This is late to bring this up, but how did the Senate wind up voting on the minority Republican framing rather than the majority Democratic framing? After all, the Democrats actually had more votes for their substitute!
I had been assuming that the reason we had a vote on the Move-On resolution rather than the Move-on, Cleland, Swift Boat resolution was that Lieberman and some weak-willed Dem had defected. But NO
The Democratic substitute actually won the vote 50-47 with Lieberman and Hagel voting for it. Notice up at the top:
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
How does a Republican propaganda ploy get a vote instead of a Democratic substitute with more neutral impact? I always understood that requirements of 3/5 votes were to save time to avoid the filibuster and cloture vote. If the Republicans wanted to filibuster the Democratic substitute, why not let them? Then there is never a vote on the Move-On resolution. If they give up on the filibuster, then let them choose between condemning Bush allies and Chambliss or not standing up for Petreaus. How could this happen?