How John Warner brought civility to the Senate

I realize this is a partisan Democratic site, and I certainly don't plan on making it a habit of praising Republicans.  But in light of Senator Warner's announcement to retire, I thought this was an appropriate time to bring to light how he added civility to the Senate during a very ugly time in our political history.  Make no mistake that John Warner is not the Joe Lieberman of the Republican party.  He is a mainstream conservative who I more often than not disagree with; he also has been a big disappointment to me with his Iraq votes, when he should have known better.  I also am a little sore with him with the way he treated the Captain of the USS Cole.  Nevertheless, he has qualities in him I find very lacking in most of his Republican colleagues in the Senate: a sense of decency and honor.  I would like to share with everyone about an evening in June 2006, when he, with no political gain to himself, showed how the Senate should be, instead of how it usually is.  In the words of Barack Obama, John Warner displayed "how to disagree without being disagreeable", and there is no doubt that the Founding Fathers were smiling down on him that night.
June 2006 was yet another defense appropriation battle in the Senate.  The Republicans ran the chamber with a healthy majority, and there was no doubt that the funding would pass.  However, the anti-war sentiment out in the country found a voice in two Democratic Senators -- John Kerry and Russ Feingold -- who had put together an amendment that would set a timetable for withdrawal.  It was a radical plan at the time, and the Democratic leadership was very angry that Kerry and Feingold insisted that their amendment be debated and voted upon.  Many Democrats went to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other publications, and said that John Kerry was a "big embarrassment", that his plan went too far, and that it could cost them in the midterm elections.  Not only that, Harry Reid made sure that the Kerry/Feingold amendment would be debated after the evening news, safely late in the night, where no one would notice the plan.  In 2007, this is all water under the bridge, seeing that the Kerry/Feingold amendment is now the Reid Resolution which at last count received 54 votes in July.  It was an idea which needed time to gain support, as it only garnered 13 votes that June. 

The situation on the Republican side was even uglier, where Kerry and Feingold were pummelled all day long on June 21, 2006, as cut and runners and worse.  Although quite subtle to pick up, it became clear to me that these attacks from both sides of the aisle were taking its toll on Senator Kerry, and the hour was late.  John Warner was in charge of the defense appropriations bill, and had been managing the bill on the floor all day.  There was no predicting why at approximately 9:30 PM, he decided he wanted to have a real debate about Iraq with John Kerry, but he did, and the results were historical.

It ended up that both Senator Warner and Kerry had been asking for a colloquy (debate between two senators, where they ask each other questions) at different parts of the day, but no one was biting.  This was typical:

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Not now. I have limited time, and I want to make this statement, if I may.

... After Brownback's statement ...

Mr. KERRY. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BROWNBACK. If we have time on our side, but I don't know if we have other colleagues wishing to speak.

And so it went all day, where sloganeering won over a real debate.  And, then, suddenly, it all changed, and the only real debate on Iraq in 2006 happened.  I will give instructions at the end of the diary in how to find the colloquy on Thomas (it does not allow you to create a permanent link).  You will not like a lot of what John Warner says.  But he is speaking honestly of his take on Iraq at that time, without personal attacks or sloganeering, which is how debates should work.  I call this The Great Warner/Kerry Debate on Iraq of 2006:

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before the Senator closes, I would like to say a word or two with him.

  Mr. KERRY. I would be delighted to do that.

  Mr. WARNER. You finish your closing and I will wait.

  Mr. KERRY. I would be happy to do so. I thank the distinguished chairman.

... Senator Kerry finishes his speech ...

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, I would say this has been a good debate. Say what you want. I listened very carefully to what you said, and there are certain elements with which I agree with you. You and I have known each other a long time. I have great respect for your military career, the accomplishments you have had. I think you often shared that with regard to my modest career.

  But I must say, I kind of bit my tongue here a few minutes ago when you said in our old days we used to have a colloquy and talked. I arrived on the floor of this Senate at around 9:30, when I first got here. It is exactly 12 hours now that I have been on this floor. And the first thing I said--and I don't want to personalize this--to the other side of the aisle was: Now, let's try to engage in a colloquy and exchange some views. I did say that since we were under a time constraint my questions would be charged to me, the replies from the other side charged to your side. It seemed to me fair enough. We had 5 hours before us at that time. But I have to tell you, I was flatly turned down.

  So now, after 12 hours and your invitation to enter into a colloquy, I say to my good friend, you can ask me any question you wish. And I might start off with a question or two for you.

  Mr. KERRY. I would be delighted.

What followed was a very thoughtful debate on the Kerry/Feingold amendment, as opposed to the Strawmen/Cut-and-Run Amendment Warner's Republican colleagues preferred to debate.  Sadly, even most of Kerry's Democratic colleagues resisted talking about what was in it.  John Warner refused to cop out like that, and made it plain what was in the amendment:

Mr. WARNER:  I think we should make known to those following the debate and those who listened to the debate with Senator Levin, Senator Levin's amendment was a sense of the Congress. The amendment of our colleague from Massachusetts very explicitly becomes law, if it were adopted and eventually went into the bill and the bill survived the conference.

  The point I wish to make is, you are directing the President. For example, it says: The President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, this year, United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007. So this is law. As we used to say in the old days, we are shooting real bullets with this one, not just a sense of the Congress.

  Throughout the debate, not only this one in the past day or two on this bill, but we have always, certainly, on this side, resisted timetables. You talk about putting together a summit. That is on page 2, section (b), Iraq Summit: The President should work with the leaders of the Government of Iraq to convene a summit as soon as possible that includes those leaders, leaders of the governments of each of the countries bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization--I think that is important to have NATO in there--representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, for the purpose of reaching a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that engenders the support of the Sunnis, the Shias, and the Kurds by ensuring the equitable distribution of oil revenues--that is a very important point you make, disbanding the militias--another very important point, strengthening internal security, reviving reconstruction efforts and fulfilling related international economic aid commitments, securing Iraq's borders, and providing for a sustainable federalist structure in Iraq.

  Those are all important subjects, commendable goals.

...

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, that is a wonderful question and a very appropriate one. I really appreciate it. It gives me a chance to talk about the viability of this.

Later on, Senator Warner spoke of the Iraqi government, and I think this is significant to today.  As more time has gone by with conditions no better, the less patience has he had. 

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we just disagree. I feel this government hasn't been given a chance. It has only been 6 weeks.

Then the debate started to become more emotional, and the toll this war has had.  Back in June 2006, two soldiers were kidnapped by insurgents, and later their corpses were found mutilated.  Senator Warner stuck to his belief in the war, but left the option open that he might support a timetable in the future, something I hope he does this fall.

Mr. WARNER:  I know both of us have had the opportunity to serve in the military. There is nothing more painful than the loss of a brother member of the service. I don't know about you, but it has been difficult for me today to contain my absolute outrage about what happened, Mr. President, to these two young soldiers who raised their right arms and volunteered for this service in Iraq, to have been captured and brutally mauled and executed.

  You know, I would say a rough calculation is that we probably have had about a million and a quarter Americans--that is, our brave men and women in uniform and many civilians from the departments and agencies of our Government, including a number of American contractors--who have contributed to where we are today in this new Government standing up and beginning to exercise the powers of sovereignty.

  I say to my good friend, given that heavy investment, the risks taken by over a million and a quarter of our citizens, to send out a signal now--and it is a timetable, Senator--that July 1, 2007, barely 12 months from now that we would probably have under your formula--I ran a calculation--you are going to leave some behind for training and some for logistics, but basically I would say the fighting forces are out. Some may be pre-positioned in other countries nearby. There is a clause in here requiring a report as to how soon they can come back to the continental limits of the United States. That is going to send a signal, and that worries me, that all these people who made these risks and contributions are going to sit back and say, right at the threshold of really the first rays of hope to get this problem solved, we send this type of signal.

  What did you feel when we lost these two individuals? I know you felt it probably as badly as I did. I cannot understand why they could be saying over there that, see what we did, we beheaded two, and what did the Congress do? It passed this law that said our troops would be redeployed by July 1, 12 months from today.

  Senator, timing in life is everything. The timing for this concept you have has not arrived, I say to my good friend.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there are few people in the Senate for whom I have more respect and affection than the Senator from Virginia. We have known each other a long time, and we have traveled together. I am grateful to him for the respect and consideration he has shown for this debate this evening.

  When I heard those two guys were captured, my heart sank because I immediately envisioned the worst. The worst happened. I thought about them throughout that time period, until they were found. I was not surprised that they were brutalized in the most horrific, disgraceful way, and may I add--and I know the Senator knows this--in ways that contravene every law of warfare. But I believe we have a better chance of honoring what they went there for and what all of our soldiers have died for, given something for, if we adopt a policy of reality.

  Mr. President, let me say to the Senator that I went to serve in Vietnam in 1968. There was turmoil in this country. Remember the Chicago convention, remember McCarthy, and Bobby Kennedy had been killed in June. In fact, I arrived back in Long Beach, CA, at the dock after the first deployment in the Gulf of Tonkin the night he was killed. It was the first radio words we heard. I remember that turmoil over the war. I remember Richard Nixon running for President with a secret plan for peace. I remember how people invested in the concept of peace. Years later, we read in Robert McNamara's book how he knew, as Secretary of Defense, while he was sending troops over there, that we weren't going to be successful. Now, from 1968 until 1975, when we left in that dramatic helicopter moment off the embassy, almost half of the people who died were lost in that period of time--for a policy that our leaders knew wasn't working.

  I am not going to be a Member of the Senate in good standing and in good conscience and support a policy in Iraq that I believe is going to add people to whatever Iraqi memorial will be created, at a time where I am convinced this isn't going to work for them and it is not going to work for the Iraqis. I believe we have a moral responsibility to those soldiers who died to do our best to get it right, and I just don't believe staying the course, more of the same, is getting it right.

And then it happened.  Without warning.  John Warner addressed the lies of the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth".  It was an incredible moment to witness on live TV:

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will conclude. The Senator from Massachusetts and I have had this conversation about that period of history before. We will have it again and again. I recall, I went to the Pentagon in February 1969 and was there for 5 years in the Navy Secretariat. As the Secretary of the Navy, the Senator always said I was his boss. He has been very respectful about that.

  I remember when his Silver Star came through our Secretariat at that time. I went back and checked for accuracy, and it was accurate, I say to the Senator. He knows that, and I know that.

  I thought many times about that period, and I recall that the then-Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, came to the conclusion that we had to begin a program of Vietnamization and begin to look toward bringing our troops home. I remember that, and the rest is history.

  I share those concerns. I, like the Senator from Massachusetts, every day, particularly in my responsibility as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, worry about these men and women in uniform. Like the Senator, I visit the hospitals, go to the funerals when it is appropriate for me to do so. I share that burden. I think most of our colleagues do. I happen to know that our President shares those burdens.

  Mr. President, I say to the Senator, my friend, there is a time for everything, and I feel ever so strongly that we have to give this new government more time to try and exercise that sovereignty ...

They continued to debate the Kerry/Feingold amendment, a plan Senator Warner had problems with and was not ready to endorse, and then the colloquy ended.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, I think this has been a very worthwhile colloquy between us.

I hope that this diary has adequately backed up my notion of Senator Warner's basic decency.  I may also add, that here in Virginia, the deaths of so many soldiers has pained Senator Warner very much.  I do hope that now that he is retiring, he finally decides to vote for that timetable.

(Instructions to find the entire colloquy:  go to this link, make sure it is the "109th" Congress, select John Warner, put in dates from 6/21/06 to 6/21/06, hit search, click #5 Nation Defense Authorization Act, and go look at pages S6258 - S6260.)

Comments