By Dana Milbank
Thursday, September 20, 2007

To paraphrase the immortal words of John Kerry, Sen. John Warner actually did vote to shorten the Iraq war before he voted to lengthen it.

Just two months ago, the courtly Virginia Republican went to the Senate floor and sided with his Democratic colleague from the commonwealth, Jim Webb, on a plan that would shorten troop deployments in Iraq. Yesterday, he went to the same place to announce that he would now vote against the same bill.

"I endorsed it," Warner said. "I intend now to cast a vote against it."

With those dozen words, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee put a surprise end to the latest efforts in Congress to limit the Iraq war.

Democrats had been hoping that Warner, who last month endorsed the start of a pullout from Iraq, would bring enough Republicans with him to vote for their best plan to accelerate the troop withdrawal: Webb's plan to limit the troops' deployments. But this effort, like previous ones, ended in failure.

"Senator Webb's amendment, I would say without any equivocation, is designed to help protect the concept of the all-volunteer force, and it was for that reason that I joined him," Warner explained in his discursive floor statement, which led to the conclusion that "I will have to cast a vote against my good friend's amendment."

Pro-war Republicans, who had been grumbling about Warner's perfidy for weeks, suddenly celebrated him as an American hero.

"Having now decided to change his vote on this particular amendment is of monumental importance and is the type of decision that makes all of us proud to serve in this great institution," Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) pronounced.

Webb was rather less pleased to discover that Warner had retreated from their shared foxhole. The White House "turned up the political heat, and that made people, like particularly Senator Warner, uncomfortable," he deduced.

And when did Webb learn of the betrayal? "Um," Webb replied, "he told me five minutes before the debate began this morning."

Webb should not have been surprised.

In January, Warner drafted a Senate resolution opposing President Bush's "surge" of additional troops into Iraq. Then, on Feb. 5, he voted against bringing up his own resolution for debate. The surge went ahead, unmolested. In the spring, Warner repeatedly flirted with opposition to Bush, but each time he returned to the fold.

Warner, who has announced will not seek a sixth term next year, again stirred hopes of the antiwar crowd four weeks ago, when he called on Bush to begin pulling troops out of Iraq by the end of the year. "We simply cannot as a nation stand and put our troops at continuous risk of loss of life and limb without beginning to take some decisive action which will get everybody's attention," he said.

Then, just last week, he voiced renewed skepticism about the Iraqi government and told the top general in Iraq, David Petraeus, "I hope in the recesses of your heart that you know that strategy will continue the casualties, stress on our forces, stress on military families, stress on all Americans."

Yesterday morning, Webb still thought his senior colleague from Virginia was on his side. "I'm hopeful he will vote with us on this," Webb said at a news conference. "He's given me no indication that he will not do that." Webb pointed out that he had made changes in his legislation to address Warner's fresh concerns.

But about half an hour later, Webb learned that Warner was backing a rival proposal -- when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) announced it on the Senate floor. "I have just learned from Senator McCain's comments that Senator Warner will be offering a side-by-side amendment," the surprised Webb said in reply.

Warner may have been feeling guilty about fragging his home-state colleague, because he praised Webb lavishly when he arrived on the floor to announce that he had turned against him.

"My good friend Senator Webb and I share a strong bond, a friendship," he began, noting that both of them had served as secretary of the Navy. "He displayed a measure of courage few in uniform in the history of our country can equal. . . . I stand in awe of his military career. My modest career pales in comparison. . . . This fine young senator will represent Virginia well, and they can take righteous pride in his leadership."

But then, Warner explained how officials at the Pentagon had convinced him that Webb was wrong to try to extend troops' rest times. "I say to my good friend from Virginia, I agree with the principles that you've laid down in your amendment, but," he concluded, "I regret to say that I've been convinced by those in the professional uniform."

After that, senators went through the motions of deliberating -- "We're struggling and groping," said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) -- but it was just for show. Warner had sealed the fate of the debate -- and, for now at least, the U.S. troop presence in Iraq. Warner arrived toward the end of the vote. He lingered at the clerk's table to admire his handiwork: The antiwar senators had 56 votes, four short of the number they needed.