Senate halts Iraq debate before it starts

WASHINGTON — A long-awaited Senate showdown on the war in Iraq was shut down before it even started Monday when nearly all Republicans voted to stop the Senate from considering a resolution against President Bush's plan for a troop increase.

A day of posturing, finger-pointing and wrangling came to nothing when Democratic and Republican leaders failed to reach an agreement on which nonbinding resolutions would be debated and allowed to come to a vote. The Senate's 49-47 vote Monday night to proceed to debate on Bush's new war policy fell 11 votes short of the 60 needed.

Just two Republicans, Sens. Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Susan Collins of Maine, voted with the Democrats to proceed with the debate. Both are considered among the most vulnerable senators standing for re-election in 2008.

Republicans insisted that the impasse would soon be broken, but leaders of the two parties appeared to be far from a compromise Monday night, and the White House has worked hard to block action on a resolution disapproving of the president's decision to boost the combat-troop level in Iraq by 21,500.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., were expected to resume negotiations today after conferring with their members.

"What you just saw was Republicans giving the president the green light to escalate in Iraq," Reid said after the vote. Republicans "are trying to avoid a debate on this matter," he said.

Republicans said they had no desire to avoid a debate, asserting that they simply wanted a fair hearing on their own proposals.

The resolutions

The Levin-Warner resolution would oppose the additional troop deployment while calling for a diplomatic initiative to settle the conflict. It would also oppose a cutoff of funds.

The McCain-Graham- Lieberman alternative would establish tough new benchmarks for the Iraqi government to achieve but would not oppose the planned deployment.

The Gregg resolution would back the decision to boost troop strength in Iraq. It recognizes the power of the president to deploy troops and the "responsibility" of Congress to fund them.

The other proposed resolution, hastily written by Democrats, would simply oppose Bush's plan and insist all troops are properly protected with body armor and other supplies.

"We are ready and anxious to have this debate this week," McConnell said.

A massive budget bill for the remainder of the current fiscal year comes before the Senate on Wednesday, and Reid promised war amendments. Bush has requested $245 billion in funding for the war, to cover this year and next year, and the legislation is certain to become a magnet for Iraq concerns.

Next week, the Democratic-led House is expected to move forward with its version of the nonbinding resolutions that now sit stuck in the Senate.

"You can run but you can't hide," Reid said. "We are going to debate Iraq."

At issue are four separate measures. The main resolution, worked out by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John Warner, R-Va., would put the Senate on record opposing the additional troop deployment while calling for a diplomatic initiative to settle the conflict. It would also oppose a cutoff of funds for troops in the field of battle.

The Republican leadership's alternative, drafted by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., would establish benchmarks for the Iraqi government to achieve but would not oppose the planned deployment.

Two other versions appear at the heart of the impasse. The first, drafted by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., would staunchly back the White House and the president's decision to boost troop strength in Iraq. It recognizes the power of the president to deploy troops and the "responsibility" of Congress to fund them — before stating "Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds."

The other proposed resolution, hastily written by Democrats, would simply oppose Bush's plan and insist all troops are properly protected with body armor and other supplies.

Gregg appeared to struggle to define the purpose of his proposal, insisting at one point that it was vital to protecting U.S. troops, but then acknowledging that none of the resolutions under consideration would have any impact. He added that he might offer his language in binding legislative form during the upcoming debate on war spending.

The Democratic leadership gave Republicans a choice: Allow all four versions to come to a vote, with a simple majority needed for passing any of them, or debate and vote on the Levin-Warner and McCain resolutions, with both needing 60 votes to pass.

McConnell wanted all four resolutions to meet a 60-vote threshold, for a simple reason: Both Democrats and Republicans believe the only measure that could attract 60 votes is Gregg's, because Democrats would fear the political ramifications of appearing to take action that might harm troops in battle.

"If Republicans cannot swallow the thin soup of the Warner resolution, how are they going to stomach a real debate on Iraq?" asked Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

Republicans struck a less combative tone. Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., dismissed Democratic charges as "a bunch of show-and-tell," while McConnell called the dispute nothing more than "a bump in the road."

The White House worked closely with Senate GOP leaders on strategy while conducting an aggressive outreach that involved assurances from military leaders to wary GOP senators, in addition to personal interventions by Bush.

The White House gave a measured response to Monday's vote. "All sides have a right to be heard in this debate, and we support Sen. McConnell's and the Republicans' right to be able to offer the amendments they want to offer," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.