[Peace-discuss] Can Congress stop the war(s), and how?

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Here's another way it could be done. --CGE]

	February 8, 2007
	It Only Takes 41 Senate Votes to End the War.
	Republicans Show the Way.
	Filibuster to End the War Now!
	By JOHN V. WALSH

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 john.endwar at gmail.com. 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


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> *Seven Questions: Can Congress Stop the Iraq War?*
> * *
> Posted February 2007 
> 
> *When President Bush announced he was sending more troops to Iraq, many 
> in Congress rushed to condemn the move. For this week’s Seven Questions, 
> **FP** asked Bruce Ackerman, a top legal scholar at Yale University, 
> what Congress can do to back up its words with deeds.*
> ...