It Only Takes 51 Senators to End This War

[Raster]

by Robert Naiman

Regardless of the spin and counter-spin around the various Iraq reports, a key domestic political fact - perhaps the most fundamental fact - is once again being buried in the debate.It only takes 51 Senators to end the Iraq war, regardless of how many are prepared to cut off funding.

It is obviously true, as many have pointed out, that 51 Senators could cut off funding for the war, simply by not voting to approve it. But to make funding the sole focus significantly understates the case, and contributes to the utterly false and harmful notion that cutting off funding is the only thing Senators can do.

It was clear in previous Senate votes that there were not 51 Senators who were willing to stand firm on any position in effective opposition to the President. There were not 51 Senators willing to stand firm on a timetable for withdrawal, even stated as a goal. There were not 51 Senators willing to stand firm on a popular prohibition against forcing soldiers to serve longer deployments than they spend at home - a prohibition that all sides agreed would force troop withdrawals.

<snip, more>

Why then should this scenario not be allowed to play out? Why should there not be a clean Senate vote on a timetable for withdrawal and other provisions that could effectively constrain the President? In the worst case, we would see an effective repeat of past Senate votes, with a majority supporting, but not sticking to, constraining measures, after which Reid could, if he wants, negotiate a “bipartisan compromise” that would almost surely be less binding. But there is no reason for such a compromise to be the focus of discussion now, when we have yet to see the clean Senate votes on more binding measures that were promised in July. Let the Senate be counted. We have a right to see who the Senators are who are standing in the way of ending the war.

Robert Naiman is Senior Policy Analyst and National Coordinator at Just Foreign Policy.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/11/3779/

And likewise with the House on impeachment. Let the Representatives be counted. We have a right to see who the Representatives are who are standing in the way of ending this administration. No more political cover and camouflage. Expose the collaborators--of both parties. It is time the citizens of this country get a good look at the Iraq war AND cheney*/bush* enablers in Congress.

[Breeze54]

1. I thought it was 60 or 2/3 rds?

isn't it? They're all saying that!

[tcfrogs]

2. I understand the writer's point

Symbolically, getting 51 votes in the Senate would be a great starting point. Force * to veto, even if it can't be over-ridden.

[Tesha]

7. Not to vote "NO"; that only takes 51. (NT)

[TahitiNut]

3. It'd only take 41 to filibuster and block supplemental funding bills - and stop the war.

:shrug: ... but it'd take courage and integrity.

[SoCalDem]

8. Here's for having a 70-30 split again..so things CAN get done again

Repubes traditionally are 30% (or less) so 30 senators seems fair to me :evilgrin:

[lonestarnot]

9. Oh gee, integrity and courage. Well forget about it then.

[TahitiNut]

15. The alternative is amorality and obsessive lust for power.

But that's how the GOP gets their way with 41 votes. :shrug:

Gosh! Who could possibly expect the Democrats to represent the people with comparable unanimity?

[Bitwit1234]

4. When did they change the rules.

It takes 60 senators to bring a bill to vote. And if they do pass it 51 to 49 THEN they need 67 to overcome bush veto. If you can explain how they can do all this with 51 votes I sure as heck bet the democrat senators will bless you.

[TwilightGardener]

5. I believe FUNDING bills usually require only a majority (51) to pass, and

are not usually vetoed, in order to keep money from being held up.

[TwilightGardener]

6. This dude's wrong--we HAD more than 50 votes on an Iraq bill with timelines--

at least going by cloture votes--we had 2 Repubs, and then 4 Repubs, cross over at different times.

[napi21]

10. Actually, it only takes ONE Senator to stop the funding!

Harry Reid could just decide NOT to bring the discussion to the floor!

The same thing could be done in the House! Nancy is the one who decides what will come to the floor for a vote!

NO VOTES, NO MONEY!!!!!

[AndyA]

11. This is the bottom line. The DEMOCRATS DECIDE which bills get attention.

They can just refuse/ignore/stall/whatever if they want to prevent something from passing. It's a big scam that they're betting most Americans won't understand.

They can keep all future funding bills from being voted on, and they don't need any votes from the Republicans to do it. Face it, folks, they do not have our best interests at heart, nor those of our troops.

Actions speak louder than words.

[napi21]

13. Other than a lot of Pub wailing and crying, what's would be the

downside of simply not bringing the $$ issue to the floor?

[bullimiami]

12. it only takes 41 to keep them from passing the funding.

[Javaman]

14. A spine a spine, my votes for a spine!!!!

as if...