It
Only Takes 41 Senate Votes
To End The War
By John V. Walsh
10 February, 2007
Countercurrents.org
We
hear over and over again that it "takes 60 votes to get something
serious done in the Senate." That is a lot of malarkey. It takes
only one senator to begin a filibuster against any bill. And then it
takes only 41 votes to uphold that filibuster and prevent any proposed
law from coming to the floor.
Thus, the present authorization
for defense funding in the coming fiscal year can be stopped cold if
it contains funds for the war on Iraq. And this can be done by just
one courageous Senator, backed by 40 colleagues.
Let me propose the following
scenario. Just one Senator, Ted Kennedy or Russ Feingold or Robert Byrd,
arises in the Senate and declares that he will filibuster the present
defense authorization bill if it contains funds for the war on Iraq
or Iran. That bill is then dead unless there are 60 votes (3/5 of the
100 Senators) to end the debate, i.e., to invoke cloture. That is it.
Bush no longer has the funds to prosecute the war. He has to come back
with a funding bill acceptable to the 41.
At the same time the filibustering
Senator could put forth a resolution similar to Congressman McGovern's
in the House, which is aptly named "The Safe and Orderly Withdrawal
Act." It provides funds to ensure the withdrawal of U.S, forces
from Iraq in a way that guarantees their safety, and no other funding
for the war. If the opponents of our hypothetical, courageous Senator
wish to oppose such legislation, let them go on record in so doing.
They are then on record as refusing funds to bring the troops safely
home.
The Republicans have shown
in their very first weeks in opposition that they have the ovaries to
do what the Democrats will not. Today (February, 5) they raised 49 votes
in the Senate to prevent a relatively harmless non-binding resolution
against Bush's so-called "surge." These votes included Democrats
Joseph Lieberman and Henry Reid, the Senate majority leader! (1)
Right now there are 18 sitting
Senators who voted against the war in 2002. And there are 13 more who
voted for the war and now say they regret it. That comes to 31 nominally
antiwar Senators.(2) In addition there are 4 new Senators, Barak Obama
among them, who claim to be against the war. That brings the count to
35 of the necessary 41, leaving only 6 more needed. And the Democrats
now have 51 seats, with at least one or two Republican antiwar Senators
to boot. So it would take only 41 out of 51 who claim to be against
the war to actually end the war. If they are not lying about their anti-war
position, let them stand up and be counted. For example, Hillary Clinton,
who is not among those who regret their vote in 2002, were to be one
of a handful who refused to vote for cloture, what would happen to her
chances in 2008? Let her and others who claim to be against the war
go on record for or against the filibuster.
As Charlie Richardson and
others of Military Families Speak Out said so eloquently in UFPJ's recent
lobbying effort at the Capitol, Congressmen cannot be against the war
and for its funding. If the Democrats continue to fund the war, then
they own it. It is their war as well Bush's. (And to that I would add
that of course it has been the Democrats' war as well as Bush's all
along. Many voted for it in October, 2002, when they controlled the
Senate, for the sake of their presidential ambitions or because they
faced a tough re-election campaign.)
What are the odds that even
a handful of Senators will begin a filibuster against the war? Pretty
minimal, I fear, given the power of AIPAC and other pro-war forces within
the Democratic Party. But the Senators should be pressured intensely,
no holds barred, to do so anyway. We should have a version of the Occupation
Project, for example, to target our Senators to join a filibuster and
commit to upholding it by voting against cloture. Acts of non-violent
civil disobedience at local Senate offices will bring attention to their
position--and to their hypocrisy if they claim to be against the war
but refuse to vote that way. Perhaps some Senators will give in to pressure
if they realize that their re-election is at stake. And we are now at
a moment of societal upheaval over the war, with splits among the ruling
class, one faction of which is furious with the neocons for creating
this disaster. So anything can happen. But even if the Senators refuse,
we shall know where everyone stands. And if the Democratic Senators
fail to do the bidding of the people, it helps the antiwar movement
to know that we must look beyond the Democratic Party for a true champion
of peace in '08 and beyond.
John V. Walsh
can be reached at [email protected].
He recommends Alexander Cockburn's remarks along some of the same lines.
(1) http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/
It is also interesting the John McCain abstained on this vote, no doubt
fearing for his presidential ambitions. Nor did Martinez (R) or Democrats
Landrieu or Johnson vote. Unfortunately the purportedly anti-war Chuck
Hagel voted for cloture. Susan Collins (R) voted with the Democrats
against cloture, knowing a vote on the other side could cost her re-election
in Maine.
(2) http://www.politico.com/pdf/070205_iraqvote.pdf
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights