by Frank James
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.,) who voted against the Iraq War, has an interesting op-ed piece in today's Washington Post in which he explains why he won't vote to cut-off funding for the military.
It's for essentially the same reason Abraham Lincoln as a member of Congress wouldn't vote to stop funding the Mexican War which he opposed.
Though Lincoln disagreed with President James Polk for starting the war, Lincoln didn't want troops on the battlefield to pay for what he viewed as Polk's mistake. Levin also doesn't want troops to pay for what he views as President Bush's error.
Levin, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he and Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) intend to reintroduce legislation that would set a timetable for withdrawing most U.S. troops.
Levin writes:
As long as our nation's policies put them there, our troops should hear an unequivocal message from Congress that we support them.
That shouldn't be a cause for frustration among those of us who want to bring the war to a prompt and responsible end.
There are a number of ways for Congress to try to change course in Iraq. I emphasize "try" because Democrats can't succeed without Republican support, given the realities of Senate procedure. One way to try to change course is to stop funding for the war, which sends the wrong message to the troops and won't pass in Congress. The better way to change course, an option that is also more likely to succeed, is to place in law a requirement that the president do so.
Later, he writes:
Support for our approach has grown steadily. In June 2006, our measure received 39 votes. In March, it received 48 votes. In April, it received 51 votes, including those of two Republican senators. By contrast, only 29 senators so far -- none of them Republican -- have voted for a funding cutoff. That's a long way from the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster or the 67 needed to override a veto.
Sen. Reed and I will introduce this plan again as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Bill.
Is Levin's argument enough to persuade those who want U.S. troops immediately withdrawn from Iraq? Probably not. But as Levin says, his approach is likely to get enough votes to override a presidential veto while an immediate withdrawal isn't.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The best way to end the war is to impeach, then arrest the war criminals who started the whole mess.
Posted by: Cheryl | June 21, 2007 12:57 PM
The Republicans stopped being the "Party of Lincoln" when Lincoln died in the Ford Theater.
Posted by: John E | June 21, 2007 1:05 PM
Cheryl is obviously much brighter than Senator Dimbulb Levin. You support the troops by bringing them home; not leaving them in Iraq forever. What an idiot.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | June 21, 2007 1:22 PM
CHeryl, John E., weiner, Doogie Zook: for all of you, your parents disowned you, right? I mean they couldn't take the embarrassment of having kids who truly are one-note perpetual dumbasses!
Impeach? War criminal! Murderer! And, now, another of your own, ultra-liberal Carl Levin, doesn't tow the Loony Left dumbass line, so off with him too, just like with Liebermann, right?
As I've said, there is no difference between Al Qaeda and the Loony Left; pretty much one and the same.
Posted by: John D | June 21, 2007 1:49 PM
Any politician that supports a draw down of our beloved soldiers in Iraq has my support.
Posted by: Doug Zook | June 21, 2007 2:20 PM
Johnny "Dear" D'Luded,
The only person who's going to "disown" you you whack job - is RNC Bruce!
Posted by: Doug Zook | June 21, 2007 2:23 PM
wow, you're the first person on earth who has ever called Carl Levin an ultra-liberal.
Levin's an embarrassment. Sad, pathetic, whiny little wuss.
Posted by: jerry | June 21, 2007 2:25 PM
no... he is right... i'm about as far to the left as it goes, but i am so sick to death of these (please excuse the gross generalization) granola eating super liberals who are more interested in the politics of what feeeeels right, rather than what will actually make the world a better place...
keep in mind there are still people who voted for nader in fla. in 2000 who are totally unrepentent--
they have blood on their hands...
if just dropping everything and pulling out creates an implosion over there -- WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT...
What we do have the right to do, and more the obligation, is to line up the top executives from all of those war profiteering corporations and all members of this admisnistration involved with them... try them all for treason, and if convicted... hang them all...
that will announce to the world what democracy is...
then fast AS WE CAN we get our troops home from iraq...
impeach?? this country is going down the toilet... there should be a mass roundup of traitors, starting with the evil putz bush... trials by law... and with convictions, executions...
anything less is a gross cheapening of the very concept of democracy...
Posted by: seth | June 21, 2007 2:45 PM
Wow John D, you sound angry! Are you still a little sore from the spanking I gave you yesterday?
I wonder what you were saying when Clinton was being impeached.
By the way, every time you say "loony" you sound like the fool you are.
Also, not that you care, but if anyone should be compared to Al Qaeda it is the neocons, not the liberals. It is the neocons who like torture - like locking people away without due process - like starting wars for no reason - like taking away are rights and freedoms...
I could go on but what is the point? You and your flat earth bretheren don't listen to anything not uttered by Rush Limbaugh.
You are pathetic.
Posted by: nisleib | June 21, 2007 2:50 PM
john Dumbazz, that must be why bin laden and bush are so close...
u are an ignoramus... watch the power of nightmares... al qaeda and the neo-cons have much in common...
not hyperbole, just reality...
Posted by: seth | June 21, 2007 2:53 PM
There you have it ladies and gentlemen, a representative of the RNC, John D., has gone completely round the bend.
Seen puk.. picking up the pieces is RNC Bruce.
Posted by: Doug Zook | June 21, 2007 3:07 PM
Poor Levin. He tries hard to illustrate a distinction to the anti-war crowd between whether or not you agreed with going to war in the first place, and doing the right thing from this point forward. Unfortunately for him, this concept is beyond them.
Posted by: Herbie H. | June 21, 2007 3:11 PM
John D = retard. Look in the mirror one trick pony. The American people support funding for the troop & an end to this debacle. There's no difference between neo-swine such as yourself and sheep. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid!!!
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | June 21, 2007 3:14 PM
Poor Levin. He tries to illustate a distinction to the anti-war crowd between whether or not you agreed with going to war in the first place, and doing the right thing from this point forward. Un fortunately for him, this concept is beyond them.
Posted by Herb June 21, 2007 3:11 PM
Herbie Hancock, only a moron like you would agree that the Neocons who got us into this Iraq civil war in the first place would be able to actually find a solution to the very same disaster that they themselves created in the first place.
I've yet to see you Neocons find your own backside with both hands let alone solve any of the world's problems.
I'm also guessing that you agree with Levin on your guy Gonzo getting s-canned?
Little Johnny D'feated, how much do I owe you for mowing my lawn yesterday?
Posted by: John E | June 21, 2007 3:42 PM
Funding for the troops I mean. Left out the s. I wouldn't want John (Mr Spellcheck) D to blow a gasket over a typo. Sen. Carl Levin hit the nail on the head and should be applauded as should Sen. Jack Reed. Bring the troops home.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | June 21, 2007 3:45 PM
John E., you are making my point for me. You are unable or unwilling to accept the situation for what it is right now, and try to find the best solution going forward. You're fantasy of impeaching Bush is not going to happen. Any solution in Iraq will involve him, and the sooner you accept that, the sooner you might be able to add some intelligent suggestions to the debate about how to stabilize Iraq and get us out of there. I believe there is common ground between Dems and Reps on what to do from this point forward, mainly that the Iraqis need to take far more responsibility for their situation. Instead of trying to build on this common ground, I see two sides of the aisle digging their heels in and insulting each other.
. . and John E., as far as the name calling, how old are you, 10? Does your mom know you are playing on the Internet? I am fairly new posting here, but I am starting to realize why most people just ignore you.
Posted by: Herbie H. | June 21, 2007 4:45 PM
Funny, nisleib says I sound angry. Sorry, but all I had to do was goad ever so little, and the Loony Left began spewing its vittle like no tomorrow. You folks keep dreaming, but this country will never follow through on the path you pathetic losers want this country to go down. The U.S. will not become the Land of Enchantment for the Loony Left. That is why far left candidates never win, except for places like Berkely, Vermont and a few others where mankind's worst (The Loony Left) exist in full force.
Go running and whining to Venezuala, weirdos. With any luck, Chavez will lock you morons up too!
Posted by: John D | June 21, 2007 4:51 PM
Mankind's worst?
How disappointing.
This just shows the kind of divorced-from-reality thinking that has been the calling card of the right-wing nutjobs for some time now.
Mankind's worst? I seriously want to know what combination of drugs you took to make you arrive at that conclusion. Oxycontin chased down with some vitriolic hate speech?
The liberals have been fighting for peace, better education for children, fighting poverty, and civil rights. Mankind's worst?
All the same time, you're behind a president whose administration who lied to get us into a war, jeopardized our nations security, ballooned our national debt, increased government spending like crazy, messes around with our basic constitutional rights, wiretaps his own citizens, suspends habeas corpus, legitimizes torture for interrogation, and puts his good incompetant friends in positions of extreme importance in the federal government.
Wow. Astounding. And even more astounding that people like you are out there who aren't furious about what is happening to our country.
Posted by: Ben | June 21, 2007 6:16 PM
Herb Alpert,
I wouldn't get to over confident about that "no impeachment" stuff if I was you, better yet, why don't you go ahead and start chanting that crap and see how far it get's you:)
Posted by: John E | June 21, 2007 7:09 PM
Well, I have another idea: If the Chimpy's Iraqi adventure is such a great idea, you guys pay for it. I've seen the wingnuts suggesting we pay for stem cell research. Fine. If you like the Iraq war, go there or send money to fund it. Otherwise, STFU and let the grown ups decide.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | June 21, 2007 7:22 PM
I gotta agree with you on one thing. People sound very angry on this board, but then so do you. While we're all name calling and finger pointing, we're just spinning our wheels. Seth IS right, these people need to be brought up on charges. And Nislieb, you're right too, of course. The Patriot Act.
Once you give these people power, they will never relinquish it. This was the worst mistake Congress (a Republican controlled) did. And the deaths go on...
Posted by: Mrs. Jesus | June 21, 2007 7:32 PM
Poor Levin. He tries hard to illustrate a distinction to the anti-war crowd between whether or not you agreed with going to war in the first place, and doing the right thing from this point forward. Unfortunately for him, this concept is beyond them.
Posted by: Herbie H. | June 21, 2007 3:11 PM
I like the way you use the term "from this point forward". Wouldn't "doing the right thing" have included a more intelligent look at the possible consequences of going into this war? Wouldn't "doing the right thing" have included not making mistakes like using the right amount of troops, not disbanding their army? What exactly to you is the right thing? Were you all for "stay the course"? cause that wasn't the right thing..was it?
I'm sorry that you can just forgive this mistake of huge consequences....I don't. I don't think that the man and party that got us into this...has the smarts to continue telling us what is "the right thing to do". It's kinda like Bush said......
you can fool me once shame on....er..fool me twice...well thats just not right. Stop appologizing for them..and demand competent people to lead us.
Posted by: bill r. | June 22, 2007 6:59 AM
John D, when you whine about "one-note posters", you're the pot that's calling the kettle black.
Posted by: BC | June 22, 2007 11:35 AM
Lincoln would say "What the f*#% has happened to this country? It's my party and I'll curse if I want to."
Posted by: Rick/Sneads Ferry, NC | June 22, 2007 7:16 PM
bill r., did I ever say I forgave anything? Don't make up something, attribute it to me, and then try to rebut it. The argument you are trying to pick with me is a microcosm of what's going on in Washington - nothing. Just squabbling and finger pointing. You are great at pointing out problems. What is your solution in Iraq? You seem more interested in assuring that Bush goes down as a failure than trying to add any meaningful suggestions about how to solve the quagmire in Iraq. And before you or anyone else responds with "pull all troops out immediately", give me a credible analysis of what would happen if we did, and its potential impact on us down the road.
Herb
Posted by: Herbie H. | June 22, 2007 9:41 PM
lincoln rocks
Posted by: mechelle | October 4, 2007 10:53 AM
It seems the great propaganda machine, public schools, are certainly doing their job, with the BS that is being taught about Lincoln. Let's look at some facts. Abe shut down over 300 newspapers and magazines,all Northern,
because of their anti-war editorials. Over 13,000 anti-war Northern civilians were locked up without being charged with any crime.That's because their only 'crime' was to speak out against the President.Private homes(keep in mind this is all in the North,AKA-USA)were busted into without warrents,illegal wiretaps on telegraph lines,opening US mail. The list goes on and on. Can you imagine the outrage if Bush did these actions? Outrage, hell, there would be riots, which by the way occured in the 1860's. What did the "greatest Prez in US history" do? Sent in Fed troops to beat and murder the anti-war protesters.Another "great" thing Abe did was to place troops at the Post Offices and confiscate any and all anti-war mail. Did anyone learn this stuff in school?
So much for the Constitution.
Posted by: VaSteve | October 9, 2007 9:57 AM