Warner & Levin agree on 'surge' resolution. Cutting funds specifically out.

[TayTay]

This is going to be interesting. Sens. Warner and Levin have agreed on a resolution to be put before the Senate next week that will disapprove of the troop escalation or 'surge' that President Bush wants. The resolution will also specifically disallow Congress from cutting off funds for the war.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/31/warner-levin-iraq/

Whoa. This is gonna get real ugly, real fast.

[fedupinBushcountry]

1. Already has

McConnell is blocking it, and Warner is pissed.

[rox63]

2. It's a non-binding resolution, right?

So I would assume that the part about cutting off funds is also non-binding.

[sandnsea]

3. Disallow???

How can they write a resolution to override the Constitution? I don't think they can even do that, can they?

[TayTay]

4. The language stated that it would not come up on the floor

the Senate has the right to formulate the bills and amendments that come before it.

[sandnsea]

6. Will there be a time frame?

I don't think they can legitimately say they would not bring defunding to the floor indefinitely. It's their job and they can't make rules for future Senates anyway.

[Mass]

5. What an big step in the right direction!

:sarcasm:

I do not know how Kerry will end voting on this, but I hope he thinks twice and gives a good reason if he votes YES.

Last time Levin did something like that and offered a watered down resolution for the sake of bipartisanship, Kerry voted NO. I hope he will follow the same track.

[TayTay]

7. Ahm, no he didn't.

He voted for the Levin-Reed amendment last June 22. Why would he not vote for this and then work to get even more? Take all the steps, we don't have the luxury right now of just picking the ones that are the purest.

Every resolution is a step in the right direction. Vote yes for this, then get more.

[Mass]

8. We are not talking about the same thing.

I was talking about this proposition, which is bipartisan, contrarely to the Levin-Reed resolution:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00323

[TayTay]

9. Mass, he should vote for every anti-surge resolution

It moves the ball further down the field. That is acting on principle.

BTW, did you see what Sen. Byrd just submitted to the Senate. Wow!

[Inuca]

24. Hey, don't leave us i nthe dark!

What did he submit? I can play a bit with DU right now while my students keep busy, but cannot stream or anything else, so my inquiring mind want sto know.

[karynnj]

10. Kennedy is speaking in favor of it now

and says he will follow up with his binding one if Bush goes ahead. He particually commended Warner.

[Mass]

11. Interesting twist - Feingold and Dodd oppose, MoveOn.org support.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9805.html

[TayTay]

12. Yeah, Take two on this

I just read the DKos diary on this and they have a point. The Senate is debating a non-binding. The question becomes, for me, is this advancing the argument or not. Sen. Feingold made a powerful argument that it is not and is giving cover for the Bush Admin. That is not good, not ever. Sen. Dodd is making the same point. Hmmmmm, I might change my mind on this.

Tough call. I want everything that can be done to be done to oppose tnis war. But, that DKos diary made the point that this could wind up letting other Senators who do not really want to talk about Iraq have a way to get off the hook. That would be bad. I guess we shall see what the debate holds next week. But, based on this, I guess I wouldn't be surprised to see Sen. Kerry follow Dodd and Feingold and oppose this.

[beachmom]

13. It's all in the wording, Tay. I think it best to read the actual resolution

Feingold turned me off with his dismissal of the Iraq Study Group report, so I read his diary then went to the source he linked to:

http://feingold.senate.gov/WarnerLevin_Iraq_110th.pdf

Here's Feingold's beef:

"The recommendations of this Act should not be interpreted as precipitating any immediate reduction in, or withdrawal of the present level of forces."


Key word: immediate. They're saying anti-surge does not mean troops out NOW. Well, Kerry's idea of negotiating a date also would not create an immediate reduction of troops. What it would do is give a real date for which all troops would be out of Iraq.


Unfortunately, Feingold has a point on the Anbar province provision (b) (2) and the funding provision (b) (4). And I most certainly do not like (b) (10) which says we should talk to "selected nations" in the Middle East. That just strikes me as allowing Bush to continue his stupidity of not talking to Iran or Syria.

It's got Warner's fingerprints all over it. And a dash of Levin's wishy washyness thrown in for good measure.

[TayTay]

14. I agree.

The problem was that I know there won't be a resolution with teeth in it right away. Getting these things done is like climbing a step ladder, one step, then another, then another. I understand that. So, I am trying to figure out if this is a step on the ladder or not.

I like what Chris Dodd said. I thought he explained it better than Sen.Feingold did.

[beachmom]

15. Thanks. Just found it on his Senate site:

http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3724

I don't think he'll mind me posting the whole thing amongst non-committed lib bloggers :):

“I strongly oppose the Warner-Levin legislation; it is essentially an endorsement of the status quo, an endorsement I simply cannot make in light of the dire circumstances in Iraq, and the need for meaningful action now.



“The Warner-Levin legislation does not explicitly oppose the escalation, it doesn’t contemplate the phased redeployment from Iraq and all but gives the ‘power of the purse’ to the Executive Branch.



“And in refusing to endorse one of the most critical elements of the Baker Hamilton plan – namely the engagement of all of Iraq’s neighbors in a regional effort to bring peace and stability to Iraq – the Warner-Levin approach ignores the important diplomatic efforts that must be made to bring stability to the region.



“These aren’t just minor quibbles over words, but a fundamental difference between what the legislation proposes and what I believe needs to be done to fundamentally change the flawed policy that the President continues to cling to. This is not the time for Senators to express our opinions only; this is the time for meaningful action.”



Hey, I'm glad to see he thought the "select countries" in the M.E. part to be utter BS hogwash, too.

[wisteria]

16. Thanks Beachmom for posting the Dodd comments.

I suppose the question is, does this Warner/Levin legislation accomplish anything at all? Bush, will ignore it, but it will-if passed put Republicans as well as Democrats on record in opposition to the surge. It is a small step in the right direction? However, it wouldn't accomplish anything else. I also wonder if it will not permit us to take further action in several different ways, placing us in a bind? Like you, I do not like the diplomacy with selective countries idea either. That means Bush continues on the same path of ignorance.

[Inuca]

25. very well stated

It reinforces my liking of Dodd. Why the hell he is not ocnsidered "first tier" and fluffy Edwards is? Beats me...

[beachmom]

17. Just saw on TPM that Webb is "inclined" to support this resolution.

Maybe we can use this thread to keep track.

So far the big no's are right wingers like McCain and from the left -- Dodd and Feingold.

[wisteria]

18. I am interested in seeing how my two senators from Pa vote- especially

Casey. My thought is he will vote for it. He just strikes me as a compromiser.
I am also curious as to how Senator Kerry will vote. I am leaning towards a no vote from him, simply because of the limited diplomacy. But, you just never know.

[beachmom]

19. Hillary is backing resolution (no surprise there) n/t

[Mass]

20. I read a piece somewhere quoting Kerry saying it was the first step and that

a binding resolution would come soon. So I imagine he will vote for it.

My guess is that the leadership twisted some arms. I appreciate the fact that Dodd is not supporting it, even if it is also a political positionning.

I am getting to like him a lot more these days (between that, the comment he made about Kerry, the fact he went to Syria, ...). I wished the field was not that crowded, and that people like him, with a lot of experience though may be less charisma, would get their chance.

[beachmom]

21. Yeah, but I thought he said that in reference to the Biden Res.

This one is 11 pages long and has several poison pills in it. I guess I can see why one would vote against it, and I can certainly see arguments for it.

[karynnj]

23. Dodd might be able to gain support after the first debate

for the same reasons Kerry could have - especially if Biden is out by then. The problem might be getting money.

[whometense]

28. I just signed on to his mailing list.

And I'm thinking of throwing some $$ his way.

[Inuca]

30. Great idea!

I think I would like to do the same. Where did you go? dodd.senate.gov or somewhere else? I DO NOT WANT HILLARY. If I can help Dodd gain more visibility, I would gladly help. I too hope that as more people see and listen to him, he will gain in popularity (and we will also probably start hearing the same infuriating talk about long time senators from the NE that cannot win general elections). He is not charismatic the way Obama certainly is, but he can be a very forceful speaker when he is mad, and not only. He also has has a rather folksy and accessible style of talking, without putting his foot in his mouth, Biden-style. We'll see...

[whometense]

31. Here:

http://www.chrisdodd.com ;-)

[Inuca]

32. Thanks, but..

... I just went there and signed in. I suffer sometimes from the Bidenesque ailment of speaking, or in this case writing before I think (that's why I feel sorry for the guy, nit a big fan, but he is not that bad, and he does not deserve to be treated like Michael Richards). ANyway, thanks :-).

[whometense]

22. Dodd's against it.

http://www.chrisdodd.com/node/802

BREAKING--Senator Dodd to oppose the Warner-Levin legislation

Over the last several weeks Senator Dodd has spoken about Captain Brian Freeman, a courageous West Point Graduate who he met in Baghdad last December and who lost his life in Karbala on January 20.

Senator Dodd cannot in good conscience continue to go along with a failed policy that will lead to the loss of more Brian Freemans.

His position on the war in Iraq is very straightforward – Senator Dodd is strongly opposed to sending additional troops to referee a civil war that can’t be won militarily.

He strongly believes we need phased redeployment of US combat forces from urban areas to border areas, other countries in the region and to Afghanistan where they could stop the resurgence of the Taliban.

The legislation on which Senators Warner and Levin compromised last evening is essentially an endorsement of the status quo.

It is flawed in very fundamental ways:

* First, It doesn’t oppose a surge in our forces per se – it simply states that the 21,000 is too high a number.
* Second, it doesn’t contemplate the phased redeployment from Iraq, quite the contrary, it says that the legislation “should not be interpreted as precipitating any immediate reduction in, or withdrawal of, the present level of forces.”
* Third, it refuses to endorse one of the most critical element of the Baker Hamilton plan – namely engaging all of Iraq’s neighbors in a region effort to bring peace and stability to Iraq.

That is why Senator Dodd intends to vote against this bill when it comes to a vote on the Senate floor unless it is significantly changed. He believes that now is the time for meaningful action on Iraq.

[rox63]

26. Ya know...

Much as I tend to find Dodd kind of boring, I'm really starting to like his positions on the issues. There was a time (pre-2004) when I also thought JK was kind of boring. The 2004 campaign proved that opinion to be wrong, wrong, wrong! I now think JK is one of the most interesting people I'm ever likely to meet. Maybe I need to give Senator Dodd a closer look regarding 2008. I've been attracted to Edwards as a candidate. But we really do need a smart, experienced grown-up in the WH. And Dodd is all of those things.

[whometense]

27. If it helps,

I hear that he and Teddy K were quite the hellraisers around town back in their single days. ;-)

[rox63]

29. I just joined his email list too

I'll hold off on the $$ for now. But I want to hear what he has to say. Perhaps it will help me settle on a candidate.

[karynnj]

38. Not to mention per a DU post anyway

he dated Bianca Jagger in his single days - so he can't be that boring.

[Inuca]

39. Really? :-)

Isn't she very tall? Not sure... but he most certainly is not.

[wisteria]

33. I have been doing some checking around on Dodd for a week or so now,

he is unique and unconventional. His positions on many issues are good too. Of course, he isn't JK, but JK and Dodd seem closer as colleagues from my observations.

[whometense]

34. It's my impression that they really like each other.

And that recent trip must have been something of a bonding experience. I like the way Dodd speaks of JK with respect - and a complete lack of snark.

[beachmom]

35. I wonder how he is on the stump?

You know, if he got help from someone like Teddy, maybe he's the dark horse (Patrick Kennedy has already endorsed Dodd, btw). Despite all the enthusiasm for Gore, outside the lib blogosphere, I'm still hearing negative things about him (Oh God, not HIM), and the polls reflect that. Chris Dodd is unknown, and isn't starting with negatives. Biden has, IMO, already taken himself out of contention to be treated seriously. Meanwhile, Dodd is doing some good stuff. And "radicalized" is actually a way of rebranding him as someone interesting.

[whometense]

36. I don't know.

But I think his negatives must be pretty low, which could put him in position to be a real dark horse. He comes across to me as pretty warm and has a sense of humor. He could be a very reassuring figure - and if someone really tall and important (ahem) endorsed him, that could boost him considerably. I'm sure JK will endorse whoever the nominee is, but he could have some influence in the primaries if he chooses to.

He's never going to be popular with the Clintonistas - what's he got to lose????

[Inuca]

37. When you can, could you please elaborate?

I "know" him from watching him in the Senate, etc., and just spent a few minutes on his site, but I do not have much time to go more in depth, so I shamelessly rely on others to do the "fingerwork". Much appreciated.