There has been some confusion as to why Senators Warner and Hagel (and others) voted the way they did regarding the debate over the resolutions in the Senate. Tonight there has been some light shed on that. The Washington Note as a piece on it (including a pdf of the letter) and this article covers the issue as well.Here is the text of the letter (from The Washington Note):
February 7, 2007The Honorable Harry Reid, Majority Leader
The Honorable Mitch McConnell, Republican Leader
The Honorable Richard Durbin, Assistant Majority Leader
The Honorable Trent Lott, Assistant Republican Leader
United States Senate -- Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Leader Reid, Leader McConnell, Senator Durbin and Senator Lott:
The war in Iraq is the most pressing issue of our time. It urgently deserves the attention of the full Senate and a full debate on the Senate floor without delay.
We respectfully advise you, our leaders, that we intend to take S. Con. Res 7 and offer it, where possible under the Standing Rules of the Senate, to bills coming before the Senate.
On January 10,2007, the President stated, with respect to his Iraq strategy, "if Members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change we will adjust." In a conscientious, respectful way, we offered our resolution consistent with the President's statement.
We strongly believe the Senate should be allowed to work its will on our resolution as well as the concepts brought forward by other Senators. Monday's procedural vote should not be interpreted as any lessening of our resolve to go forward advocating the concepts of S. Con. Res. 7.
We will explore all of our options under the Senate procedures and practices to ensure a full and open debate on the Senate floor. The current stalemate is unacceptable to us and to the people of this country.
Sincerely,
Olympia Snowe
John Warner
Chuck Hagel
Susan Collins
Norm Coleman
Gordon Smith
George Voinovich
Interesting indeed.
1 comment:
Rather than continue to play parliamentary games with the pro-war leadership, I recommend that Senator Hagel and his allies drop fighting the "surge" and concentrate on two more important and more realisitc battles - 1) passing a law forbidding the use of U.S. forces from attacking Iran without Congressional approval, and 2) denying, under the Senate budget process, appropriation of more funds for our forces in Iraq, except under conditions specified in the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.
The pro-war Senators can fillibuster, and the Presdient can veto, a "cut-off" of funds to the war. They can't do that to a bill, the alternative to which is no funding at all.
Post a Comment