Senate Democrats Seek the Right Iraq 'Formula'

Sept. 21, 2007 — -- Though in control of both houses of Congress, Democrats faced considerable resistance in the Senate trying to change the president's Iraq policy this week, leaving little room to question that they've lost some of their steam. They'll turn their efforts now to finding the balance between changing Iraq policy and attracting GOP colleagues disenchanted with the war.

It was déjà vu all over again this morning. Senators convened and, without fanfare, voted (again) on an amendment that would have mandated the beginning of withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, set an end date for having all combat troops out of the war-torn country, and transitioned the role of the remaining troops to training, counterterrorism and force protection.

Today's measure, sponsored by Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, needed 60 votes to pass, and it failed 47-47.

Finding the Congressional Balance

In trying to change war policy, Senate Democrats have forced a string of votes but have yet to find a way around Republicans insisting, as is their right, on a super majority 60 vote threshold for any legislation that would be binding to the White House.

What's worse for the Democrats is that though there was never a question about what the outcome of today's vote would be, they actually lost support from a similar vote in July. It was the third major vote this week Democrats sought to change war policy.

Their first vote failed Wednesday -- on an amendment that would have given troops equal time when they're stationed stateside as when deployed to war zones -- and there was no chance the others would pass either.

Asked if Democrats were wasting the Senate's time with all the Iraq votes that seem to have little chance of passing, Levin, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, shot back, "There is no better use of the Senate's time" than trying to end the Iraq War.

But Levin also told reporters that Democrats would spend the weekend trying to find the right "formula" to gain more votes for a measure to change war policy and enact some sort of timetable for withdrawal.

"If its not going to be enacted into law, at least it ought to be a goal," Levin said. He did not say what other tactics Democratic leaders might employ to try to gain votes from Republicans. Whatever methods Democrats do employ, it will be an elusive formula to perfect.

Attracting Disenchanted Republicans

And so that familiar feeling could return next week: The Senate continues to consider the annual defense policy bill and Democrats may force one or more Iraq votes as they search for the right "formula" to draw Republicans frustrated with the war away from the White House.

A similar Levin-Reed amendment got 52 yeas on a procedural vote back in July. Democrats lost four votes in their favor between the summer and today.

Though the string of Iraq votes held since last spring have failed to mandate a policy change in Iraq, Levin argued that they have kept up the pressure on the White House.

"The important thing is that they know we will not quit," Levin said.

Republicans complain that their colleagues across the aisle have put aside the real business of the Senate -- funding the government -- to force votes on measures they know will not pass.

"There is an opportunity cost to having a constant stream of political votes. We are not doing appropriations bills or a host of other critical legislation, and that is being reflected in the polls," said Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Six senators were absent today (three would have voted for and two against). One of the Democrats, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who supported the procedural vote in July voted "no" today because he had said even then he would oppose final passage. Two other senators, Democrat Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Republican Susan Collins of Maine, also opposed the vote today after voting for the cloture motion in July.

Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut broke with his party to oppose the amendment today because he believed the Levin-Reed withdrawal proposal did not go far enough. But Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who was expected to oppose it after his own, more stringent amendment to withdraw all troops and cut off war funding was defeated yesterday with only 28 votes.

"I supported the Levin-Reed amendment today because although it didn't go as far as I would like, it would have taken a significant step toward ending the president's disastrous Iraq policy. I am concerned that the amendment's exceptions were overly broad and could have been exploited to keep a significant number of troops in Iraq for an extended period of time. But I was pleased that the amendment included a binding start and end date to the redeployment of our troops from Iraq, something I first proposed over a year ago," Feingold said in a paper statement.

It is unlikely Feingold would go much further in supporting a Democratic measure, however. The challenge now for Democrats is enticing Republicans to vote for a less-binding measure without sacrificing their own party eager to make good on election promises.