There is a post today at CounterPunch that points out that Dems could stop the war in Iraq right now, by employing the same tactic that the Republicans used to block the non-binding anti-surge resolution:
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!
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.
John J. Walsh, Filibuster to End the War Now!
The blogosphere must spread the word that the idea that Dems can’t stop the war right now because they don’t have the votes is nothing but a myth. The majority of Americans is becoming more and more incensed that Dems are doing nothing more than posturing about the war. If they continue in this vein, by the time of the 2008 elections, the reason why people voted for them in 2006 will be gone.
Update [2007-2-8 15:34:11 by Alexander]:
There is a diary at dKos about this, which poses the question of why this idea has not been bandied about on the progressive blogosphere, and needed to be proposed on a radical Web site. A very good question. I wonder what the chances are of that diary making the recommended list?
UPDATE
In this dKos thread, Big Tent Democrat claims that the bill in question can’t be filibustered, because it is a budget bill. As I suggest there in response, this bill is an authorization bill, not an appropriation bill, so it can be filibustered, since it is appropriation bills that directly affect the budget. If anyone knows the relevant law and procedures, I’d appreciate it if they could clear this up.