In a speech last night to the Senate, Senator Lieberman ripped proponents of the nonbinding Warner-Levin resolution to shreds, once again insisting that our Senators take a moment to consider responsibly the message such a resolution would send to the troops (not to mention our enemies):

What we say here is being heard in Baghdad by Iraqi moderates, trying to decide whether the Americans will stand with them. We are being heard by our men and women in uniform, who will be interested to know whether we support the plan they have begun to carry out. We are being heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and by Al Qaeda terrorists, eager for evidence that America’s will is breaking. And we are being heard across America by our constituents, who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not just hollow posturing.

This resolution is not about Congress taking responsibility. It is the opposite. It is a resolution of irresolution.

For the Senate to take up a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle is unprecedented, but it is not inconsequential. It is an act which, I fear, will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies, and showcase our disunity. And that is why I will vote against cloture.

If you believe that General Petraeus and his new strategy have a reasonable chance of success in Iraq, then you should resolve to support him and his troops through the difficult days ahead. On the other hand, if you believe that this new strategy is flawed or that our cause is hopeless in Iraq, then you should vote to stop it. Vote to cut off funds. Vote for a binding timeline for American withdrawal. If that is where your convictions lie, then have the courage of your convictions to accept the consequences of your convictions. That would be a resolution.

The non-binding measure before us, by contrast, is an accumulation of ambiguities and inconsistencies. It is at once for the war but also against the war. It pledges its support to the troops in the field but also washes its hands of what they are doing. It approves more troops for Anbar but not for Baghdad.

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in General Petraeus, but no confidence in his strategy. We cannot say that the troops have our full support, but disavow their mission on the eve of battle. This is what happens when you try to wage war by committee. That is why the Constitution gave that authority to the President as Commander in Chief.

Cynics may say this kind of thing happens all of the time in Congress. In this case, however, they are wrong. If it passed, this resolution would be unique in American legislative history. I contacted the Library of Congress on this question last week and was told that, never before, when American soldiers have been in harm’s way, fighting and dying in a conflict that Congress had voted to authorize, has Congress turned around and passed a resolution like this, disapproving of a particular battlefield strategy.

I wish every Senator had the bravery of Senator Lieberman to see past the smoke and mirrors of the anti-war left and realize the non-political implications of this war for just one second. Also, Senator Reid, the Democrats, and the media (in some of the most blatant bias I’ve seen) are screaming that the Republicans don’t want to debate Iraq, and are attempting to “stifle debate.” This simply is not true.

• First of all, voting not to grant cloture on a bill is extending debate, not stifiling it. That should be apparent to anyone who has taken a basic Civics course.

• Second of all, this isn’t even a full-fledged filibuster. Minority Leader McConnell has held his ground on the statement that should amendments and alternative resolutions to Warner-Levin not even be heard, the GOP caucus will refuse to end debate on the nonbinding, cover-your-ass, we-support-the-troops-but-are-going-to-denigrate-their-mission Warner-Levin “resolution.”

Here’s a brief explanation of the alternate resolutions: (Source here)

The Republican leadership’s alternative, drafted by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., would establish tough new benchmarks for the Iraqi government to achieve but would not oppose the planned deployment.

Two other versions appear at the heart of the impasse. The first, drafted by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., would staunchly back the White House and the president’s decision to boost troop strength in Iraq. It recognizes the power of the president to deploy troops and the “responsibility” of Congress to fund them — before stating “Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds.”

The other proposed resolution, hastily written by Democrats, would simply oppose Bush’s plan and insist all troops are properly protected with body armor and other material.

• There is a huge friggin’ difference between not wanting to hold a vote for a resolution that is going to encourage our enemies, and refusing to even consider an up-or-down vote for a judicial nomination. After the Democrats’ shenanigans confirming (and refusing to confirm) Bush’s judicial nominations, I don’t want to hear them utter a single word about Republican “obstructionism.”

In a political world where up is down, and voting to extend debate is really, according to the media, “stifling” debate, one has to wonder how this circus affects the morale of our troops in harm’s way. It is good that Warner-Levin has been derailed for now, but the very fact that all of this ridiculousness is even going on has got to be discouraging.