A year ago Levin voted against
Kerry-Feingold.
Media Matters on Levin June 2006:
LEVIN (video clip): We don't set the end date for it, we set the beginning date. We don't set that beginning date immediately. That would be precipitous. But we say that the open-ended commitment has got to end, and we've got to find a way to leave Iraq in better shape than we found it. But our presence there is contributing as much to instability now as it is to security.
linkLevin during CNN interview, June 2006:
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI), ARMED SERVICE COMMITTEE: Well, because right now the commitment is an open-ended commitment to stay in Iraq. The way the administration as put it, we're there as long as they need us. That could be forever. That's an unlimited kind of a commitment, and it's -- we've got to change that dynamic in Iraq. We've got to begin, we believe, a phased redeployment of American forces out of Iraq by the end of the year. We don't set the end date for it. We set the beginning date. We don't set that beginning date immediately; that it would be precipitous. Btu we say that the open-ended commit has got to end, and we've got to find a way to leave Iraq in better shape than we found it. But our presence there is contributing as much to instability now as it is to security.
ROBERTS: Senator Harry Reid said yesterday that Democrats, quote, "have at least two positions on troop withdrawals." It looks more like it's more like three. You've got a group of Democrats who want to stay the course. A group of Democrats, including yourself, who want to start to redeploy the end of this year. Then you have John Kerry and Senator Jack Reed, who want all the troops out by July 1st of next year.
Why can't Democrats speak with one voice on this? Why can't you get on the same page?
LEVIN: Well, because there are two different points of view, and we believe, and I believe, that at the end of the day when votes are counted, that you will find the vast majority of Democrats favor a phased redeployment out of Iraq beginning at the end of this year.
And one other thing -- the differences between most Democrats and the administration are much greater than the differences among Democrats. So there's a significant agreement, a consensus, among Democrats that we have too much of an open-ended commitment and that we've got to have a phased redeployment begin by the end of the year. That is no way is cut and run. You'll hear that all day long. But there's no way that can be fairly characterized as cut and run.
ROBERTS: On the point of what you think the majority of Democrats will support, the debate is being engineered today to give your proposal the most time and to give John Kerry's proposal very little time. Is Kerry in the doghouse today?
LEVIN: Not at all. As a matter of fact, I think Senator Kerry will probably have at least as much time, perhaps more time, as we do. He is able to have as much time as he needs, as a matter of fact, beginning when we're completed and our time is limited.
ROBERTS: There are just some Democrats who say it's not helpful to have he and Senator Reid proposing this hard-and-fast date for withdrawal.
LEVIN: He and senator Feingold, you mean?
ROBERTS: Oh, sorry, yes. That's what I meant.
linkMore on the Democrats and Kerry-Feingold:
But, frankly, the above text in bold shows what's wrong with Democrats. There is one proposal that is strong and unequivocal and whether you like it or not, whether Harry Reid likes it or not, it's authored by John Kerry and Russ Feingold.
I'm sure Hillary Clinton is overjoyed and so are many others, thinking setting a date certain is silly. But timidity hasn't worked for us before. It looks like Kerry is the only one who learned the lesson deep enough to finally lead on it.
Even as Senator Jack Reed was talking about the Levin-Reed resolution, he said that the majority of Americans favor a deadline for withdrawal in Iraq. Unfortunately, that specific idea came from Senator John Kerry, wherein Senator Harry Reid decided to stick him with a political shiv, camoflaged in a debate that will come in the cloak of darkness. Children.
Let's just tell it like it is. Democrats in the Senate may not believe "cut and run," but they're still afraid of the label. When you're afraid of anything you cannot lead. The debate continues on C-SPAN.
linkLevin's op-ed today aligning himself with a binding resolution that set a deadline for withdrawal, claiming he was for it all along:
I voted against going to war in Iraq; I have consistently challenged the administration's conduct of the war; and I have long fought to change our policy there. But I cannot vote to stop funding the troops while they are in harm's way, conducting dangerous missions such as those recently begun north of Baghdad. I agree with Lincoln, who decided "that the Administration had done wrong in getting us into the war, but that the Officers and soldiers who went to the field must be supplied and sustained at all events." As long as our nation's policies put them there, our troops should hear an unequivocal message from Congress that we support them.
<...>
We can end the war without stopping funding for the troops. For more than a year, I, along with Sen. Jack Reed, have introduced legislation requiring the president to begin reducing the number of American troops in Iraq within four months while transitioning our military mission there to limited force protection, training of Iraqi security forces and counterterrorism missions.
Setting a date to begin reducing and transitioning our forces would make clear to Iraqi leaders that we will not be their security blanket indefinitely. It would force them to take responsibility for their future and to make the political compromises that only they can make. It would also give them sufficient time to make those compromises. After all, they promised to make nearly all of them by the end of last year and the rest by the beginning of this year but have yet to do so. The timeline would also allow us to plan for redeploying our forces.
By setting a policy that begins with putting into law a timetable for starting a troop reduction, rather than trying to stop funding, we offer the best chance for stabilizing a country that we invaded while also sending the message to our troops that, even though we oppose the president's policy, we are united behind them.
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.
moreSenator Feingold responded to Levin's op-ed (via Daily Kos):
Update: Senator Feingold has responded to Senator Levin's op-ed:
In the opinion piece, Levin mischaracterized the effort led by Feingold and Majority Leader Harry Reid as somehow cutting off funding for U.S. troops. In fact, the Feingold-Reid bill would not end funding for the ongoing military mission in Iraq until U.S. troops had been safely redeployed out of harm’s way.
"I’m pleased that Senator Levin and Senator Jack Reed have finally come to the conclusion that a timetable for redeployment with a hard deadline is what we need to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq," Feingold said. "But I’m disappointed that Senator Levin chose to announce his shift by disingenuously suggesting that the Feingold-Reid plan would somehow cut funding for troops in harm’s way. Senator Levin knows full well that the plan I introduced with Majority Leader Harry Reid, and which was supported by a majority of Senate Democrats, would end funding for the war in Iraq only after our brave troops have been safely redeployed out of Iraq. It is time for Senator Levin and Senator Jack Reed to drop their opposition to the Feingold-Reid plan to safely redeploy our troops by March 31, 2008, and then end funding for the mistake in Iraq."
Senator Levin and Senator Jack Reed previously had been critical of timetables culminating in a firm end date as a way to bring our military involvement in Iraq to an end. Despite Levin's current criticism of efforts to use Congress's power of the purse to end the war, Levin voted for a similar effort with regard to Somalia in 1993. In October 1993, Levin joined 75 other Senators in voting for an amendment to require redeployment of U.S. troops from Somalia by setting a deadline after which funding for the military mission there was terminated. The amendment was passed into law and U.S. troops were redeployed from Somalia by the deadline.
link Audio:
Feingold on LevinLevin's position that Kerry-Feingold was precipitous withdrawal was the Democratic talking point of all but the 13 Senators who voted for it:
For all these reasons, I would like nothing more than to support the Kerry Amendment; to bring our brave troops home on a date certain, and spare the American people more pain, suffering and sorrow.
But having visited Iraq, I'm also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them.
moreThe good thing is that there supporting it now. The bad thing is soldiers are still dying at increasing rates:
14 more U.S. troops killed in IraqMaybe a year from now Levin will lay claim to having supported Feingold and the other nine sponsors, including Senator Kerry, of the bill to cut funding.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
