Warner resolution isn't really anti-surge

[loveandlight]

This is all a show folks, and if the Dems fall for it it will be a sad sad day.

from TPMmuckraker:
"Sure, the resolution "disagrees with the 'plan' to augment our forces by 21,500." But it's an open question as to why.

In key passages, the resolution endorses the terms of the argument for the surge laid out by President Bush. It contends a "failed state in Iraq would present a threat to regional and world peace"; seeks an Iraq that can "sustain, govern and defend itself and serve as an ally in the war on extremists"; rules out cutting off funding for the war at some future point; lays out an open-ended set of military goals in Iraq and then says Bush should stick to those only "as much as possible"; explicitly rules out near-term troop reductions; and, somewhat egregiously, says it doesn't mean to "question or contravene" Bush's commander-in-chief authority."

link to full article: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002464.php

Feingold rightly opposes this compromise as does Senator Dodd. I think the Democrats would be better off not being taken in by this kind of twisted language, because in the end it will come back to haunt them, just as the original resolution on going to Iraq did. It is not in what is actually said, which is pretty much nothing, but in how it can be interpreted, and we all know what * does with this kind of open-ended mussy mouth wording. This isn't going to bring an end to this war and will just give cover to the Repubs in the 2008 elections. It is a bunch of b*sh* to be kind.

[atreides1]

1. In other words

Warner is kissing his ass like he's done in the past, and this time he's bringing along some Democrats so that the Little Corporal's ass can be completely covered with kisses!

It's good to see that some of the Democrats are still keeping their powder dry, still!!!!