On June 22, 2006, the Senate was embroiled in a debate about a defense appropriations bill, a bill that would provide money to continue fighting the Iraq war. And the fight for the funding was contentious. By the summer of 2006, the American mission in Iraq appeared increasingly unwinnable. The growing incidents of sectarian violence and the rising number of American causalities were eroding public support. In response, liberal Democrats escalated their criticism of President Bush and his administration's handling of the war. This extended to the appropriations bill: during the floor debate, a group of liberal Democrats – John Kerry (D-MA), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Carl Levin (D-MI), and Jack Reed (D-RI) – introduced amendments that called for the immediate redeployment of troops out of Iraq.

All the liberals' amendments would fail. But the amendments touched off a heated debate between Senate Democrats and Republicans – a debate that continued after the Senate recessed for the night. And the pattern of this debate bears a striking resemblance to the debate around the immigration proposal discussed in the preceding chapter. The most liberal Democrats criticized the continued conduct of the war. For example, John Kerry expressed frustration at his amendment's failure and proclaimed that “half the names on the Vietnam Wall are there because old men in Washington were too proud to admit a mistake” (Kerry 2006b).