An explanation of why the Iraq resolution was stalled

Most of us were in utter shock late-yesterday when Republican Senators Chuck Hagel and John Warner decided to vote against opening debate on a resolution that they helped craft.  After analyzing what happened, it is pretty clear that Warner's ultimate goal is to try and further manipulate the wording of the resolution itself as a pretext for any Senate debate.  In layman's terms, it is Warner's way or the highway.

What transpired on the Senate floor last night was the legislative version of shock and awe.  At one moment, Chuck Hagel delivered one of the greatest speeches of his career.  Just minutes later, Hagel pulled a 180-degree turn (watch the video):

CHUCK HAGEL: "Madam president, I will have more to say as the debate goes forward this week.  And as I noted, I have every confidence in our two leaders that they will work out -- they will work out a resolution where we will have this debate because it is clearly in the interest of our country.  It is clearly in the interest of our troops.  And with that, Madam president, I would yield back my time and yield the floor, thank you.

Then, Warner quickly jumped in to clarify Hagel's comments:

JOHN WARNER: "Madam president, before the Senator yields, I would like to associate myself with your remarks.  And I too have confidence in our leadership being able to work this out.  And accordingly, no matter how strongly I feel about my resolution, I shall vote with our distinguished leader on this issue in hope that it can reconcile the differences."

Translation: one of four things just happened.  Either:

1. There is an internal struggle inside the GOP that is preventing Warner from getting the necessary votes.
2. Warner wants more GOP support to make him look less like a party outsider.  He does not want to become the scapegoat for the collapse of Iraq.
3. Republicans threatened not to support him in the '08 Senate primaries if he passed the resolution.
4. Warner wants the rhetoric in the resolution altered.

Immediately, we know that scenario #1 is completely out of the question.  Warner has at least 61 votes to pass the Iraq resolution.

Scenario #2 is not the case either.  Warner has prided himself on being an old-school realist Republican, and has voted without the party before.  Plus, no matter what happens, it is unlikely that the GOP would waste time mounting a branding campaign against him.  This is Bush's war, and everyone knows it.

Scenario #3 cannot be true either.  According to the campaign disclosure web site Open Secrets, John Warner has already raised nearly $700,000 for his 2008 Senate run.  It is highly unlikely that the GOP would waste resources and recruit a challenger.

That leaves Scenario #4.  We all know for a fact that Warner successfully negotiated with Democrat Carl Levin last week to remove certain words from the Biden-Levin-Hagel resolution.  So this kind of language manipulation is not new.  The only problem is that he went back on his word.  Warner promised Levin that the resolution would pass if he could change some of the wording.  Now, what Warner seems to be saying is "if my party isn't with me, then this bill will not go through.  My party will only be with me if we can modify the language even more."  Warner has the votes to pass it, but he is choosing not to do so unless the wording is altered in the President's favor.

This is also part of an effort by the GOP to delay the eventual end of the Iraq war.  This non-binding resolution will come first.  Then will come a cap on troops.  Then will come a timetable.  Then will come the cutting off of funds.  We all know the sequence of events that are about to play out.  Therefore, the longer the Republicans can delay and tinker with this resolution, the longer it will eventually take for the Congress to get to the point where they can cut off funds.

I hope this all made sense.