Levin Says Democrats Won't Block Iraq Troop Funding

[Purveyor]

Source: Bloomberg News

Nov. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said Democrats won't cut funding for U.S. troops in Iraq even as attempts to set a goal for a withdrawal are blocked by Republicans.

``We're going to fund the troops,'' Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said today on the ``Fox News Sunday'' program. ``No one's trying to undercut the military.''

Two Republican supporters of the current strategy in the war, Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona, accused Democrats of ignoring military commanders and the success brought about by the addition of about 30,000 U.S. troops earlier this year.

Democrats on Nov. 16 fell seven votes short of the 60 necessary to move forward with a $50 billion funding measure that would have set goals for removing U.S. troops from Iraq. With President George W. Bush threatening to veto any legislation that would put restrictions on the U.S. presence there, Democratic leaders said they may wait until next year to act on military funding requests. Bush is seeking about $190 billion to pay for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.



Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aEF6zN0Rnkas&refer=us

[montanacowboy]

1. Pitiful, just pitiful

the repukes have made them shit their drawers again and again an again and again an again

does anyone doubt we will not take the WH in 08? Dems are weak as the repukes portray them to be, they keep walking into the trap over and over again

[bluestateguy]

2. If this is framed as "funding the troops" then we will lose the PR battle

The troops actually see very little of that money.

This is money for Bush, nothing else.

And Bush never says thank you when the Congress gives him every dime he asks for. He just whines like a spoiled brat, and demands more money to play war with.

[saigon68]

3. The Money is actually for Gangster Cheney and his war criminal Cohorts

[leftchick]

5. and apparently

a whole lot of complicit Dems it would seem.

[Eagle_Eye]

12. Cohort gansters like Lockheed Martin

Boeing
BAE Systems
Northrop Grumman
Raytheon
General Dynamics
EADS
L-3 Communications
Finmeccanica
United Technologies
Thales
General Electric
Honeywell
Rolls-Royce
ITT

[leftchick]

4. capitulation

complicity, enabling. WTF? Where in the hell is leadership? They look and sound PATHTIC! No wonder they poll with cheney!

:argh:

[JerseygirlCT]

10. Is that what Levin is doing?

Parsing this a bit? Perhaps this isn't the cave-in it appears to be.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

14. The next paragraph does make it appear as if that may be the case

From the article re: the Republicans refusal to add withdrawal language:

Levin said Senate Republicans opposed to setting any troop withdrawal goal are sending ``exactly the wrong message to the leaders of Iraq, that somehow or other, we're not going to put pressure on them to do what they promised to do.''

Considering how he was on this issue before I understand peoples concern, but in this case I'm going to wait and see how it plays out before I pass judgment.

[GOPNotForMe]

11. Exactly what I was going to say!

But your post is properly better worded :)

[yurbud]

24. EXACTLY. Which means Levin wants the war to continue.

Change the frame and you can at least fuzz up the Bush talking points.

For example, if you start saying ''funding the troops means no enlisted person is so poor their family needs to be on food stamps, and no wounded veteran will be denied benefits using the same shameful lies private insurance companies use to deny coverage like calling PTSD a pre-existing condition the soldier had before he was sent to war.''

''We will fund the defense of the United States from real security threats but will not fund using our military for private gain or spreading economic policies that incite hatred of the United States.''

[AndyTiedye]

6. aak pfft

[Cha]

7. levin should have added..

but, we're going to try to do everything possible to stop the idiot bush and his neofascist handlers from starting fucking world war III..you fucking fauxnoise.

[humbled_opinion]

8. But they are not... There is absolutely no difference in the Democratically

controlled congress and the Repuke controlled congress when it comes to Iraq and America is fed up. We need to fire them all. When you enable bad policy you are complicit and even more so when you said you were going to stop it in the first place....

Who cares what the Repukes say about the troops and funding the objective is to end the war period. Bring our troops home now. No more money for this fiasco.

The Democrats in congress lack a spine and that criticism is going to stick because its true. They needed to stand up for what is right and they didn't they got hoodwinked again...

and shame on them because fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me....

[Cha]

9. I'm beginning to realize that

and only said..What levin Should have said.

To me..it's all about cynicism and being jaded. Politicians are crap except for the few.

[Zorra]

13. Give them enough cash to bring them home. If Bu*h vetoes the bill,

well, then Bu*h and republicans are responsible for not supporting the troops.

End of story.

[cstanleytech]

15. This makes no sense, they do not have to block the funding

merely reduce it to a level where the president is forced to begin withdrawal.
Why dont they start doing their jobs and take a firmer stand, every time they backdown they just shore up the idiots who support the president fully still.

[boricua79]

16. oh my god...how enraging!

Hello Mr. Levin...get with the program!

STOP FALLING FOR THE GOP's WORD GAMES!

Instead of calling it "undercut the military", call it "pro-responsible military management" or something to that effect. Call it "democratic accountability" and argue that the American people have now spoken about what they want, and that you guys are responding to that "democratic accountability"!

These Democrats lack spines and strategic smarts!

PUNKS!

[disndat]

17. Levin doesn't lack spine

In fact he is the biggest receiver of AIPAC money. Levin is a neocon.

[CBHagman]

18. There still aren't the votes for the withdrawal dates.

We all know the math. We have a split Congress without a veto-proof majority. Until we peel off enough members of the GOP to force Bush's hand, there's no win on the votes.

[PSPS]

19. Sorry, but you're wrong

All the democrats need to do is not allow any funding bill onto the floor without withdrawal dates or some other kind of restraint in it. You don't need any "veto proof" anything. The "we don't have the votes" canard was bogus from the start. It's just a made up excuse that means nothing at all.

The real problem is how the democrats have let the republicans and their MSM RW wurlitzer get away with framing this as "legislating a surrender date."

[Brrrp]

29. Exactly, All Nancy has to do is not agendize a "clean" funding bill. nt

[eagler]

20. Do you ever get the feeling that nobody's listening?

[magellan]

22. Oh, they're listening

Just not to the people who elected them.

They only need us peons one day every two years. The rest of the time they dance to other tunes.

[Betty]

21. How many times has this same old shit happened?

they make some feeble attempt to force president shithead to set a timeline and then they fold when he threatens a veto. The blood is on their hands as well. They are not supporting the troops, they are abandoning them. To cover their political ass. Shame on them.

[yurbud]

23. call it ''war funding'' funding troops would be decent pay, VA benefits for injured, etc.

[yurbud]

25. why is this dumbass fartknocker going on FOX NEWS SUNDAY?

You can't feel much sympathy for Dem leaders who feel beat up by right wing media and MSM when they walk into a punch on purpose.

[leftist_not_liberal]

26. Democratic leaders are PRO-WAR

It is just that simple.

Fuck that 'Support the Troops' REICH WING canard.

[Hawkowl]

27. No funding for MERCENARIES

Senile, stupid, fucking dems always letting the fascists frame the argument. Even if the dems get veto proof majorities in BOTH houses, they still will cower and whine, and let the rethuglican 30% minority run the show. No I'm not being sarcastic. There are plenty of instances in history where the corrupt ruthless minority has ruled an unhappy majority. If we keep voting for who's "most electable (vomit)" this is what we will continue to receive, i.e; a first class ass reaming.

Don't support corporate dem Quislings. Period. Ever.

[BornagainDUer]

28. Ahhh fuuuuck it!! Why not just take an oath of fealty and be done

with you stupid fucking asshole. Can you not take a stand on anything??

What did Bush do tell you he was going to expose some peccadillo?

[billy173]

30. Good for them!!!

Why would anyone take funds that buy equipment and ammo to keep us soldiers alive.

All us soldiers want to do is finish what we started and come home proud, anyone who doesnt want this should be ashamed of themselves.

RLTW!

[Nihil]

32. Wake up call for you ...

> All us soldiers want to do is finish what we started and come home proud,
> anyone who doesnt want this should be ashamed of themselves.

You are incapable of "finishing what you started" so, by definition, you
are not going to "come home proud". If you want to stay in the hope that
things will finally pick up then you'll be there for a long time. If you
simply want to come home (preferably in one piece) then you should dump
the "finish what we started" side of things and pull out a.s.a.p..

Most people on this site WANT you all to come home healthy and come home
soon and that's why they DON'T want dipshit turncoats like this giving in
to Bush's demands without getting action on the "bring the troops home" side.

Keep safe.

[rodeodance]

31. Levin did the same thing last time--came out early and showed the trump card. dang it!

[tom_paine]

33. "Seven votes short of the 60 necessary"

In Imperial Amerika, whether in the majority or minority, it takes 60 votes to counteract Imperial Will. Said votes will just be ignored by the Emperor, anyway...it's a feelgood operation for show only.

Naturally, Royal Bushies only need 50 votes to pass anything they wish.

Now, before people start boring me with lectures about the mechanics of filibustering, which I know in detail already, it is a rhetorical question, ifrmly grounded inthe helplessness of a captive f a totalitarian state, as everyone who lives in Amerika is today.