Thats the gist of this AP story about a procedural vote in the Senate. Whats really going on, of course, is that the Republicans would like to have a fuller debate, with more options on the table, than the Democrats would like. But you can only read about that here.
There are two interests disserved by the way AP presents the story. First, any public interest in fairly presenting an understandable account of Senate procedure is missing. This AFP story, linked over at Power Line, comes closer to getting it right:
That [procedural vote] blocked the body from moving quickly toward a final vote [ed note: moving quickly is inconsistent with debate, which involves moving more slowly and, er, deliberately] on a non-binding resolution drafted in a compromise by Republican Senator John Warner and Democrat Carl Levin, which voices disagreement with the deployment of new troops and urges Bush to find other ways to achieve success in Iraq.
The outcome, on a procedural move to fix a time limit on the debate so the Warner bill would head for a final vote, was a blow to Democratic majority.
So from this story you learn that the Democrats wanted less debate and the Republicans, presumably, more. But the Democrats think the people spoke back in November and there should be no more debate:
"We must heed the results of the November elections and the wishes of the American people," said Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Was he taking that line back in 2005, after GWB was reelected?
The second interest disserved, in case you still care, is obviously a public interest in receiving a balanced account of what went on. We get the Democrats side of the story from the AP, but not the Republicans. But thats not news, is it?