Iraq Improving: Lieberman
Joe Lieberman has struggled mightily to maintain American backing for the war in Iraq, amd today he writes what amounts to a rebuttal of yesterday's Washington Post analysis for the Wall Street Journal. The Senator just returned from a trip to Iraq and other Middle East nations, and claims that he sees major improvements since his last visit in December:
I recently returned from Iraq and four other countries in the Middle East, my first trip to the region since December. In the intervening five months, almost everything about the American war effort in Baghdad has changed, with a new coalition military commander, Gen. David Petraeus; a new U.S. ambassador, Ryan Crocker; the introduction, at last, of new troops; and most important of all, a bold, new counterinsurgency strategy.The question of course is--is it working? Here in Washington, advocates of retreat insist with absolute certainty that it is not, seizing upon every suicide bombing and American casualty as proof positive that the U.S. has failed in Iraq, and that it is time to get out.
In Baghdad, however, discussions with the talented Americans responsible for leading this fight are more balanced, more hopeful and, above all, more strategic in their focus--fixated not just on the headline or loss of the day, but on the larger stakes in this struggle, beginning with who our enemies are in Iraq. The officials I met in Baghdad said that 90% of suicide bombings in Iraq today are the work of non-Iraqi, al Qaeda terrorists. In fact, al Qaeda's leaders have repeatedly said that Iraq is the central front of their global war against us. That is why it is nonsensical for anyone to claim that the war in Iraq can be separated from the war against al Qaeda--and why a U.S. pullout, under fire, would represent an epic victory for al Qaeda, as significant as their attacks on 9/11.
Lieberman makes the points that advocates of the Iraq strategy repeat. A withdrawal will encourage al-Qaeda and Iran to continue and expand their operations in Iraq. The resultant collapse of security will force neighboring nations to send their own troops into Iraq, making it into a shifting, chaotic mess of cross-purpose actions for several nations. That will create the kind of failed state we see in Somalia and Sudan, and it will eventually force the US to re-invade Iraq when terrorists based their begin attacking American assets around the world -- including here.
However, Lieberman doesn't just argue the consequences of withdrawal. He also says that conditions have improved significantly over the last few months:
When I returned to Anbar on this trip, however, the security environment had undergone a dramatic reversal. Attacks on U.S. troops there have dropped from an average of 30 to 35 a day a few months ago to less than one a day now, according to Col. John Charlton, commander of the 1st Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, headquartered in Ramadi. Whereas six months ago only half of Ramadi's 23 tribes were cooperating with the coalition, all have now been persuaded to join an anti-al Qaeda alliance. One of Ramadi's leading sheikhs told me: "A rifle pointed at an American soldier is a rifle pointed at an Iraqi." ...In Baghdad, U.S. forces have cut in half the number of Iraqi deaths from sectarian violence since the surge began in February. They have also been making critical improvements in governance, basic services and commercial activity at the grassroots level.
This doesn't disagree with the report cited by the Washington Post. The article pointed out that the places where American surge strategy has the most application -- Anbar and Baghdad -- it has already succeeded in reducing violence. Anbar, according to that report, has seen violence drop by a third, and the violence now takes the form of battles against terrorists.
The game of whack-a-mole described yesterday by the Post, where violence shifted into Ninewah, demonstrates the efficacy of the new strategies, Lieberman argues. As American and Iraqi forces drive terrorists out of Anbar and Baghdad, they move outward to places like Diyala and Ninewah. The act of retreat makes them more vulnerable and less effective, but also more desperate to conduct attacks. And as in any military engagement, a shift in tactics and aggressiveness by one side will prompt a reaction in the other.
Lieberman makes a strong case for tenacity here. He reminds us that the purpose of our effort in Iraq isn't to win a revenue-sharing deal or the return of Ba'athists to public service. It's to help form a representative democracy in the region that can serve as an example of freedom in a region too long blighted by oppression.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on June 15, 2007 12:19 PM | Comments (29) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (29)
Posted by TomB | June 15, 2007 1:00 PM
The position of the MSM is very well summarized in today's cartoon. Now in old days it was called treason...
Posted by Lightwave | June 15, 2007 2:04 PM
Indeed.
At what point do we start questioning the patriotism of American news organizations during a time of war? When entire swaths of the MS can be tarred with the same brush of being propaganda mills for Al Qaeda, there's something wrong.
The reason these organizations have freedom of the press is due to the US Constitution. It would be nice if these guys were interested in helping to defend it.
Posted by Monkei | June 15, 2007 2:14 PM
Joe is right, the war in Iraq is going great ... bully bully. Now let's get on to bombing Iran since we will be done in Iraq in short order.
Posted by The Interface | June 15, 2007 2:18 PM
Daniel P. Moynihan, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
Reid: opinion
Lieberman: facts
Which reflects reality?
Posted by rbj | June 15, 2007 2:51 PM
Monkei, where exactly did Lieberman use the word "great"?
Quit putting false words in his mouth just so you can knock him down.
One relevant quote Lieberman did say:
"I returned from Iraq grateful for the progress I saw and painfully aware of the difficult problems that remain ahead."
Posted by Okonkolo | June 15, 2007 2:56 PM
Lieberman has been overly optimistic many times before and I see no reason, based on that Pentagon report, to believe his spin over the Pentagon's. His essay is selective: yes Joe, sectarian killings are down, but civilian killings are up, violence is down where we have surged, but it is up everywhere else, suicide attacks are up, etc. etc.And the things Americans care dearly about is that American troop deaths are up. Whack-a-mole results are not going to work in the long run unless we "surge" the whole country, which we clearly cannot do. No doubt a lot of Americans are uneasy with the news that we are arming some of the very Sunni insurgents that have killed American soldiers because they say they want to clear out al qaida; that's exactly the sort of thing that helped produce the Taliban. The way the WH and some candidates are trying to downplay the results expected of the surge is another sign that things really are not going well. Sorry, Joe, reframing the Pentagon report doesn't make you right or believable.
Posted by William Tanksley Jr | June 15, 2007 3:15 PM
Okonkolo, you're right that we can't judge the effect of the new strategy based on the fact that violence is down in the places where we've surged. What will provide evidence is what happens when we lower troop levels in a former surge area as part of expanding our area of control. If we actually can control new area while keeping control of the old, then the strategy could work. If we can't, it won't.
Declaring proven defeat now is as stupid as declaring proven victory.
Posted by Deb | June 15, 2007 3:15 PM
we don't need to surge the whole country, okonkolo, as the Iraqi security forces are left to bravely hold ground that we have gained. Our surge battalions are just now all finally in place, ready to commence. AQ is on the run from Baghdad and Anbar, out to the countryside. Desperate, they have bombed the Shiite mosque again, hoping to stir up sectian strife. Hopefully, the Iraqis are now wiser to this ploy.
but keep up your negative hand-wringing, please; this may be useful politically, down the road. And Joe wil be shown to be the wise and steadfast patriot that he is.
Posted by KW64 | June 15, 2007 3:30 PM
What would Reid say if Republicans announced that the 2008 Democratic campaign for president was lost even though the candidates were just starting their campaigns? What if Republicans proclaimed that any Democratic politician that was not ready to concede defeat was incompetent. I trust he would say that is ridiculous.
It is similarly ridiculous for him to proclaim that the surge is a failure before it really has had a chance to begin and it is also absurd to proclaim that Generals like Pace and Petreaus are incompetent because they are too optimistic in thinking they can succeed.
If this war is going to be lost, it will be lost on the home front and Reid has become one of our enemies most effective tools. It is time for Joe Lieberman to call out Reid directly.
Posted by Okonkolo | June 15, 2007 3:59 PM
William: I don't disagree with you, but again, my pessimism is based on the repeated reports (2+years) of what the Iraqi army was going to be capable of doing, only to be disappointed. It is encouraging that some of them seem to be doing well, but discouraging that some of the Shia units veer off into sectarian score-settling missions, which of course breeds reprisal actions. This strategy (without the surge though) was already supposed to work. And really, the "surge" is just re-raising troop levels to where they were some time ago.
Deb: This also goes to respond to your post. Sure, if the Iraqi army can hold Baghdad, our army might be able to help elsewhere. That's a big if, and again, my pessimism is based on their track record. So I suppose I sound like a half-glass-empty person, but after hearing that the cup was going to be filled time and time again I'm suspicious that there is an unrepaired hole in the bottom of it. And if we wind up only treading water while incurring the troop deaths we've seen this year, well, that will not be "useful politically down the road."
Posted by starfleet_dude | June 15, 2007 4:45 PM
Lieberman's been saying things are getting better in Iraq for at least the last six Friedman Units or so, which sort of makes him less than credible on the subject overall.
Posted by Del Dolemonte | June 15, 2007 5:20 PM
starfleet_dude sez:
"Lieberman's been saying things are getting better in Iraq for at least the last six Friedman Units or so, which sort of makes him less than credible on the subject overall."
LOL, you should throw Joe out of the party and run someone more "qualified" to take his place (snicker).
Posted by gaffo | June 15, 2007 8:15 PM
"Lieberman makes a strong case for tenacity here."
Or a strong case defending the merit of the definition of Insanity.
5 yrs and 500 tries - same result Bubba Captain.
"He reminds us that the purpose of our effort in Iraq isn't to win a revenue-sharing deal or the return of Ba'athists to public service. It's to help form a representative democracy in the region"
Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmm - gee Bubba Captain, me thoughts its was to rid Saddam of Weapons of Mass destruction?
whats with all this "democracy" CRAP??
no WMD - thus to reason to stay. Re-install Saddam and lets LEAVE.
"that can serve as an example of freedom in a region too long blighted by oppression."
Hey arrogant A.......OLE - WE (the US) don't have a moral standing to stand on to SERVE AS AN EXAMPLE to anyone!
We elect a MORON, and a LIAR who violates Article 6 of the United States Constution - lies about imaginary WMDs and gets 3000 US kids killed over the neocon fucking koolaid bullshit based INSANE AND UNSUPPORTABLE IN THE REAL FUCKING WORLD FANATICAL RESHAPING OF THE ME BY GUNBOAT ARROGANCE................
you have NO LEGS TO STAND ON CAPTAIN!! and you are a utter FOOL if you think you and your brainwashed morons can serve as an example to follow for the Arabs.
fools all - you are a fool - plain and simple truth Bubba.
give Jim Jones my love fool.
Posted by gaffo | June 15, 2007 8:41 PM
the wise ostrich "deb" proclaimeth:
"we don't need to surge the whole country, okonkolo, as the Iraqi security forces are left to bravely hold ground that we have gained."
assumption - Iraqi security forces have a national loyalty - well Debbie - if you watched any netwroks other than Faux "News" (like PBS's FRONTLINE - maybe?) you'd know that the Iraqi Security Forces follow their marching orders from Sadr/Bader while they act like they love Uncle Sammy.
the naivity of the sheople of America is truely infinate - and the ostrich factor makes it nigh unbeleivable!
"Our surge battalions are just now all finally in place, ready to commence."
Hate to tell you this Debbie but the time to commence was 4 or 5 yrs ago. and now that the military is BROKEN - the surge will NOT BE ABLE TO LAST MORE THAN ONE YEAR.
so "Deb" oh wise one - what the fuck do we do in a year from now when the same shit is happening on the ground and all our boys miliatry terms are all up and the "surge" is at 60-percent what it is now?.
well? - tell us how we win one year from now ostrich?
"AQ is on the run from Baghdad and Anbar, out to the countryside. "
re-deploying is not runing - of course if you understood this you would not be against the democrats proposals. but you don't and so your suicidal run into the brick wall of DENIAL continues ;-).
I love every passing week of it!! - by 2008 there will be 10 or 20 Neocons left in the entire Nation - all the others steeped in shame over being dooped and too ashamed to go out and vote!!
Dems in 2008 for sure!! ;-). good - serves you arrogant "reshaped the world by gunboats" naive fools right.
"Desperate, they have bombed the Shiite mosque again, hoping to stir up sectian strife."
Desperate? - hardly. pretty fucking smart actually. - don't look now ostrich, but you/lieberman and the Captain are the ones who spin spin spin that sow's ear into the silk purse (working overtime too!! - I'm so impressed!).
"Hopefully, the Iraqis are now wiser to this ploy."
wiser - oh you should talk! what do you know of wisdom!!??
"but keep up your negative hand-wringing, please; this may be useful politically, down the road. And Joe wil be shown to be the wise and steadfast patriot that he is."
Joe will be shown to be a fool - along with the Captain and yourself. McCarthyite reactionaries - hyperventalating over terrorists under your beds and allowig the the destruction of the Constitution and the instigation of an illegal war - over being too ignorant of the diffence between Afganistan and Iraq.
History books will religate you and the Captain and Lieberman to the trashbin of histroy - alone with McCarthy and his cronies.
Posted by Del Dolemonte | June 15, 2007 8:46 PM
gabbo sez:
"We elect a MORON, and a LIAR who...
yada yada
First of all, you "caring and compassionate" people from the left side of the aisle aren't supposed to use such politically incorrect words as "moron". Makes ya look bad, ya know? Said word usually is employed to define people of low intelligence.
And as I recall, Dubyah got a Harvard MBA, while his first opponent Al Gore took two or three tries to get thru college.
Doofus Dubyah's 2004 opponent Jean-Claude Kerry tried to keep his records from being leaked, because it turned out that his college grades were actually worse than Shrub's. Even though they both went to Yale.
As for Shrub "lying" about WMDs, why did his predecessor also claim that Saddam had them?.
I actually know where the WMDs are. We secretly found them, loaded them on planes, and flew them to Andrews AFB, where they were unloaded by employees of Halliburton and transported to their permanent hiding place in Dick Cheney's basement.
Posted by gaffo | June 15, 2007 8:57 PM
"If this war is going to be lost, it will be lost on the home front"
gee ya think? - welcome to the real world.
Nam ring a bell?
oh ya, genius - when the "war" is lost on the homefront - there IS A REASON for it being LOST on the homefront - the reason being the sheople wake up!.
and it ain't spin - its called reality.
"and Reid has become one of our enemies most effective tools."
ONLY when/if the majority continue to suport the inane Iraqnam.
Now that the MAJORITY DON'T SUPPORT IRAQNAM WAR - YOU!!!!!!!!! are the enemies most favored tool Bubba.
with jarheads like you we stay for 50 yrs or 100 yrs (hey! 100 years war - has a nice ring to it) - 100,000 GIS die and we are no closer to wining that we were 100 years earlier!!!
YOU are Al Qaeda's most favored buddy chump.
"It is time for Joe Lieberman to call out Reid directly."
Its time for Lieberman to go away.
Posted by gaffo | June 15, 2007 9:16 PM
bananna sayeth:
"First of all, you "caring and compassionate" people from the left side of the aisle aren't supposed to use such politically incorrect words as "moron". Makes ya look bad, ya know? Said word usually is employed to define people of low intelligence."
not particularly "Compassionate" - not in that fake way. just in the average way - like yourself.
not into "politically correct" - that is censorship and mind control crap. Anti Liberal (Liberty) - as in OLD SCHOOL 1970's democrat.
today's Democrat is a fake fucker - steeped into playing the race card and political correct speach censorship - sometime in the 1980's the democratic party was overrun with these assholes.........not sure how or why folks let it happen. but it did.
that is why this 70's dem is now a Libertarian. - he's got no where else to go. Libertarians value ALL of the BoR - not just 1/2 like the Repugs and today's dems. (oppostie halves of course).
"And as I recall, Dubyah got a Harvard MBA, while his first opponent Al Gore took two or three tries to get thru college."
Book smarts don't mean SHIT WRT wisdom - and wisdom is not a thing taught from a BOOK!
I would choose an illiterate unschooled WISE presidential candidate over a PHD in physics and an "F" in common sense - any fucking day of the week!
"Doofus Dubyah's 2004 opponent Jean-Claude Kerry tried to keep his records from being leaked, because it turned out that his college grades were actually worse than Shrub's. Even though they both went to Yale."
Kerry was a loser - NOT due to his grades - but due to his lack of character.
as to grades and wisdom - there is NOT CORRILATION....................as in NONE.
millions of foolish Doctors and millions of wise farmers.
and if you cannot understand this - well, don't bother to read a book about it, it will not help you.
As for Shrub "lying" about WMDs, why did his predecessor also claim that Saddam had them?.
Posted by DFAL | June 15, 2007 10:15 PM
Is Lieberman the only Democrat with a backbone? Also, if the 2006 election was about voter discontent over Iraq, why did Lieberman get re-elected? He supported the war and he lost the DFL endorsement.
Perhaps the DFL doesn't have the mandate they think they do.
Posted by Joe | June 15, 2007 10:33 PM
The Iraqi security forces have shown time and time again that they are more loyal to their local militias than they are too the central government. And if the Sunni tribes in Al Anbar want to kill Al Queda with weapons we provide them, well thats great. But after they get rid of AL Queda do you think they'll turn their US weapons back to us, or turn them on us?How can anyone believe Liarmann when he spews the same pro-war, everythings going great bs everytime he opens his pie hole. A neo-con hiding behind his "Independent" label.....what a joke. Iraq is a lot worse, people in this country with a working brain realize this, kool-aid drinking blowhards don't get this. Watch the gop go extinct. Its about time.
Posted by Del Dolemonte | June 15, 2007 10:45 PM
gabbo says
"as to grades and wisdom - there is NOT CORRILATION...................."
According to ABC News' exit polling, Al Gore won over 80 percent of the high school dropout vote in 2000. No other Presidential candidate since then has accomplished such a lofty result.
By the way, you spelled "correlation" wrong. Most liberal leftists do, because they have no idea what it means. Have another drink!
Posted by deb | June 16, 2007 12:01 AM
gaffo, paraphrased:
we're lost man, whatta we gonna do now? we're dead! they already killed some of us. we can't take on these thugs. this is scary s**t man. they're not really retreating, they're gonna surround us! we gotta get out of here now!!
Posted by Monkei | June 16, 2007 7:49 AM
Pineapple
LOL, you should throw Joe out of the party and run someone more "qualified" to take his place (snicker).
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about Chuck Hagel!
Joe L is an idiot and willing to throw the US under the bus to protect Isreal.
Posted by OldFatGuy | June 16, 2007 8:38 AM
Old Joe can always claim senility years from now. How about the rest of us? Iraq is a cash cow for oil companies and Blackwater type security organizations. Why should it end just because Iraqis are killing each other and American military forces? Let's get real. The business of business is business. No one cares about Iraqis that I know of, and I only hear an occassional concern about American deaths. What I hear a lot of is people telling me how great their Chevron stocks are doing.
Posted by gaffo | June 16, 2007 9:48 AM
Ostrich returnith to proclaim:
"gaffo, paraphrased:
we're lost man,"
yes LOST - we lost the day we invaded - too few troops and no understanding of the culture there.
it is literally too late to re-impliment the DRAFT in time to win Iraqnam and no other option is credible. Too few troops to win it Debbie (how that view Ostrich?)
" whatta we gonna do now? we're dead! they already killed some of us. we can't take on these thugs. this is scary s**t man. they're not really retreating, they're gonna surround us! we gotta get out of here now!!"
The above is you own paranoid fearful mind putting words in my mouth. You see Debbie - unlike you I'mnot afraid of the Al Quada in Iraq nor the Militias - since the fightig is on the other side of the planet and the war in Iraq is essentually a Civil War and not one aimed at the United States itself.
I know we've lost - simple as that. but unlike you I'm no cowering in fear over our inevitable defeat - nor in denail of this eventual reality.
It will hurt our economy BAD - and gas will triple in price - but the smarter ones are now selling their SUVs/oversized trucks and preparing for this day buy buying smaller cars.
Posted by The Foop | June 16, 2007 11:45 AM
Gaffo,
I was skeptical, right from the get go, about whether Iraqis, or any other Arab nation, would have any interest in embracing democracy.
I also couldn't care less whether Saddam Hussein had WMDs.
What I care about is that our two most important cities were attacked by Arab terrorists. And I think we needed to respond quite strongly. Invading a backwoods country like Afghanistan was not enough. We needed to go after one of the major players in the heart of the Mideast who has a history of supporting terrorists.
It could have been Assad, it could have been the Mullahs of Iran. It could have been the Saudis. Or it could have been Saddam Hussein. Any of them would be fine with me.
Bush decided to go after Iraq.
The liberals predicted disaster for our military, the same way they predicted disaster in Afghanistan. "Hand to hand fighting in streets of Bagdhad" were the words of Robert Byrd. He wasn't talking about a post-war insurgency. He was making a prediction about what our military would face while trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Didn't quite happen that way. Our military kicked butt. Dragged Hussein out of a hole. Don't think all the other dictators in the neighborhood took notice? Yeah, they can all pretend to celebrate now...... America is "bogged down in Iraq". ......The American people have turned against the war.......Bush doesn't have a mandate to attack anyone else.....The Iranians have us just where they want us.
Don't believe it!! They never thought Bush would have the nerve to overthrow an Arab dictator without proof of his direct involvment in 9/11. They were wrong. They are scared sh*tless of us now, regardless of what they say.
We showed strength. We sent a message. Our military won two quick victories. THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SO DAMN MAD.
Posted by KW64 | June 16, 2007 1:48 PM
Gaffo says: Its time for Lieberman to go away
That is fine. Then the Republican Governor of Connecticut would appoint a Republican and Harry Reid would no longer be Majority Leader. That is why I said Joe Lieberman should call Reid out on his defeatist demoralizing comments directly. Reid cannot afford to ignore Joe Lieberman when he can pull the plug on his majority leadership.
Posted by gaffo | June 16, 2007 5:01 PM
first honest post here - by The Foop:
"I also couldn't care less whether Saddam Hussein had WMDs."
Well the truth is out! - well those on the "left" only cared about WMD. Since that was the stated reason for invading and there were none - we have no legs to stand on in defending the notion of staying there.
"What I care about is that our two most important cities were attacked by Arab terrorists."
relivance to Iraq? - none.
maybe we should have nucked Togo - right? makes as much sence as attacking Iraq.
"And I think we needed to respond quite strongly. Invading a backwoods country like Afghanistan was not enough. "
Sadly it was the only legitimate target - maybe Saudi Arabia if a link could have been found (I'm sure we didn't look into that since we are the Saud's Bitches).
"We needed to go after one of the major players in the heart of the Mideast who has a history of supporting terrorists."
So why did we go after a minor has-been wanabee player with ZERO links to Al Qeada?
Well Bubba? why did we attack an irrelivant Nation called Iraq?
"It could have been Assad, it could have been the Mullahs of Iran."
Both were part of "stage two" in the Neogoons dream world of world conquest. Reality in Iraqnam ended stage two however.
"It could have been the Saudis."
no - never we are the Saud's pussies - need their oil too much. just makeup another target that had nothing to do with 911 and get the ignorant American Sheople to go for it. One arab Nation is as good as another - who gives a shit if Iraq had nothing to do with 911 nor any links to Al Qaeda - just downing street memo the fucker - repeat repeat repeat the lies over and over without providing facts and the silly sheople will buy it - hook line and sinker.
"Or it could have been Saddam Hussein."
the easy target.
"Any of them would be fine with me."
and THAT IS WHY WE ARE IN THIS FUCKED UP MESS - BECAUSE OF FOLKS LIKE YOU CHUMP.
well guess what - only the party responsible for 911 wuld be fine by me. Unlike you have a a problem with illegally invading nations that had nothing to do with 911 and them lying to me and claiming they did!!!
folks like you shit on our Constitution - I fear your cavalier attitude WRT to the Rule of Law.
"Bush decided to go after Iraq. "
and commited treason in doing so.
Posted by gaffo | June 16, 2007 5:07 PM
you are right - Lieberman is a very powerful figure due to the circumstances you posted about.
Reid is aware of this I'm sure. He does have to tread lightly - somewhat.
Like Hagel (solid Repulbican), Lieberman is a solid Democrat (except for Iraqnam).
If Hagel can get any traction - i'll vote for him. I'm a one issue (Iraqnam) voter this time around. Don't give a crap which party the candidate is from.
this is why I'll NEVER vote for the Neocon Billary.
Posted by Monkei | June 16, 2007 6:50 PM
That is fine. Then the Republican Governor of Connecticut would appoint a Republican and Harry Reid would no longer be Majority Leader. That is why I said Joe Lieberman should call Reid out on his defeatist demoralizing comments directly. Reid cannot afford to ignore Joe Lieberman when he can pull the plug on his majority leadership.
Actually, I don't this is true. The Dems would still have the majority leader because of the resolution agreed to in Senate Resolution 27. To change this resolution you would have to get 60 votes in the Senate, and that can't be done. So control of all chairmanships would stay the same until the successors are voted into office in 2008. Of course I may be wrong, but you can check Senate Resoultion 27 to make sure.
And I can remember back when all you GOP crybabies were crying that Frist did not put forth the 51 vote majority rule way back when the GOP actually had control of the Senate. Oh my, where would we be today if the GOP actually passed that nuclear option vote! Maybe you all need to apologize to all those moderate "thinking" GOP senators that you rode out of town before.