‘Test votes’ on Iraq is a failed Dem strategy

Two votes on bringing our troops home from Iraq are scheduled for Tuesday, and MoveOn wants me to call my U.S. Senator to urge him to vote for them.

I may do that, but both votes seem pre-destined to fail.  The one that really matters is guaranteed to lose.

Both are described as “test votes,” meaning they are intended to get a reading on whether there are 60 votes, enough to prevent a filibuster.  If not, the bills go back into the drawer in some committee.

CQ Today describes the situation this way:

Democrats are not likely to muster the 60 votes needed to call up the tougher of the two, which would bar funding for Iraq deployments 120 days after enactment, with some exceptions for anti-terrorism missions, training Iraqi security forces and protecting American forces.

Four similar measures failed last year. The most recent, a Feingold amendment to an omnibus spending measure, fell by a 24-71 vote Dec. 18.

According to a Senate Democratic aide, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., “had made a prior commitment to Sen. Feingold to bring these bills up,” and agreed to do so now so Feingold would not block Senate consideration of several other measures.

A memo circulated by a Senate Republican leadership aide said the Feingold bill would mean “U.S. troops can no longer perform most of the missions that have made the surge so successful, and allowed for the political progress Iraqis have made in recent months.”

A second test vote is scheduled on the motion to proceed to another Feingold bill that would require a report within 60 days “setting forth the global strategy of the United States to combat and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates.”

While the GOP leadership aide called that bill a politically motivated “messaging” measure, Republicans have not publicly indicated how they will vote.  

One provision in the bill would require the report to include recommendations to ensure the global deployment of U.S. troops is aimed at defeating al Qaeda and does not undermine homeland security or require frequent redeployments or extensions of deployments.

Wanna bet how those Republicans will vote?

This brings me to a strategic question that is often asked but goes unanswered:

Instead of test votes, why not schedule bills and force the Republicans to filibuster if they want to prevent them from passing?

Let the country see who’s blocking the efforts to bring our troops home and extricate this country from the bloody mess in Iraq.

Let them tie up the Senate’s business for a week, or two weeks, or however long, telling us why we need to stay in Iraq.

The present strategy allows both parties to share the blame for inaction on Iraq, while two-thirds of the voters want action.

That’s why “Congress” gets an dismal, unfavorable rating — because it’s not doing anything.  And the Democrats, by being afraid to take a strong stand, have been complicit in allowing the war and occupation to grind on.

Harry Reid, the majority “leader,” even made Feingold agree not to hold up or filibuster some other unspecified bills in return for getting a couple of “test votes.”

Meanwhile, there are reports that House Democrats don’t plan to take any action to try to end the war this year, because it “makes them look weak” when they fail.

There’s a reason for that:  They are weak.  And they are weak in the worst possible place — their backbone.