What Happened to the Non-Binding Iraq Resolution

To fully understand what happened in yesterday’s U.S. Senate non-binding Iraq resolution vote, you need to understand that other Iraq resolutions, in addition to the anti-surge resolution, are awaiting Senate action. Here's the full set, as described in USA Today...

• One opposes the president's plan to increase troop numbers in Iraq.
• A second offers qualified support for the increase.
• A third opposes cutting funds for troops.

The Democrats want to make the second and third resolutions in the above list disappear without a vote. The Republicans are using a filibuster to refuse to allow a vote on the resolution opposing a troop increase, unless votes are also held on the other two…

[Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell] said he's willing to allow a vote on [the anti-troop increase] resolution provided he wins two concessions: a requirement that it get 60 votes to pass, and a vote on the resolution opposing cuts in funding for troops. That resolution is sponsored by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.

[Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid] objected because McConnell's demands set up the possibility that the Senate would have been on record as opposing cuts in funding for the troops, but not the president's policy.

That would "divert attention" from a Senate vote on the troop buildup, Reid said.

Apparently, in the Orwellian framing of the Democratic party, open debate can only occur if opinions not approved by the majority party are first suppressed!

Senator Reid is not yet giving up, according to the Associated Press...

Following a procedural vote Monday that sidetracked a resolution on the war, Democrats said they would eventually find a way to put each senator on record...

How about this for a compromise. Allow a vote on all three resolutions. If Democrats are so sure are on the right side of the issue, in any conceivable sense, then why be afraid to let positions they oppose be brought to a vote?

One other point worth considering: Is Senator Reid’s position that public debates must sometimes be suppressed because they might “divert attention” really the attitude you want from the leader of the party that will be confirming the next Supreme Court justice?