A February 5 Associated Press article reporting that Senate Republicans blocked debate on a bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush's plan to increase the U.S. troop level in Iraq falsely reported that Senate Democrats “want[ed] to limit debate to only two proposals: one by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., that states opposition to the troop buildup, and another by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that would support the president's position,” excluding debate on a resolution by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) that “would protect funding for troops in combat.” The AP echoed Sen. David Vitter's (R-LA) assertion on the February 5 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews that "[f]or some reason, [Majority Leader] Senator [Harry] Reid [D-NV] is adamant at holding it to just two" resolutions to be put to a vote. Fox News congressional correspondent Major Garrett similarly falsely suggested that Democrats had refused to allow a vote on the Gregg amendment, and Washington Post staff writer Peter Baker, during a washingtonpost.com online chat, also suggested that Democrats did not allow resolutions other than Warner's to be considered. In addition, ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper reported a false Republican claim that Democrats would not let the Senate consider the Gregg amendment “under the same rules” as the Warner and McCain resolutions. In fact, Reid stated on the Senate floor that he had offered to hold up-or-down votes on all three resolutions, but Republicans rejected that offer.

On February 5, during debate on the resolutions on the Senate floor, Reid specifically stated that he had offered to schedule an up-or-down vote on the McCain resolution, the Warner resolution, (co-sponsored with Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)), and Gregg's resolution, an offer that he said “was turned down” by the Republican leadership:

I offered to schedule an up-or-down vote on McCain -- that is a resolution supporting the President's plan -- and on the Warner-Levin resolution in opposition. That is votes up or down on these two amendments. This offer was rejected.

We then offered the Republican leadership up-or-down votes on those two resolutions I just talked about and they had another one. The Republican leader had another one. I read it. It is the Gregg amendment. So we said let's go ahead and vote on that. I was turned down there also.

Later during the debate, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) appeared to confirm that the sticking point -- the reason the Democrats would not bring the Gregg resolution up for a vote -- was that the Republicans wanted to preserve their right of filibuster for the resolutions they opposed, requiring 60 votes to overcome: “A 60-vote threshold is routine in the Senate. It is the ordinary, not the extraordinary. ... There is nothing the minority is asking for that is any way extraordinary, nothing extraordinary at all. It is really quite ordinary.”

Similarly, Garrett's report during the February 5 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume suggested that Republicans had sought and not received an offer to debate and vote on the Gregg resolution:

GARRETT: The reason there will not be a debate and a vote on that simple matter, and that simple proposition, is Republicans say, wait a minute, we have other ideas about Iraq. We would also like a debate and a vote on a McCain resolution that says, the Senate supports the troop surge. Also Republicans would like a debate and vote on a third idea, which simply says, at no point in the future of the Iraq debate will Congress cut off funding for troops in the field.

Garrett later reported that “Republicans say, 'Look, if you want to have a debate and a vote in the Senate, you've got to have a fair process where all, or at least many, ideas are debated, not just one.' ” While Garrett seemed to ignore Reid's statement on the Senate floor, a February 5 Washington Post article did not:

The Democratic leadership gave Republicans a choice: Allow all four versions to come to a vote, with a simple majority needed for passing any of them, or debate and vote on the Warner and McCain resolutions, with both needing 60 votes to pass.

The fourth resolution, described in the Post article as “hastily written by Democrats,” would “simply oppose Bush's plan and insist that all troops are properly protected with body armor and other material.”

Despite the Post's report, Peter Baker claimed during a February 6 washingtonpost.com online chat that Warner voted to continue debate on his resolution because he wanted to side “with the near-unanimous Republican caucus in blocking it to force the Democrats to allow additional resolutions to be considered on the floor,” falsely suggesting that Democrats did not offer to debate any resolutions other than Warner's. Later in the chat, Baker wrote:

Well, I think I've said several times in this chat already that the Republicans are objecting to the terms of the debate that Sen. Reid is imposing and that this is a tactical dispute that will presumably be resolved at some point. Our story this morning likewise made that clear: “Republicans said they have no desire to avoid a debate, asserting that they simply want a fair hearing on their proposals. 'We are ready and anxious to have this debate this week,' said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.).”

Baker's response suggests that Reid treated the resolutions differently, when his proposal, rejected by the Republicans, was to treat them the same, just not in the manner that the Republicans wanted. Again, the Post article to which he referred made that clear.

Finally, on the January 5 edition of ABC's World News, Tapper reported that according to Republicans, “Democrats won't let them introduce, under the same rules, a different resolution opposing any cuts in funding for troops in Iraq.” Tapper than aired a statement by McConnell that "[w]e are, in effect, being denied a fair process here for this extremely important debate." Tapper concluded: “What it comes down to is this: Republicans want to show that there is more support to continue funding the troops than there is opposition to the surge. They want that to be the headline. And the Democrats don't want to let them.” At no point did Tapper report that Reid had offered to consider the Gregg resolution on funding the troops under the same rules as the Warner and McCain resolutions.

From the February 5 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: First question, a Hardball question for Senator Vitter. Do you support a vote if the vote is to attack the president's plan to escalate the war, to send more troops to Iraq?

VITTER: I support multiple votes on the Senate floor to give senators every opportunity to clearly articulate where they're coming from. The obstacle, Chris, isn't having a vote. It's how many different resolutions and votes we're going to be able to have. For some reason, Senator Reid is adamant at holding it to just two. And there is a great diversity of opinion, perhaps particularly on the Republican side. And our caucus wants more ability to express different views and have different resolutions.

From the February 5 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

GARRETT: It's all as clear as can be.

BRIT HUME (anchor): Help me out here. Help me out here.

GARRETT: It's all as clear as can be. All right, right now, as we speak, Brit, the Senate is voting on a motion to proceed to the debate. That will not pass. That's a live look at the Senate floor right now. What that means is there will not be 60 votes to proceed to a simple debate and vote on one proposition, that proposition being that the Senate of the United States disagrees with the troop surge in Iraq.

The reason there will not be a debate and a vote on that simple matter, and that simple proposition, is Republicans say, “Wait a minute, we have other ideas about Iraq. We would also like a debate and a vote on a McCain resolution that says, the Senate supports the troop surge.” Also, Republicans would like a debate and vote on a third idea, which simply says at no point in the future of the Iraq debate will Congress cut off funding for troops in the field.

Now, Democrats say all of this is an elaborate Republican charade to filibuster an important debate on the Iraq war resolution and the Iraq troop surge that the president has put before the country. Republicans say, “Look, if you want to have a debate and a vote in the Senate, you've got to have a fair process where all, or at least many, ideas are debated, not just one.”

From the February 5 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:

TAPPER: Senate Republicans filibustered the anti-surge resolution today, preventing it from being formally debated or coming to a vote.

REID: Every place in America, people are talking about Iraq. Every place, that is, expect in United States Senate.

TAPPER: Republicans are doing this, they say, because Democrats won't let them introduce, under the same rules, a different resolution opposing any cuts in funding for troops in Iraq.

McCONNELL: We are, in effect, being denied a fair process here for this extremely important debate.

TAPPER: What it comes down to is this: Republicans want to show that there is more support to continue funding the troops than there is opposition to the surge. They want that to be the headline. And the Democrats don't want to let them.