture vote tomorrow at 13:45.

Dick Durbin, IL, majority whip.  He references the Iraq vote imminent today in the House.


[12:01]
The Senate is gaveling in right now (Tester presiding).