Democrats and Republicans accused one another of being obstructionists. Mr. Reid said he wants to bring the spending bill back to the floor as soon as possible, “but with a deadline dealing with Iraq.” He brushed off Republican charges that by pulling the bill he is letting down military people, noting that even if the bill were approved right now, it would not take effect until October, when the fiscal year begins.  But Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, said the bill is “very important for our men and women in uniform, and for our country,” and said Mr. Reid apparently “wants to play games with it.”  Mr. Reid had implored Republicans to “stop blocking a vote on this crucial, war-ending amendment,” an allusion to the withdrawal measure offered by Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, both Democrats.  Mr. Levin said, as he has repeatedly, that the Iraqis must take charge of their own destiny. “We cannot save them from themselves,” he said just before the vote.  But the Republican minority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said the Democrats’ arguments were illogical, given that they had voted to confirm Gen. David H. Petraeus as the American commander in Iraq and thus, implicitly at least, had voted to give the administration strategy a chance to succeed.  Mr. McConnell said some of the speeches from the all-nighter reminded him of a bad movie, or perhaps “The Twilight Zone.”  But Mr. Reid said the Republicans’ stance meant that “they chose to continue protecting their president instead of our troops."  Despite growing misgivings about the administration’s approach in Mr. Bush’s own party, none of the Republican senators who spoke overnight signaled new support for the Democratic plan to set a deadline to remove troops from Iraq.  “We need to change mission,” said Senator Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota, who was among a handful of lawmakers who spent nearly the whole night in the chamber, listening to the debate. “But we have to do it thoughtfully, we have to do it strategically.”  Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the New York Democrat, urged support for the plan, which would call for troops to begin departing within 120 days. While the administration’s mistakes in Iraq “shock the conscience,” she said, the path forward remains uncertain.  “There are no good answers,” Mrs. Clinton said in a speech delivered before dawn. “Anyone who stands here and believes that he or she has the truth, the facts, and understands both what is going on and what is likely to flow from whatever decision we take, is most probably to be proven wrong by reality as it unfolds.”  Senator Reid ordered the rare overnight session to draw attention to the Democratic efforts to change course in Iraq. But Mr. Reid did not use his full power to force senators to attend — no lawmakers, for example, were brought back to the chamber by the sergeant-at-arms — and 40 senators did not record their presence during a 5 a.m. attendance check.  Only three Republican senators pledged in advance to support the measure. Others who have gone public with their complaints about the war strategy said they were worried that the plan was ill-advised, and was being driven ahead by the Democrats mainly for partisan reasons.  “You wonder if they are more interested in politics than dealing with the substance of this,” said Senator George V. Voinovich, Republican of Ohio.  Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, labeled the Democratic plan calling for a troop pullout to begin within 120 days vague and unenforceable.  “If it did pass, it would lead to chaos in Iraq and a dramatic increase in casualties,” said Mr. Gregg, who is backing an alternative plan that incorporates the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.  Senators Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, two senior Republicans who recently delivered a high-profile criticism of the administration’s Iraq policy, also decided to oppose the Democratic plan.  But leading Democrats and the three Republicans who have joined them in pushing for the withdrawal portrayed the proposal as the most concrete of the competing plans circulating in the Senate, and the surest way to force a change in administration policy.  They painted today’s procedural vote as a pivotal moment in the war debate, and urged colleagues to help remove American troops from what they described as civil strife in Iraq.  “Ultimately, they have a question to settle,” Senator Gordon H. Smith, Republican of Oregon, said about the Iraqi people. “This is a fight that is theirs, not ours.”  Democrats acknowledged that they had used the all-night session to ratchet up the pressure on wavering Republicans and to try to persuade voters that though lawmakers might be breaking with the president, they were not moving forcefully enough to wind down the war.  “Many of these senators have been back home telling their constituents they’ve given up on the president’s policy in Iraq,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat. “Well, the question is, will they have the courage now to vote with those who want real change?”  Democratic officials spent much of Tuesday criticizing Republicans for not allowing a simple majority vote on the withdrawal proposal. “Let us vote,” screamed a large sign placed on the Senate floor as a backdrop to nearly each Democratic speaker overnight.  “Now is the time for us to make difficult choices,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, one of the four Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate.  Republicans complained that the whole episode was a charade because the Democrats who were complaining about having to come up with 60 votes on contentious issues raised the same hurdle themselves when they were the minority party.  “It doesn’t pass the smell test,” Senator McCain, the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said of the Democratic criticism.  He and other Republicans challenged the wisdom of the withdrawal plan, saying it would short-circuit an escalation of military forces before the buildup had sufficient time to work, hand terrorist forces a victory, damage the nation’s reputation and leave Iraq in chaos.  “Keeping the Senate in for an all-night debate is not going to improve the serious concerns we have about the Levin amendment,” said Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona. “The amendment will look just as bad at 3 a.m. as it does at 3 p.m.”  But the backers of the plan disputed characterizations of the bill as a cut-and-run approach, saying it would stagger the redeployment of troops and would give the president broad discretion to keep sufficient forces in Iraq to engage in counterterrorism efforts, secure the nation’s borders and protect American personnel and facilities.  “It’s neither precipitous, nor is it a withdrawal,” said Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, who, along with Mr. Smith and Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, was one of the three Republican backers of the Democratic plan before today’s vote. “It’s a redeployment, a reduction in forces, a change in mission.”  Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, also voted for the Democratic plan today, after agonizing through the night. No Democrats opposed the measure, although Mr. Reid was counted among the “no” votes in the end, for tactical reasons: By switching his vote to “no,” he made himself eligible under Senate rules to bring the measure up again for reconsideration.  Mr. Levin said his amendment was a response to what he portrayed as Mr. Bush’s refusal to consider a change in policy on his own. “We are trying to say that this administration will not change course in Iraq, apparently, unless the Congress forces that issue upon them,” he said.  The alternatives to the Levin-Reed amendment include a proposal to enact into law the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group; another to rescind the initial 2002 authorization for the war; and a new proposal by Mr. Lugar and Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, to order the president to develop a new war strategy by October.  The legislation based on the study group’s call to combine diplomacy and military operations to create conditions for withdrawal by next March has some bipartisan support, but some Democrats have criticized it because it is nonbinding.  “It is on the right track,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, the Tennessee Republican who is a leading sponsor. “It is moving in the right direction and it is very significant change.”  But Mr. Alexander said he would not support the Democratic withdrawal proposal and the majority leader, Mr. Reid, said he had not decided whether there would be a vote on Mr. Alexander’s approach. Mr. Reid did suggest that he was inclined to allow consideration of the plan by Senators Lugar and Warner, given concerns they have raised about the course of the war.  “I admire and appreciate Senator Warner and Senator Lugar very much speaking out,” Mr. Reid said. “I wish they would vote as well as they talk.”  David Stout contributed reporting for this article.
After a rare all-night session, Senate Democrats fell short in their attempt to force President Bush to begin withdrawing  troops.