GovernmentExecutive.com

Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, successfully thwarted a vote Wednesday on a Democratic amendment to the fiscal 2007 Defense appropriations bill that sharply criticized the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq and called on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign.

Stevens raised a point of order against the amendment, which contained non-binding "sense of the Senate" language, and won a ruling that it was not germane to the $468.4 billion appropriations measure.

A vote on the amendment, which was expected to fail largely along party lines, could have allowed Democrats to present a united front against the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq, attack Rumsfeld and also force a possible split among Republicans over a volatile election-year issue just two months before voters go to the polls.

But despite the scuttled vote on the amendment, Democrats commanded the Senate floor much of Wednesday afternoon, using the amendment to rebuke the Bush administration for what the minority party argued are failed policies on Iraq that have left that country less stable and have threatened American security.

"With weekly attacks against American and Iraqi troops at their highest levels since the start of the war, and sectarian violence intensifying, it is clear that staying the course in Iraq is not a strategy for success," said the text of the amendment, which was sponsored by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

One by one, more than a dozen Democratic senators took the floor during a several-hour exchange with Republicans, arguing that Rumsfeld should be held accountable for the current state of affairs in Iraq.

"This Congress has abdicated its constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight and hold the administration accountable for the decisions it has made over the course of the last five years," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. "Absolute power not only corrupts, but it can lead to bad decisions."

Senate Republicans jumped into the fray, accusing their Democratic colleagues of grandstanding before the November elections to solidify the Democratic base and draw independent voters opposed to the war in Iraq.

Even Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, an outspoken Pentagon critic, sided with his fellow GOP senators, saying it is up to the president to select his Cabinet. "The president should be able to keep that team until such times as the president of the United States loses confidence in that team," McCain said.

"What is their point?" asked Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who accused Democrats of not offering an alternative plan to changing the situation in Iraq. "Is it merely to score political points, or is it actually to change what is happening in the ongoing global war on terror?"

Senate Budget Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., likewise argued that the amendment was a hollow political maneuver. "Who are they going to replace Donald Rumsfeld with?" Gregg asked. "Howard Dean? Ned Lamont?"

Greta Wodele contributed to this report.

COMMENTS

• The war effort is not without fault? That's as gross an understatement as Rummy's "stuff happens" when looters were sacking those dreaded Weapons of Mass Disappearance sites. Pray tell, what about the war has not been wrong, miscalculated, lied about or down right just plain wrong? How has this war of choice benefited America? Stop complaining that the Democrats have no ideas because neither do the Republicans. Oh, sure, little old ladies can no longer carry hair gel onto an airplane and thank God for that, huh? Six-year-olds must now remove their shoes so we can be sure they aren't trying to smuggle a bomb in their Barney sneakers, but al Qaeda and Osama keep right on moving along. Our borders still leak, our chemical and nuclear plants are still unsecured and we're still as dependent on foreign oil as we ever were. If we were truly in the ideological fight of the 21st century, wouldn't we be beefing up the military instead of lowering standards and raising the age limit at which people can enlist? Wouldn't we be securing our borders instead of finding ways to help illegal immigrants gain citizenship? Wouldn't we be trying everything to get off the foreign oil needle, which only supports those regimes that support terrorism? Wouldn't we be raising taxes to support the war effort instead of giving billionaires even more billions? Wouldn't we be asking the American people to sacrifice something? Except for those whose loved ones are dying "over there so they don't die over here," what really has the average American been asked to sacrifice? Americans pay more for gas, which, oh miracles of miracles has, two months before an important election which threatens the GOP's hold on both houses of Congress, been lower than it has been in some time. And, as for Clinton's pardons, Ford pardoned Nixon and Bush the Elder pardoned those involved in selling weapons to our enemy (Iran) to fund an illegal war in South America. And, wait till we see who King George lets off the hook. No one has been held accountable for the mess they've created so far. The Republicans got us into this mess, the Democrats shouldn't be blamed for not getting us out. GovExec.com reader Posted September 11, 2006 1:42 PM
• I'm tired of all this rhetoric about Bush mishandling the war and asking Rumsfeld to resign. Why doesn't someone call for the liberal dweebs to resign? Granted, the war effort is not without fault but, as always, what have the "dumbocrats" brought to the table? I can sum it up in three words: zero, zip, nada! Whatever feeble counters they have come back with hold no merit or water. If they want dialogue, just send them over. With all the hot air they blow on a daily basis, they could talk all our enemies into collective submission. Kudos for the GOP on this one! The Gunny GovExec.com reader Posted September 8, 2006 8:19 AM
• Such bickering. I'm fed up with this "tit for tat" with the political parties. The ultimate goal of our elected representatives (Congress) should be what is best for the American people, not the political party. This fact seems to be forgotten until election time. Hillary Clinton hit the nail on the head when she stated "Absolute power not only corrupts, but it can lead to bad decisions." A grossly bad decision made by Congress was not to relieve Clinton of his presidential duties after he was impeached. Not only has that decision demoralized the country, but Clinton's presidential pardons were detestable and detrimental to the United States. What statement did these pardons shout? Do whatever you want regardless who you hurt and get the president to pardon you. Wow! Did the fact Clinton admitted he lied during his defense "because he could," shame Congress for not replacing him? And who are they going to replace Donald Rumsfeld (or Clinton) with? This country is in a deplorable state if there are no eligible candidates to replace Rumsfeld or Clinton! But then again what can we expect with CEOs lying to the American public and stealing hard working people's retirement while the executives live in luxury. How many American people can afford a $600 shower curtain? How many Americans would waste over $40,000 on a birthday party? Did I forgot the big oil companies that are making megabucks and overcharging the American public, denying the fact by saying they have made innovative changes and are working smarter, increasing their profit? Very strange it happened over a 3-month period after Hurricane Katrina. Who do they think they have fooled? Congress maybe, but certainly not the American public. They are lining their nest egg and pockets with gold at the expense of the American people. GovExec.com reader Posted September 11, 2006 10:28 AM