Levin tells Dems: Don't back down on Iraq

[struggle4progress]

Source: Detroit News

Sunday, May 20, 2007
Gordon Trowbridge

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Carl Levin said Sunday congressional Democrats should not back down in their fight with President Bush over funding for the Iraq war, despite a deadlock that puts at risk Democratic promises to pass a bill by Memorial Day.

"If he can't change course, and apparently he won't, we need to try to change course for him," Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said during an appearance on CNN's "Late Edition."

Democrats have sought legislation that would begin a drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq if that country's government fails to reach certain political benchmarks. The latest proposal -- which includes benchmarks and also a waiver provision, allowing Bush to dodge the withdrawal requirement -- was rejected by the White House on Friday in a meeting with congressional leaders.

"That is a totally unsustainable position," Levin said, calling it "incredible" that the White House would reject a timeline that is, in essence, unenforceable. ~snip~



Read more: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070520/UPDATE/705200358/1020

[Tom Joad]

1. WTF? We "threaten" to pull out? It depends on the Iraqi govt action?

This is an illegal war of aggression, not a humanitarian mission.

[ananda]

2. ermmm

DIdn't Levin just vote against the Feingold resolution?

WTF

[Bumblebee]

3. The F* is that there are nuances, and Levin has always been on the right

side of the issue but also realistic in knowing where to draw the line. Feingold's principled stand does appeal to many of us, for whom the issue is quite black and white, but politically it's quite ineffective, as we have seen. If one draws a line in the sand, it has to be the kind of the line that has a REAL chance of not being crossed, even if the purists in us may want more. I am heartened to see that Levin is indeed drawing such a line, despite B*'s threats of a veto. Makes the boy emperor look so much more ridiculous than when he threatened to veto the Feingold's bill.