Levin: Senate won't withhold Iraq funds

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

34 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Senate will not stop paying for the Iraq war
nor relent from insisting that President Bush keep pressing the
Baghdad government for a negotiated end to the violence, a
Democratic leader said Sunday.

Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the Senate Armed Service Committee
chairman, took issue with an effort by Majority Leader Harry
Reid to cut off money for the war next year as a way to end
U.S. involvement.

"We're not going to vote to cut funding, period," Levin said.
"But what we should do, and we're going to do, is continue to
press this president to put some pressure on the Iraqi leaders
to reach a political settlement."

-snip-

"We're going to fund the troops. We always have," Levin said.
He added, "We're very strong in supporting the troops, but we're
also strong on putting pressure on the Iraqi leaders to live up
to their own commitments without that political settlement on
their part, there is no military solution."

-snip-

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070408/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

---

Alternate AP Headline: Levin: Senate Will Keep Paying for War

[BeyondGeography]

1. Guess that makes anti-IWR, consistent voice against BushCo Carl Levin

a warmonger. :sarcasm:

[mike_c]

6. yes, it does....

Sarcasm aside, Levin has an opportunity to stop the war dead in its tracks. He's choosing to keep it going. That's enabling the warmongers at best, and active complicity at worst.

[BeyondGeography]

8. It's hardly a total cave-in

<"We can keep the benchmarks part of the bill without saying that the troops must begin to come back within four months," Levin said. "If that doesn't work and the president vetoes because of that, and he will, then that part of it is removed, because we're going to fund the troops.

"And what we will leave will be benchmarks, for instance, which would require the president to certify to the American people if the Iraqis are meeting the benchmarks for political settlement, which they, the Iraqi leaders, have set for themselves," he said.>

The benchmarks mean Bush has to show progress in HIS war, which the Democrats have no good political choice but to fund in the face of his veto. Failure to meet benchmarks will help build a bi-partisan consensus against funding in future legislative go-rounds. Cut off funding and micromanage the war from Congress and it becomes the Democrats' war, which is what our opponents in 2008 would dearly love to see happen.

[aquart]

11. Helping Georgie run out the clock.

He has found his inner gutlessness.

[rodeodance]

47. new funding does help bush run the clock out (it will be a Dem problem)

[mike_c]

20. while dems are playing political hot potato, folks are dying needlessly....

What part of "funding crimes against humanity" don't they understand?

edit: I spelled it "potatoe." Noooooooo!

[humbled_opinion]

28. A bunch of fools

The ones that insist on staying in Iraq will always insist on it. They will never see logic in the debate. The thugs that want us to pull out are split very few that see it as a benefit to the country and a majority that see it as a chance to pin the failings of Iraq on the Democrats...

This is very shifty politics being played by the republicans in an extremely divided electorate.

No this is no strawman but imagine if the Democrats successfully pass legislation that cuts funding off for our troops and ends the Iraq occupation. Imagine what happens if Iraq deteriorates into chaos with a CINC that goes into CYA protection mode for the rest of his term. Then imagine 2 or 3 years from now another attack in America maybe not even as grand as 911 but an attack that is determined to be funded, coodinated, etc from inside the failed state of Iraq. Imagine those non-crediable Rethugs with their We told you so banners and the fickle electorate...

Stealth politics is key.

[ShortnFiery]

32. We can NOT ever win in the Treasonous M$M who represents only the DLC and RNC.

When the Military begins to break, all hell's going to break loose in the USA and we will have a discussion when they want OUR CHILDREN for the meat grinder. The Military and People in the streets is our only hope. And if there is hope we need to break-up the large M$M conglomerates who sell themselves to the highest bidder. :grr:

Face the Nation is sponsored by Lockheed Martin.

Any questions?

[mike_c]

50. one need not imagine the crime against humanity that is ACTUALLY HAPPENING...

...right now, with congressional complicity.

[humbled_opinion]

52. Agreed guilty.

The Republicans are sowing the seeds of division in America. My point is that any retailatory action against the U.S. agression in the ME that takes root as a terror attack here at home will be seen by the mushy middle as vindication of Bush.

The Democrats must politcally challenge this premise now or risk a serious backlash in the future.

[Zhade]

59. No good political choice? What fucking world are you living in?

A VAST majority of the country opposes this madness! This is undeniable.

So Levin wants to trust the word of a man we've PROVEN lied us into this war? Is he fucking insane?

[BeyondGeography]

71. The question is better put to you

Check the legislative math and get back to me when your feet are firmly planted on the earth.

[NoodleyAppendage]

2. This is bullsh*t. I'm SO sick of the Chimperator getting his way.

It's high time to hold the line!

J

[earthside]

3. Bad News, Indeed

Democrats will 'own' this war if guys like Levin get their way.

After reading the Washington Post article on troop brain injuries, it is just immoral for Congress to vote for anymore money for this war and occupation.

[cassiepriam]

4. Damn you to hell Dems.

And I do not say that lightly.

[VegasWolf]

5. Bullshit! If the Dems don't show significant progress against the war, many liberals

will not be supporting them on the next go around.

[Doctor_J]

7. So the 28% approval cocaine-addled moron gets his way

When can we start the next revolution? It's the only way we the people are going to regain control of the apparatchik.

[TwilightGardener]

9. He's right--why do you all want fake sunshine blown up your heinies?

If the Dems cut funding, then WE DO own this war. We will be blamed for the aftermath from now until kingdom come. That's why the GOPers are taunting Dems to cut the funding. It has nothing to do with political courage, and everything to do with reality and judgment. Cutting funding is a third-rail last resort, and no one wants to do it for good reason. Deal with it.

[aquart]

12. Let 'em die for perception?

Party before country? Career before the lives of American soldiers? Different from the Republicans in what stinking way, then?

[VegasWolf]

14. Exactly! Well said. Let 'em DIE so we can keep our cushy jobs! nt

[ShortnFiery]

24. And Why hasn't the House of Representatives NOT started Impeachment Proceedings

on this criminal Executive Branch? Not enough evidence guys and gals? :eyes: Oh, that's right, because they are AFRAID they can't win. No, we can't take the MORALLY SOUND COURSE if it will risk their beloved Careers.

Hell! It's not just Party over People, it's Career and Party Cronyism over their Constituents. :grr:

Damn them if this does not provide the catalyst to BEGIN Impeachment Proceedings now! :nuke:

[humbled_opinion]

35. Notice that Impeachment talk is still slow coming

The Democratic leaders are chicken shit. Soon it will be too late. It will take about 9 - 12 months to finish an investigation with all the testifying and CYA manuevers (Delays) from the administration. So that means if it don't kick off here real soon there will be a new POTUS Elect before the verdict is in on the current one in other words it ain't gonna happen.

[TwilightGardener]

37. I would push for impeachment sooner than cutting funds--I would LOVE

to see Chimpy and the Dick get busted for either high crimes OR misdemeanors. I hope that ball starts rolling.

[aggiesal]

44. It took only 2 months ...

to bring charges, impeach Clinton in the house, and find him not-guilty in the Senate.

With all the evidence mounting against this cabal in the WH, I can't believe that it would take longer than 3 months for the whole process.

Unfortunately, even though the house will Impeach, the Senate will never convict.

The Republicans as a whole, still don't forgive the Democrats for impeaching Nixon.
Nixon resigned because there were enough Republicans to convict him on the cover-up
charges. With conviction, Nixon would have lost all his perks and benefits, so he
had no choice but resign.

Clinton knew that after being Impeached in the House, that the Republicans didn't
have the votes in the Senate, to convict him of lying under oath. So Clinton never resigned.
The same will happen to King George and Emporer Dick. They will both be Impeached in
the House, but the Democrats don't have the votes to convict them in the Senate.

IMO, I'm hoping that they can convince enough of the Republican Senators of the seriousness
of the crimes committed by King George, into having no other choice but to convict.

I just don't think it will happen.

[humbled_opinion]

51. the clock runs against us

My point is if our Democratic leadership is going to do it they need to do it now. The longer we wait the more moot the point of impeachment becomes...

It is really quite simple. We know the President lied to the American people in his SOTU Speach about WMD in Iraq. He sent the troops in to Iraq and no WMD was found thus proving all along that he was a liar. He lied to the UN in his speaches in prelude to war.

We need a quick investigation to prove him guilty of the lies that he told and then move to impeach. They gave Clinton no quarter for his lies which did not cost a single life.

[Le Taz Hot]

74. History lesson:

Nixon wasn't impeached, he resigned.

[aggiesal]

75. My bad. Sorry. The House had enough votes to Impeach ...

and the Senate had enough votes to convict.
That's why Nixon resigned.

[Zhade]

65. Impeachment, hell - where are the investigations we were promised?

Oh, I know Waxman and Conyers are grinding through the process, but where's the support of the Dem leadership?

More pre-election lies, I guess.

[sanskritwarrior]

83. If you can't win

why on earth would you do it. Nothing would highlight impotence like trying and failing to impeach. The Morally sound course sure sounds great, but history remembers very few moral victories. I would also like to say that moral victories might feel good but they do nothing to solve the very real problems we face.

If my choice is a moral victory or a long steady slow climb to a potential victory, I'll take the potential REAL victory over the Moral nonreal victory

[TwilightGardener]

18. Reality is, the troops aren't going to come home tomorrow. Or in 4 months.

Or in a year. Maybe some will, but many will stay. This is reality that those on this board refuse to grasp. And this is an all-volunteer force--they're not unwilling draftees desperately waiting for Democrats to rescue them, they're simply doing their jobs over there, and will continue to do so, honorably, until their tours are up. We need to stop projecting our attitudes and beliefs about this war onto our troops, however sad and wasteful their deaths appear to us. It has nothing to do with perception or political careers. This war simply won't change course on a dime (bad pun)--Congressional Dems ARE going to help bring this war to a close, gradually, responsibly, and for the right reasons.

[fshrink]

22. And why not?

This war was at best a mistake or at worse a caligulesque vendetta or a planned attempt at destabilizing the ME. Probably a mix of the three. It was never justifiable by humanist or even military standards and the fact that US soldiers are over there does not make it more justifiable (which by the way has always been the dominant spin, "support our troops" etc...). The right thing to do is to admit the above and therefore leave asap. Simple but not easy, as is usually the case with the "right thing". There's more political courage, and risks, to endorsing that than to throw out some blatant lip-service like applying pressure on the Iraqi governement (what the heck does that mean?)

[TwilightGardener]

27. I agree with you that BushCo's circular logic is ridiculous--"we have to

continue the war, because we have to support the troops, the troops are the mission, the mission is the troops", and so on and so forth. By the same token, ending the war isn't going to happen because of the troops, much as I hate to see them die for a cause I don't believe in. Ending the war will come about when a majority of folks in Congress analyze our mission in Iraq, our purpose, and our chances for success (and yes, political fallout) and conclude that we ultimately have no further business there, militarily, at least. That's how it's going down as we speak.

[ShortnFiery]

33. We wouldn't be boxed in as such if we had a fair, non-corporate loving M$M. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

36. I know it--it has nothing to do with right or wrong anymore, it's all image control.

Dems will get the short end of the media stick for APPEARING responsible for losing the war and anything bad that happens--that is inescapable. We all know how it will play out. I just don't want to risk this until cutting funds becomes an utter necessity--if the carnage increases and/or Chimpster refuses to budge, let's say. People will be screaming for it then. Until then, though, I think we ought to let the new majority sort this out in a way they are comfortable with, and in a way that can win some bipartisan support--the organized anti-war movement in Congress is still a baby, really--just 3 months old.

[ShortnFiery]

25. No, just like during Vietnam, The Military will show signs of BREAKING and the troops will

join the People in the streets and GOOSE the gutless representatives on both sides of the aisle to stop this illegal occupation.

The situation will only begin to change when the Military starts to implode. That will happen within the year.

No matter how many religious nut cases donate to Blackwater, et. al. Mercenary Corporations, they can't prop up the Military Industrial's Big budget and toys alone.

The Meat Grinder will demand more warm bodies ... they will want OUR Children. Then even the middle class republicans will begin to wake the f**k up and face reality that they've been punked.

Only then (When the Military begins to fall apart at the seams) will The People MAKE our gutless wonder representatives (both sides of the aisle) do WHAT's RIGHT. :grr:

I'm a democrat but I put none of my representatives on a pedestal ... power can too easily corrupt if there is not oversight - it can happen to anyone. :shrug:

[sanskritwarrior]

84. Shortnfiery, I know we don't get along

but your idea that the military will join in street protest this year doesn't wash. I am a troop and am decidedly against the war and loathe my approaching return trip later this year (my 3rd tour). That said I will never join in street protest of that war, I have a duty to uphold, good leaders or bad leaders, good war or bad war. I do have the free will to ignore illegal orders, if you could kindly point me to a ratified Congressional resolution, or a USSC ruling that states this war is illegal I will gladly not deploy later this year. I believe I am a typical soldier, I have multiple tours in Iraq, I don't love the war, but I love the Army. Engaging in street protest which would be illegal in certain regards is not something I am willing to do. Most soldiers I know (non first termers) feel the same way. We might hate what we are doing, but we love the people and the organization we are doing it for. As a result, morale is definitely strained, morale has definitely seen better days, but morale is still fair to good overall. Troops are still reenlisting in fairly large numbers (I know I did recently), the desertion rate is still under 1% per year as opposed to 5% or more during the height of Vietnam, and finally troops still believe they are fighting for their friends and that deserting them is as wrong as wrong can be.

As a result I think many people on this board are projecting their feelings onto us in the military. We might very well be disgruntled, but we are not rebellious or mutinous. We loathe the war, but that doesn't mean we are ready to march in the streets to end it. The military is still probably 3-5 years away from what you describe, it is definitely something that will happen if the war goes beyond 2009, but we aint there yet.

[Zhade]

61. As long as people like you refuse to fight, you're correct.

Hope you're happy owning part of this bloodbath.

The RIGHT fucking reason is because THIS WAR IS ILLEGAL. Iraq never attacked us.

[PSPS]

15. The only person who will "cut the funding" is bush if he vetoes the bill

Saying the democrats are "cutting off the funds" is a rovian twist of logic. The fact is that the current bill has more Iraq money in it than the cabal wants, plus it has a timeline. So, there's the money bush wants. All he has to do is sign the bill into law.

If he vetoes it, it's he who is "cutting off the funds."

[mrcheerful]

16. We have history to back that claim up too. Remember congress cut Nixon's war funds

and every since its been democrats and liberals thats been blamed for the fall of Viet Nam. Never mind the fact that the war was lost in 1967 or the fact that like Iraq we were not seen as liberators but invaders but the people of Viet Nam. Remember how well Reagan used that in 1979 against Jimmy Carter. Do I like that the pukes have backed us into a corner? No, I hate it, but hopefully we will win in the long run by showing just how corrupt and dirty the Repimplican party is and that will win us the day. Some times its better to bend in the breeze as a blade of grass then it is to stand like an oak in a hurricane.

[BeyondGeography]

19. Agree with your point, with one amendment

Congress never cut Nixon's funding of U.S. troops in Vietnam, it did cut off aid to South Vietnam, which helped ensure the success of North Vietnam's 1975 offensive.

The BS peception, however, persists on the Right that we lost the Vietnam War because of a Democratic Congress that pulled the rug out from under our own military. I think this helps to explain why most Dems, some of whom, like Levin, were there in the late 1970's and saw how the Right used Vietnam to help usher in Reagan and the conservative era, consistently state that we're not going to de-fund the troops in the field in Iraq.

[ShortnFiery]

29. We are only blamed in our corrupt M$M. Historians know that republicans

were also tired of the killing and dying in Vietnam.

Like trashing the noble title "Liberal" the M$M has tried to re-write history.

Don't buy into this covert ploy to make us show cowardice JUST BECAUSE the Democrats may be blamed.

Instead, consider how many THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN LIVES WERE SAVED by withdrawing our troops in 1975. :thumbsup:

[TwilightGardener]

31. Crucial point: If Dems lose the WH because of public perception

of blame for any disaster that occurs after we cut funds, then the Neocon War March will continue unabated--it's on to Iran, Syria, wherever. It's not just a Dem career-preserving move, to be hesitant to cut funds--there are REAL risks and unintended consequences that may result. I wouldn't be so quick to condemn those who are averse to a drastic measure. Levin has a good heart, from all I've seen of him, and so does Obama. They are very smart guys. Have some faith that they understand the situation and try to understand where they're coming from before we judge them harshly.

[ShortnFiery]

34. No it won't be that way at all. The Military is at the breaking point but our M$M

is fiddling while Rome burns, i.e., distracting the populace from this fact.

If the Unitary Executive and Military Industrial Complex want to continue their ENDLESS WARS, the M$M is going to have to "sell military service" to the American People.

They have become so fat and full of pride that they believe people will accept a draft or sign up in droves. The foregoing will NOT happen.

Newsflash: Our Military is now AT the Breaking Point. Where in the hell do you think the war machine is going to procure all that Cannon Fodder? There's not enough quality Mercs in the world that can keep this EVIL USA WAR MACHINE in business for more than a few years.

But by then, our Treasury will be ALMOST gutted and Fascism will be realized in the USA. In other words, if we allow the war machine to take all our tax dollars, WE ALL (The American People) will be working for Lockheed Martin, et. al. :grr: :nuke: :grr:

[Zhade]

63. If people vote in a Republican president after the crimes of this administration...

...then none of this matters, because it will mean the public will swallow lies and murder wholesale and ask for more.

Maybe it's time to adopt the view that watching America crash and burn is more likely, with all the cowardice in this fucked-up nation.

[Zhade]

62. Right. Like they won't lie and say the same thing if the Dems DON'T try to do the right thing.

I am sick to death of this political cowardice.

Stand up for what's fucking right, not what you fear isn't popular (and with the public vastly in favor of withdrawal, it's NOT unpopular).

While people hope for nebulous future victories based on making the Republicans look bad enough to overshadow the Democrats' cowardice, people are dying. Innocent people. Children.


But hey, to many here - and in the party - those lives are expendable.

Monsters!

[jsamuel]

54. The only way the Dems end up "owning" this war is if they don't stop it.

[Zhade]

60. Nice way to shore up the lies and murder, ace.

Good thing it's not your loved ones dying for political cowardice.

[razzleberry]

10. very, very, sad ...n/t

[ananda]

13. Rrrgghhh.

Levin.. YOU ASSHOLE!

[PSPS]

17. Same thing Milquetoast Obama said last week.

[DemKR]

21. Guess our vote in '06 really meant nothing

because nothing has changed.

[Seattleman]

46. Please understand that the vote was very important and informative

It clearly showed that our government is out of our control and is working for someone else's agenda.

[Zhade]

64. Excellent point.

It sure puts the bed the lie that the Dems intend to stop the war.

[ShortnFiery]

30. Yes, but Obama would bring them back a hell of a lot sooner than the others.

Well, duh. He was NOT EVER in support of the Iraqi Invasion and occupation.

[PSPS]

43. What, you're willing to wait until at least 2009 now?

Anyone who won't even forcefully voice an insistance that the bush killing spree be stopped now won't get my support. As others have said, it appears nothing has changed at all since the election. The torture, killing and the looting of the treasury continues entirely unabated.

The latest from Obama is that he's perfectly willing, even anxious, to continue funding this fiasco.

No. If Obama or someone else won't at least publicly insist that this come to an immediate stop, I'm not interested. As far as I'm concerned, that's the litmus test.

[ShortnFiery]

53. Obama will listen to the will of the people ... we will make it so - Bush will not.

No, I'm not willing at all to wait, but us "little people" MUST wait until they ask "the rest of us" to sacrifice our sons and daughters to kill and die for the USA Military Industrial Complex's meat grinder. THEN, in addition to us, a whole lotta others are NOT going to want to continue this war, including Republicans.

I hate that we must wait, but there's no alternative. :( Organized and angry, the Congress has no choice but to listen to the will of the people. THE PEOPLE have to *feel this war* within their family to get personally involved and active in contacting their representatives.

It's one of the selfish downsides of most of humankind, i.e., not to react until it personally affects "our people." :shrug:

[PSPS]

56. If he won't listen to "the will of the people" now, he certainly wouldn't in the whote house

[ShortnFiery]

81. He's NOT President yet!

When Obama is President and Edwards - Vice President they (and the Democratic Congress) will NOT be permitted ignore the will of the people. :thumbsup:

The difference, Obama and Edwards don't go off half-cocked, they BOTH listen. ;)

[bdamomma]

78. Kuninch is the only one who said he wants the troops home

[ProSense]

23. Bloody Saturday in Iraq

Bloody Saturday in Iraq vs. McCain's reality

[Pastiche423]

26. I just lost all respect for Levin

Not only will more American troops die, but so will innocent Iraqi men, women and children.

For No Fucking Reason!

[Omaha Steve]

38. Senate Will Not Stop Paying for Iraq War, Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin Says

Source: Associated Press

Senate Will Not Stop Paying for Iraq War, Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin Says

04-08-2007 1:55 PM

WASHINGTON (Associated Press) -- The Senate will not stop paying for the Iraq war or relent from insisting that President Bush keep pressing the Baghdad government for a negotiated end to the violence, a top Democrat said Sunday.

Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the Senate Armed Service Committee chairman, took issue with an effort by Majority Leader Harry Reid to cut off money for the war next year as a way to end U.S. involvement.

"We're not going to vote to cut funding, period," Levin said. "But what we should do, and we're going to do, is continue to press this president to put some pressure on the Iraqi leaders to reach a political settlement."


In this photo provided by ABC News, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., appears for an interview with George Stephanopolous on ABC's This Week, in Washington, Sunday, April 8, 2007. (AP Photo/ABC News, Lauren Victoria Burke)


Bush has asked Congress for more than $100 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. The House and Senate have approved the money, but their bills seek to wind down the war by including timelines for troops to come home _ something Bush will not accept.

Read more: http://omaha.cox.net/cci/newsnational/national?_mode=view&_state=maximized&view=article&id=D8OCJLO00&_action=validatearticle

[Pab Sungenis]

39. The Senate can do what it wants.

It's the HOUSE that has to initiate all appropriations.

[Demeter]

40. Too Bad, Because It's That or Impeachment

[Zhade]

66. Coward.

NT!

[bdamomma]

72. this is getting old isn't it? waiting for the Iraqi government to step up

this is nothing but BS, and more and more bodies are being piled up. this has got to stop now, they are not listening to us!!!

[diamidue]

41. Of course not. No surprise.

Both parties know what is really going on in Iraq and how it relates to the future of the USA. They just don't want us to learn the truth, so they rattle on about "supporting our troups" and "creating a strong Iraqi government, etc.". I posted the editorial once before somewhere, but I think it is a good explanation of why we are in Iraq & the urgency of "staking our claim" there.

"....unless our access to oil continues from the Middle East, the Anglo-American status as lone superpower and owner of the world’s reserve currency could go up in hyperinflationary smoke......I fully agree with Jim Dines, who suggests that in a few short years all the major oilfields of the world are likely to be in the hands of the militaries of various governments. What we are seeing in Iran and the geopolitical games being played among China, Russia, and Iran on the one hand and the U.S. and western Europe on the other is just the beginning of what is likely to become increasingly hostile and hot areas of military conflict".

".....F. William Engdahl points out oil is the reason we are in Iraq and is why England and the U.S. forced Palestinians off their land and created Israel in 1948."

One just wishes our govt. knew how to negotiate for oil rather than murder for it.

http://www.321energy.com/editorials/taylor/taylor040307.html?print=on

[humbled_opinion]

42. Soon we will hear of the new Marshall plan and basing in Iraq... Wait and see n/t

[Seattleman]

45. I have been predicting this for nearly two years.

On another forum I have predicted that when the Dems get control of Congress again, that they would not change the foreign policy in Iraq, nor actually work to end the ongoing occupation.

We are constantly being betrayed by the leadership of both parties. They do not care about the clearly expressed intent of the American people.

[Zhade]

67. Same here.

Doesn't it just fucking suck to be right?

[rodeodance]

48. But Bush had a good he he he on jelly bean day when he heard this.

[rodeodance]

49. Russ Feingold said Dems would soon own the war------and with this

funding-----which give Bush TIME------yes we will own it!

[Vidar]

55. Carl, you're often a decent senator but you couldn't be more wrong on this.

[ToeBot]

57. The Democrats already own the Iraq Occupation, they bought it last November

If the troops are still there when the elections in 2008 come around, then any assurance of Democratic victory will be gone. The Republicans know this. Bush knows this. And Senate Dem's shouldn't expect any help from their "good friend and colleague" Lieberman. He will undermine their every move, about the only thing you can count on will be his continued "independence". After all, if he shacked up with the Republicans then the blame for this monumental fuck-up could be too easily spread around. Congress needs to do what ever it takes to get the US out of Iraq, the sooner the better. (I know you think they can pin it all on Bush, but the lower his popularity goes, the less believable that dodge will be. I don't think they are clever enough to pull it off under the best of circumstances; for the most part these are the same people that have been there for the last 6 years, after all.)

[Zhade]

58. Fuck you, Levin. Their blood is on your hands too.

And what's this "the Iraqis have to stand up" bullshit? Nice, blame the Iraqis for the shit we caused by ILLEGALLY INVADING A COUNTRY THAT DIDN'T THREATEN US.

[Triana]

68. SO - they're buying the war for the Dems in 08...

...with our tax dollars and MORE deaths for nothing. GREAT! Spineless ninnies. Idiots!

[pberq]

69. ". . .putting pressure on the Iraqi leaders to live up to commitments"

Yeah, right!

Let's see: the U.S. illegally invades Iraq, killing thousands of their citizens, destroying the infrastructure, and now we have to hold the Iraqi government accountable for the problems created by the invasion.

Levin has sold his soul to the devil.

[spanone]

70. Not only will the Dems inherit this fucking war, they will own it.

I will vote independent in 08 if these fuckers don't act to stop this war.

[The Stranger]

73. WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY

do the Democrats let them spin it as their "withholding funding" when they authorized everything that could fucking be asked for, they just did the will of the people by including a withdrawal date?

WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?

[bdamomma]

76. what about cutting the funding for mercenary troops, aren't there

more mercenary troops being used, they are totally under the radar, * will continue to use or privatize using mercenary troops, he can use them anywhere he wants, *'s own death squads.

[nodehopper]

77. um...and THIS is why Cindy Sheehan is putting the heat on the Dems.

[bdamomma]

79. what about this bill?

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/4/3/14479/07174


The Feingold-Reid Bill helps Congress finally put the brakes on the Administration's failed Iraq strategy, and serves notice to the President in terms he can't ignore. "It sets forth a new direction that will require the Iraqis to take responsibility for their future by mandating the safe, phased redeployment of US combat forces from Iraq, with a hard date for completing that redeployment. It also very responsibly provides for a continued, very limited role for US troops who remain in Iraq -- equip and train Iraqi security forces, carry out limited counter terrorism operations and protect US personnel and infrastructure. I am pleased to join with Senators Feingold and Reid as a co-sponsor on this important legislative initiative. I would urge the President to embrace the new direction set forth in the bill.


will bush still veto the bill, we know he is totally against a date withdrawal.

[pberq]

80. The question is: with this bill in the works, why does Levin

have to come out with this line of BS?

[RiverStone]

82. Can someone please tell me what "pressure" Levin refers too?

All I see is talk to appease the anti-war caucus - and capitulation to rethug PR that NOT supporting Shrub is not supporting the troops.

Even the timeline is based on a non-binding recommendation.

I understand that right now we don't have the votes to block a veto; though I'm curious what pressure have the DEMS exerted which has caused shrub to alter his crazy ass war mongering one damn inch???

[RiverStone]

85. oops, duplicate post

self delete