Why debate all night? It's part of a big plan

WASHINGTON — A rare, all-night session leading to Wednesday's key vote about withdrawing troops from Iraq provided high drama on Capitol Hill.

Outside the Capitol, hundreds of anti-war activists rallied to help shine a light on the Senate's activities.

Never mind that the amendment went down to certain defeat. Or that the legislative marathon changed only a single vote in the Senate.

Washington's political theater is part of a deliberate political strategy aimed at America's living rooms. By presenting the choice over the future of the Iraq war in the starkest possible terms, Democrats hope to further convince Americans of the need to change course and ratchet up political pressure on Republican lawmakers supporting President Bush.

"The goal of Democrats was clear: to put Republicans on record on where they stand on an unpopular war and to keep Iraq in the news, which is not good for the Bush administration," said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. "On these two levels, they were successful, even if no new legislation will come out of it. Democrats want Iraq to be for President Bush what Vietnam became for President Johnson: an all-consuming issue, where nothing else can be discussed."

Democrats plan similar votes in the House to force Republicans to publicly express views on a war that has lost the support of most Americans.

Indeed, a Gallup poll last week showed that 71 percent favor the removal of almost all U.S. troops from Iraq by April, leaving a limited number of troops for counterterror efforts.

But a partisan divide remains. The same poll found that 54 percent of Republicans opposed the idea. Congress appears to be reflecting this divide. While most lawmakers oppose Bush's new strategy in Iraq, they have not come to a consensus over the alternative.

For weeks leading up to Wednesday's vote, Senate Republicans, one by one, have been offering alternatives to Bush's approach. On June 25, Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar stunned many colleagues by declaring on the Senate floor that "our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national-security interests in the Middle East and beyond."

Lugar and Virginia Sen. John Warner, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, last week proposed an amendment that would require the White House to produce plans by October to shift U.S. forces out of a combat role in Iraq. That new decision point, beginning with a September report by Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, figured in comments from many GOP senators this week.

It's important to "be fair to Petraeus" and wait until September to vote for changes in the nation's Iraq policy, Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, said Wednesday. "At that time, I am prepared to make decisions that are different than those today, if the facts so demonstrate."

At issue Wednesday was whether the Senate would move to a vote on an amendment to set a timetable to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq — to begin 120 days after enactment and completed by April 30.

The vote failed 52-47 — eight votes short of the 60-vote supermajority needed under Senate rules to force an end to the Republican filibuster and 15 votes short of the two-thirds majority required to override a Bush veto. (Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada changed his vote to "no" so that, under Senate rules, he could call up the bill for another vote later.)

The House last week voted 223-201 — largely along party lines and far short of the votes needed to override a veto — in favor of a similar withdrawal plan.

Despite Republican doubts about the current Iraq strategy, all but four rallied to block a vote on the amendment co-sponsored by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Jack Reed, D-R.I. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, was the lone Republican to switch sides on this vote. She joined Republican Sens. Gordon Smith of Oregon, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine, all of whom also co-sponsored the amendment.

Still, at least nine other Senate Republicans have questioned Bush's troop increase, and more say they expect a mid-September progress report on Bush's new strategy to prompt a change in war policy.

"Time is on our side," predicted Reid, who pulled the overall $648.8 billion defense-authorization bill from the floor but is expected to bring it back after Congress' August recess.

The bill covers myriad aspects of defense policy, from treatment of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to equipment levels.

While it wouldn't take effect until fiscal 2008 begins Oct. 1 and isn't technically needed to continue military funding, the legislation contains several politically popular elements: a 3.5 percent military pay increase, more money for mine-resistant vehicles known as MRAPS and improved care and benefits for wounded veterans.

Democrats said they're willing to let the bill linger to allow pressure from a war-weary public to mount on Republicans.

"Our colleagues in the Senate are going to have a chance to go home, explain their votes and vote again," said Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill. "And eventually, I am confident, they'll join us in changing the direction in Iraq."

Anti-war activists applaud the strategy.

"There was enormous pressure on Susan Collins," said Tom Andrews, national director of Win Without War. "The real test of this is not going to be on the floor of the Senate, or the Capitol building. But it will be in these states. That's where this war will be decided."

House Democrats say they are planning more votes on the war before the recess, in a bid to pressure wavering Republican House members.

"We will likely be having votes on the war next week," said Brendan Daley, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. These could include legislation to ban permanent bases in Iraq or to deauthorize the use of force in Iraq. "It's something we're deciding now," he said.

Material from Seattle Times archives is included in this report.