Question. I spent more time watching c-span this week than the rest of my life up to now put together. Does that mean I am now old? I don't know why, but I was completely absorbed by the Iraq resolution cloture vote soap opera (It would be charitable to call it a debate) and accompanying Senate procedural arcana.
Net net - The promised five day Senate work week knocked off a day early, there was no Iraq debate, and there is still no Iraq debate scheduled in the Senate. The most interesting bit was the exchange between Lieberman, Hagel and Warner on Monday about "non-binding resolutions".
My YouTube take on the exchange is linked to graphic with additional supporting links and details below the fold.
In his Monday speech on the Senate floor, Joe Lieberman spoke passionately against the John Warner/Lerner/Hagel/Biden non-binding resolution, characterizing it as full of "ambiguities and inconsistencies", saying it claimed to support the troops but actually underminined the mission.
In his reply to Lieberman later that day, Hagel alluded to other non-binding war resolutions over the years. Which led me to to the interesting Non-Binding Joint Senate Resolution 44 from December, 1995 -"Concerning the Deployment of United States Armed Forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina."
Some resolution excerpts:
Section 1) Expresses support for the troops saying "The Congress unequivocally supports the men and women of our Armed Forces who are carrying out their missions in support of peace in Bosnia"
Section 2) Questions President Clinton's mission for the troops starting with "...reservations expressed about President Clinton's decision to deploy United States Armed Forces to Bosnia and Herzegovina." and further specifies limitations on the deployment ordered by the President including a hard one year timeframe for certain conditions to be met.
Sections 3, 4 & 5) Requires the President to regularly report on specific timeframes, starting in 30 days with details on everything from progress in training Bosnia security, to refugees, to costs, to war plan details, and of course an exit strategy.
This non-binding resolution was co-sponsored by John McCain and Joe Lieberman. 69 Senators of both parties voted for it. Nuff said.
I saw Kos' dismissive post on the Republican "Gang of 7". I had a different take.
I think Warner, Hagel, and the "gang" sincerely wanted to get to a 60 plurality on a resolution. Even if they all voted for cloture, they did not have enough Republicans. Not to mention the defecting former Democrat. So they backed off when asked, rolled the dice and played ball with the leadership to get a few more votes. Essentially they were saying - "we'll stay in line for this vote, on the expectation that you are going to work it out." They put it on the leader's plate to get it done. The leadership let them down, they are pissed, and now there is nothing to tether them anymore. Either they got played, or their leadership is impotent. In either case they are going to be running an "open loop" from this point on this issue and are no longer manageable by the leadership of either party. Should be fun to watch.
UPDATE: Changed title thanks to essex comment/suggestion.
=====================
This is excerpted from a post on Divided We Stand United We Fall.
Full disclosure: I left out some parts that would likely elicit troll rating from your run of the mill Kossack. Full post linked above.