Senate gathers for "stay the course" resolution

Washington Times:

A bipartisan majority in the Senate yesterday united behind a firm "stay the course" resolution on the war in Iraq, despite searing public criticism from both sides in Congress over President Bush's handling of the war.
The resolution is critical of the war's execution and condemns any effort by Mr. Bush to send reinforcements to the region. In the measure, the Senate also promises not to cut off funding for the increasingly unpopular war.
"Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such an action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions," says the resolution, authored mainly by Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican.
Although backers say they are deeply dissatisfied with the execution of the war, the resolution says that the United States "should continue vigorous operations" in parts of Iraq and that early withdrawal "would present a threat to regional and world peace."
Sen. Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who has always opposed the war, called the resolution weak and misguided.
"The resolution rejects redeploying U.S. troops and supports moving a misguided military strategy from one part of Iraq to another," he said. "The American people have rejected the president's Iraq strategy, and it's time for Congress to end our military involvement in this war."
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, also said yesterday that he would oppose the resolution because it doesn't call for withdrawing the troops quickly enough.
"I strongly oppose the Warner-Levin legislation," said Mr. Dodd, who voted in 2002 in favor of the war. "It is essentially an endorsement of the status quo, an endorsement I simply cannot make in light of the dire circumstances in Iraq, and the need for meaningful action now."
Debate over the resolution angered some anti-war voters who were crucial to Democrats' victory in the November midterm elections.
"The whole reason so many of us worked for Democratic candidates was so that they would get a majority in Congress and bring the troops home," said Tina Richards, who described herself as a lifelong Republican from Missouri whose opposition to the Iraq war turned her into a Democrat. "They're in the majority now, but they won't bring the troops home."
...

Getting an agreement in the Senate seems unlikely at this point. That is good news for those who want to win the war and bad news for those who want to lose.