FINALLY... THE IRAQ DEBATE IS JOINED (ALMOST)

After weeks of obstructionist game-playing, badly beaten-up Republican Minority Leader Mitch "My Bitch" McConnell was finally defeated in his latest attempts to prevent the Senate from debating Bush's Iraq War. In the end even he just gave up and voted with all but the most hard-core, dead-enders to allow the debate.

Majority Leader Harry Reid framed the debate in a way that struck fear and shame into many Republicans' hearts, especially those among them who have to face voters next year. "Senate Republicans-- if they vote with the President-- are endorsing committing our troops to an open ended civil war. They have isolated themselves, ignoring the will of their constituents and the American people. Protecting the President has been more important to them than working towards ending this conflict. Senate Republicans have a choice to make: At the end of this debate they will vote to either keep our troops mired in an open-ended civil war or they can vote with the American people in an effort to force President Bush to change course."

The only extremists voting against letting the debate proceed who are up for re-election, Mike Enzi R-(WY) and James Inhofe (R-OK), are considered safe enough to not even draw significant competition. The other 7 Republicans voting for filibuster were Allard (R-CO), who is, wisely, retiring, Bond (R-MO), Bunning (R-KY), Coburn (R-OK), DeMint (R-SC), Hatch (R-UT), and Thomas (R-WY).

The resolution, a binding one, S.J. Res 9, calls on Bush "to begin the 'phased redeployment' of U.S. combat troops from Iraq within four months from the date of enactment with the goal of withdrawing all but a 'limited number' by March 31, 2008. The troops remaining in Iraq would have the mission of protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces and conducting 'targeted counterterrorism operations,' according to the resolution." The House version, with specific deadline and benchmarks, is stronger.

McConnell will call a Republican filibuster later in the process in order to give the public the idea that their concerns about the war were at least debated, thereby giving some cover to vulnerable GOP senators who will face their constituents next year. He is particularly concerned about Republicans who are not in low-information states that allow nutcases like Inhofe and Enzi to stick with "stay the course," a policy that would cost Republicans like Collins (ME), Coleman (MN), Warner (VA), Smith (OR), Sununu (NH), Domenici (NM) and perhaps even Dole (NC) and McConnell (KY) himself their seats. The majority of voters in all of these states want the war ended and would agree with Joe Biden's summation: "Mr. President, you're leading us off a cliff. Stop!"

In today's Washington Post Harold Meyerson takes a stab at explaining why all this seems so incredibly messy and complicated and why "the Democrats" can't just legislate us out of Iraq now.

The votes aren't there to shut down funding for the war. What he [David Obey] and Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership in both houses are about is finding some way to curtail the president's determination to pass the war on to his successor regardless of the continuing cost to U.S. interests and lives. Attaching conditions to the appropriations bill is not a foolproof way to accomplish that, as Pelosi and Obey would readily admit. It is merely the best of the imperfect options to wind down U.S. involvement in Iraq, given the narrowness of their congressional majorities and the presence of George W. Bush in the White House...

What Pelosi and Obey understand that their critics on the left seem to ignore is that it will take numerous congressional votes and multiple confrontations with Bush to build the support required to end U.S. involvement. Thanks to the Constitution's division of powers, Congress and the White House seem bound for months of fighting over the conditions attached to any approval of funds for continuing our operations in Iraq. Over time, as the war drags on, either enough Republicans will join their Democratic colleagues to put an end to U.S. intervention, or they will stick with Bush, thereby ensuring there will be a sufficient number of Democrats in the next Congress to end the war.

As a strategy for ending the war, that may not be a thing of beauty. It is, however, the best that our political and constitutional realities allow.