Feingold-Reid To Get A Vote

It'll be interesting to see how many votes it attracts. The other proposals from the Senate are of the namby-pamby "we must withdraw by fall unless the President says he doesn't want to" variety. Then there's a group that wants to create unenforceable benchmarks that the Iraqi government must follow unless they don't follow them.

(Nebraska Sen. Ben) Nelson has drafted similar legislation that would go even further. If the Iraqis failed to make progress on certain political and security reforms, the U.S. would cut off reconstruction aid. Under the bill, the president could waive the restriction if he provides public justification.

Nelson's bill also would require the U.S. commander in Iraq to testify by Sept. 15 on whether Bush's troop buildup around Baghdad is working.

"The Senate needs to move forward," Nelson said. "The president has signaled he will accept reasonable benchmarks."

The alliance of Nelson and Warner and other moderates on Iraq is reminiscent of the "Gang of 14," a group of senators who in 2005 drafted a compromise to end a Senate fight on judicial nominations.

Gang of 14 II: The Gangening! David Broder may jump through the ceiling of his finely decorated inside-the-Beltway home!

Basically, the politicians are still way behind the American people on this one. And at least some of them are uncomfortable with even doing their job:

The staffer claims that the Senate leadership was going back and forth all weekend on whether to allow this vote. "I think there are probably some people who would prefer not to see a vote on this," the staffer says. "It forces people to take a stand."

Heaven forfend that anyone take a stand against a tragic occupation. It might make David Broder spit out his cocktail! Better to create a broad bipartisan compromise that will effectively do nothing.

I'm glad that there will be a vote on Feingold-Reid, and that everyone will be on the record. The only thing that matters, however, is that George Bush won't sign anything that includes even the smallest concession. In that case, I'd assume that he'll be ending the war himself. Because I don't think the Democrats are stupid enough to allow that.