Breaking: Warner Introducing Non-Binding Version Of Webb Amendement -- But Didn't Even Tell Webb First
There's been a new twist in the battle over Jim Webb's troop readiness bill: It was just announced on the Senate floor that Senator John Warner -- who had been wavering in his support of Webb's amendment -- is planning to introduce his own, nonbinding version of Webb's measure.
But here's the rub: According to a source close to Webb, Warner didn't even inform his fellow Senator that he was planning to do this. Webb was totally surprised when he heard the announcement, the source tells us.
Just a few minutes ago, Senator McCain, who's overseeing today's activities as the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, announced on the floor that Warner would be introducing a "sense of Congress" amendment on troop readiness. A "sense of Congress" amendment is nonbinding -- it's not a law, it's an expression of Congress' opinion.
Thus, this allows Warner to express his opinion that the Webb measure -- giving troops rest time equal to their time in combat -- is merely a good idea, without putting it into law.
This would seem to suggest that Warner has decided to oppose the Webb amendment itself, which unlike Warner's new measure would put increased troop rest periods into law, meaning it would actually happen.
The source close to Webb confirmed that despite the fact that Warner had been in private talks with Webb about possibly supporting his measure, he decided to introduce the nonbinding measure without telling Webb. "We had no idea," the source tell us. "No idea."
Needless to say, this doesn't bode well for Webb's measure.
Warner has a history of introducing such nonbinding measures on Iraq. Back in February he introduced a nonbinding "sense of Congress" resolution against the "surge."
More soon.
Late Update: Taylor Marsh makes the key point that Webb's measure has real military support.
Later Update: Think Progress has must-see video and a transcript of Webb's response.
Later Update: Here's Webb's response.
Comments (20)
js wrote on September 19, 2007 12:35 PM:We should abolish the senate and the house too. What a f*cking system !!!!!!
bob wrote on September 19, 2007 12:40 PM:Can it be kept from coming to the floor for a vote?
Rooktoven wrote on September 19, 2007 12:44 PM:Way to go Warner, you've gone from potentially being remembered as a statesman to being forever known as a gutless craven weasel.
The guy couldn't even stand up to Bush when not facing re-election. What an absolute coward.
Deacon Blues wrote on September 19, 2007 12:47 PM:You can't trust Republicans. Ever.
Jim J wrote on September 19, 2007 12:50 PM:Just remember folks -- it's crap like this that will make victory all the sweeter when it comes.
colonpowwow wrote on September 19, 2007 12:54 PM:Jimmie?
Can you say "Snake in the grass?"
I knew you could! ;-)
MisterRogers
donkey wrote on September 19, 2007 12:55 PM:I can't find
anything nice to say
about warner
so I won't say anything
about that f*cking weasel
heh...
CK MacLeod wrote on September 19, 2007 12:59 PM:"which unlike Warner's new measure would put increased troop rest periods into law, meaning it would actually happen"
That's pretty funny. If Webb's law was passed, as written and not loaded with waivers that would make it symbolic anyway, it would be vetoed - that's already crystal clear. In that sense, the only difference between Warner's bill and Webb's is that Warner admits his is symbolic.
jeffgee wrote on September 19, 2007 1:01 PM:An example of Gramm-standing, when a Senator speaks publicly for an issue, then works to defeat it behind the scenes. Warner was headed toward a graceful exit; his legacy is now very tainted.
gqmartinez wrote on September 19, 2007 1:06 PM:You folks need to stop blaming Republicans and Warner. The real problem is people like me who are rolling their eyes. Sorry, couldn't resist. It's the cynic in me who loves sharing the blame for this sort of thing with Republicans!
phil james wrote on September 19, 2007 1:15 PM:Real nice. Sense of the Senate, huh. How about a little sense of the electorate. Not soon enough will it be out with the John Warners and in with the Mark Warners across the Senate. So we now sense why JW is retiring. Someone at the White House must have some Dulles Airport men's room video of these Republican clowns. How else do you explain what sniveling yellow-livered lackeys they are. They don't have a single vertebrum among them.
P J Evans wrote on September 19, 2007 1:16 PM:Wasn't it the GOP members who were complaining about these 'sense of the Senate' resolutions when it was the Democrats who introduced them?
It sure looks different when it's your party that's doing it, doesn't it, John?
Mamzic wrote on September 19, 2007 1:18 PM:Gee, maybe if Warner's goof off son was in the Marines like Webb's son Warner might want to give him and the rest of the troops some rest and recovery time.
slb wrote on September 19, 2007 1:19 PM:I'm keenly disappointed with Warner. He's supposed to be one of the "old school" senators, but cutting off your state's other senator like that, even one of the opposite party, is not acceptable "old school" behavior. You would think he would want to go into retirement with more grace than that. But he's just a Republican after all.
phil james wrote on September 19, 2007 1:38 PM:One tiny thing in Warner's defense. He may have understood, perhaps was even told by the WH that, even if the bill was passed with a veto-proof majority, and even if it made it back onto Dubya's desk, it would be enacted with one of Bush's patented signing statements that would gut the law anyway. Or Dubya would issue an executive order the day after the law passes effectively countervening the law. And the SCOTUS would back him 5 to 4. It's a glorious day for dictators wouldn't you say?
mark wrote on September 19, 2007 1:44 PM:SOP for republicans
No wonder their party is in free fall.
Thorpe wrote on September 19, 2007 1:53 PM:Damn, the republicans are cutting the throats of our troops and their families.
jeffgee wrote on September 19, 2007 2:56 PM:So, js, what do you propose to replace the Senate and House? A dictatorship? Oh, never mind. We already have a dictator. The Decider.
michael valentne wrote on September 19, 2007 4:46 PM:When the Republicans held the Senate and the stakes were only Judicial appointments they threatened a NUCLEAR OPTION. A rewriting of the Senate rules to by-pass the filibuster, these Judges deserved an "UP OR DOWN VOTE."
Do our men and women in uniform deserve any less?
The hypocritical Republicans would rather ride the backs of the people who are currently in the military and risk the security of our nation by using them up then doing the right thing.
If the war is so FUCK*ING IMPORTANT, start the draft and the people will support it. Do it now so the public voice expressed during the next election WILL HAVE AN IMPACT.
breakspear wrote on September 19, 2007 10:42 PM:
michael valentne: I agree with your comment. Hey Senator Reid, just enact the so-called 'Nuclear Option' rule already, where you'll only need a majority to cut off debate and go to a vote. this issue is way too important to keep having it thrown back at you amendment after amendment. the american people would very overwhelmingly support this if you did it. and you could crow about it until the troops came home.
