There you have it: Sen. Lieberman just vote ‘against cloture’, i.e., for the filibuster to prevent the anti-surge resolution from coming to a vote.

TPM Reader SS on the senate squabble: “I think it’s pretty simple. Everyone voting today to shut this down “voted to support President Bush’s escalation in Iraq.” That’s the language I would bash them over the heads with for the 21 months between today and election day 2008. There’s nothing untrue about that statement. It’s a parliamentary tactic designed to support the president’s escalation in Iraq by silencing those who wish to criticize the President’s decision.”

So there you have it. Two Republicans buckled and voted against the filibuster — Sens. Coleman and Collins.

Update by G.S.: Here’s a list of all the GOP Senators up for reelection in 2008 who backed it.

Jim Webb on his infamous encounter with President Bush: “I don’t think the lack of courtesy was mine.”

So, the Washington Times story about Speaker Pelosi demanding a military aircraft to ferry her and staff and supporters around the country? Turns out it was a total crock.

Now, I thought I heard Tucker Carlson yapping this story up only this afternoon. So, here’s a question I’d love some help with. If you saw another publication — web, in print, or on TV — pick this ‘story’ up, can you drop us a line? Just shoot us an email with the basic details and as much specificity as you can provide.

Remember too that the Washington Times is a sister publication of ‘Insight magazine’, the outfit that ran the Obama slur just a couple weeks ago.

Late Update: Okay, here’s Brit Hume hawking it.

Later Update: Apparently Lou Dobbs ran with this whopper like there was no tomorrow.

Larry Johnson looks at the Plamegate timeline emerging at the Libby trial.

A special moment.

Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) sets aside time for Sen. Lieberman (ID-CT) to speak on behalf of the GOP Iraq filibuster and refuses Sen. Warner’s (R-VA) request to give some time to Sen. Collins (R-ME). Collins was one of two Republicans to vote against the Republican filibuster of the anti-‘surge’ resolution.

Lieberman.

Who’s right and who’s wrong?

Below we noted that the Washington Times story about Nancy Pelosi’s demand for a military aircraft for travel back to her district appears to be a crock. According to Thinkprogress and reporting in Roll Call, former Speaker Denny Hastert used a military plane for travel to his district. But the plane he used couldn’t carry enough fuel to fly nonstop across the country.

A Pelosi aide told Roll Call: “The Air Force determined that [Pelosi’s] safety would be best ensured by using a plane that has the fuel capacity to go coast-to-coast. All we’re asking for is what Hastert had.”

So this seems to be the issue: a military aircraft for the Speaker has been the rule since 9/11. But a larger plane is needed for Pelosi since she flies back and forth to California, not Illinois.

Okay, let’s move along.

Now, the original Washington Times story said that Pelosi wanted the larger plane so family and friends and staff and others could fly with her. But apparently that was false.

Now, Lou Dobbs has been whacking this story nonstop for a week or so on his CNN show. And he returned to it this evening with yet another segment by reporter Lisa Sylvester. And at the end of the segment he had this chatty exchange with Sylvester …

DOBBS: Lisa, let me see if I’ve got this right. She wants a plane that accommodates 42 people, private stateroom. And the reason is because she wants to be able to go nonstop from Washington to the West Coast? My goodness, she could have done that in the plane that Hastert was using (italics added).

SYLVESTER: That’s exactly correct, Lou. You’ve got that. It would be 42 people, and clearly she won’t be the only one on this plane. She wants to have members of the congressional delegation. And her critics will say, look, this is a very nice perk that she can share with her colleagues and use as leverage, should she need to.

DOBBS: Well, it’s really a fascinating thing: 42. She could take a circus with her, for crying out loud. All right, thank you very much, Lisa Sylvester.

Now, this whole issue is silly. But Dobbs and Co. has been on it for like a week regurgitating the bogus Washington Times piece. And here he says that the Hastert plane actually could fly coast to coast.

Does he know something everyone else doesn’t?

Or did he just make that up out of whole cloth?

Many consider it poor form to point out these small-ante falsehoods. But this is how the Obama-Madrassa story got jazzed all over the place.

TPM Reader RM checks in …

As a lawyer at a large corporate law firm and fomer Navy veteran, I am no expert on theparliamentary procedure but am a bit perplexed at the approach the Democrats are taking on this. They have manuevered to get Republicans on record “blocking” debate, but only because Harry Reid seeks to limit debate and a substitute proposal by McConnell. Thus the Republicans can argue about a convoluted process and complain that they could not offer an alternative they wanted. And at that, all the Democrats want to debate is a chocie between two Republican (Hagel and Warner) alternatives.

I have a modest proposal. Why don’t the Senate Democrats put forward a proposed rule that the debate:

(1) is subject to any and all amendments (for binding resolutions, for the “no cutting off funds” proposal that McConell wants) and that there shall be no limit on the debate;
(2) will be held from 9 am to 7pm every weekday, Monday through Friday, until the debate is concluded;
(3) will require, just like the Clinton impeachment trial, that every Senator be physically present in their seats for all of the debate (I mean, the issues are at least equally important).

Maybe the inability of Tim Johnson to be present will cost the Democrats a vote. Maybe the Republicans can filibuster adoption of this rule. But at least the Democrats would have a clean record on which to argue that the Republicans really do not want to debate. If the Republicans manage to get the substantive votes to adopt some alternative resolution, so be it. They will be stuck with their vote come 2008.

And, as a cherry on top, the rule should also specifically invite the President of the Senate to preside personally over the entire debate, every weekday, until it is over. Let’s see Dick Cheney say he has more important things to do. After all, George Bush is the Commander in Chief and the Decider, so why can’t Cheney take the time (especially in light of TPM Muckraker’s find that Cheney is uniquely suited, as the previously unknown fourth branch of government, to moderate this debate). Let’s offer Cheney the opportunity to be on CSPAN every day, dealing with this. Then we shall see who “cuts and runs.”

It escapes me why the Democrats appear to have no skill at setting up the parliamentary process in a way that makes their points in a simple way. Force the debate. Even in the House, when the vote was forced, and the Republicans tries play games over the Murtha resolution, we all saw that the American public understood exactly what was going on.

Curious (and apoplectic),

RM

RM makes a very important point. But before getting to that issue, it’s important to understand precisely what happened on the senate floor today, what parliamentary procedures were in play and why it ended up as it did.

The Republicans main aim here was to prevent a no-confidence vote in the senate on the president’s war policy. They threatened a filibuster for a while until they finally came up with a rationale for the filibuster. And what they came up with was this …

There were three resolutions in play today. The Warner-Levin anti-surge resolution. The McCain-Graham-Lieberman pro-surge resolution. Then there was a third resolution offered by Sen. Judd Gregg. The key is the Gregg resolution. All the Gregg resolution really said was that it’s the Commander-in-Chief’s duty to assign military missions and the Congress’s duty to fund them. (Constitutionally, it’s a ridiculous claim. But let’s set that aside for the moment.)

Now, here’s the rub. The Democrats wanted them all to go to a simple majority vote. The Republicans wanted each to go to a 60+ filibuster-breaking vote.

How do the two thresholds shape the debate?

If each goes to a simple majority vote, the anti-surge resolution wins, the pro-surge resolution loses and the Gregg amendment probably wins too. But the headline is the repudiation of the president. The Gregg amendment is an afterthought.

However, if each resolution goes to a 60 vote test, the thinking was that both surge resolutions (pro and con) would fail. And only the Gregg amendment would win.

So opposition to the president would lose and the only winning amendment would be one that gets the senate on the record saying that Congress is obligated to fund whatever missions the president chooses.

That’s what happened.

Today’s Must Read: GOPers get set to unload on Paul Bremer.