Reality Check
The Senate is locked in stalemate, a great deliberative body ground down by procedural minutiae, but, beyond the immediate politics of resolutions, debates on resolutions, and debates on debates on resolutions, where do the one hundred members of that august body stand on Iraq?
As MyDD’s Chris Bowers is reporting, The Politico has conducted a survey of all senators, asking each one a series of four questions on Iraq:
- Did you vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq in 2002?
- If you voted yes, do you regret your vote?
- Do you support the “surge”?
- Do you support a timetable / fixed date for withdrawal?
Make sure to check out Chris’s post for the results, as well as for a link to the survey, but here’s the summary:
This is quite a survey. It means, among other things, that there are still at least forty-seven votes to authorize the war in Iraq, even now (the thirty-eight who don’t regret their vote plus the nine Republicans new to Congress). It also means we are still nowhere near a majority for a timetable, with sixty-seven members opposing the idea (and, as I noted, many of the Democrats who oppose a timetable are from the progressive end of the spectrum).
Which is to say, if you oppose the war, don’t get your hopes up. If the Democrats have their way, the Senate may narrowly vote to oppose the surge, but, unless there is a dramatic defection of Republicans to the (mostly) Democratic side, and not just Hagel, Warner, and the other obvious dissenters, it isn’t yet in a position, given the numbers, to curtail Bush’s ongoing (and, in my view, reckless) war effort.
(And how specifically did Hillary Clinton respond, you ask? What is her position on the war? Well, she “stated, flat-out, that she does not regret her war vote. At the same time, she is still trying to campaign as though she is against the war, claiming that she wouldn’t have started it, and that she would end it.” In other words, she responded as you might expect her to respond. And that’s not a compliment. — And yet Republicans seem to think she’s unbeatable. Go figure.)
6 Responses to “Reality Check”
I think what Hillary has said (or is trying to say) is that going to war was the right decision based on the evidence presented in 2002. She has said that if today’s evidence was available then, she wouldn’t have voted the same way.
Perhaps it’s honest, perhaps it’s political posturing. But it seems reasonably centrist to me–neither GWB and “victory at any cost” nor the antiwar Left.
Go Hillary!
Or in other words, Alan G, she has perfect 20:20 hindsight. Yippee!
I’m confused. Didn’t Hagel just recently talk passionately and with real conviction about the importance of debating the Iraq war?
Yes. I think the WH has exerted its influence over the GOP once again. I read that the administration was urging Senator McConnell to get as many measures going at once as possible. The ol’ divide and conquer. Those who don’t fall into line can’t milk the campaign cash cow in ’08.
Now I’m waiting for Hillary to say in regards to Bill: “If I knew then what I know now…”
Going to war based upon the evidence presented in 2002 and the fact that 77 percent of Americans said yep lets bash the bums……
However Hillary is the Teflon Chick and Bush is a whole assortment of names.
They both went to war on the same evidence with the same 77 percent of Americans saying it was the right thing to do.
I’ve been saying the same thing but whats good for Hillary is not good for Bush.
Bush and his evidence and his 77 percent are evil. Hillary and her evidence and her 77 percent are Wonderfully well informed and marvelously adept political artisans.
Ohh I wished I had stock in whoever makes Teflon.