Levin Says Pressure on Bush Will Force Course Change in Iraq

[bigtree]

June 29 (Bloomberg) -- Growing political pressure on President George W. Bush probably will force him to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq later this year, Senator Carl Levin, the head of the Armed Services Committee, said.

``I'm hoping that in the fall the president will announce something about beginning to reduce troops,'' Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt,'' scheduled to air today.

Senate Democrats next month are set to take up amendments to defense policy legislation that would require U.S. troop withdrawals. While Levin said those measures likely wouldn't be backed by enough Republicans initially to overcome Bush's opposition, ``the momentum is there'' for change in Iraq, he added. .

The (September report from the top U.S. general in Iraq, David Petraeus) will be ``vague'' and ``mixed,'' Levin predicted . . .

``We've already gotten signals from Petraeus and other generals that they're not going to be able to have anything definitive in September,'' Levin said. ``From my perspective we already, it seems to me, have a pretty good idea that the key issue here, which is whether or not the Iraqis are going to be able to work out political differences, is not going to be advanced by the surge.''


Levin singled out Vice President Dick Cheney for blame on international and domestic issues. Cheney seems ``to think he's above the law'' and is ``behind most of the mistakes in foreign policy and many of the mistakes in domestic policy'' in the Bush administration, Levin said.

``His arrogance, his stonewalling of any kind of check and balance has been an ongoing problem,'' Levin said..

``There's just going to be a continuing battle on many fronts to try and get access to records,'' Levin said. ``We now have a Democratic Congress which in many committees, including my own, is seeking access to materials which the Republican Congress never sought because they were protecting the president and vice president.''


article: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=ai8pKEd1pdhs&refer=politics

[whistle]

1. Don't hold our collective breaths

[bigtree]

3. no, do something more constructive . . .

. . . like support and defend these efforts to end the occupation, even though a deciding number of legislators may not have yet embraced some pet strategy.

[Vincardog]

2. Are we going to "Turn a corner" AGAIN? If you do that 4 times you are going in the original directio...

[bigtree]

4. that would also apply to ANY other strategy or proposal for getting Bush to end his occupation

which has failed to get enough support to enact it.

You do go back and try again, and again . . . until you succeed. But, you need enough legislators to join in a coalition large enough to override Bush's certain veto. Even the 'defunding' strategy needs enough legislators to agree to abstain from voting. You keep working until you can force a coalition into shape, by either political pressure related to the upcoming election, or by capitalizing on events like the increasing violence accompanying Bush's own escalation.

[Vincardog]

5. You do not need 60 votes to not pass funding. No funding bill is preferable

to one that continues the illegal occupation of Iraq.

[SoonerPride]

7. You are correct.

Block any funding legislation that DOESN'T include a timeline.

That's a winner.

[bigtree]

9. As I pointed out, that strategy has also failed to get enough support

within the Democratic caucus to advance it into action. Proposals without enough support to advance them can't do a bit of good, no matter how many times someone wants to point to them and tell us all how many good things will flow fom the action. We/they can argue for months over that strategy, but it doesn't have a large enough coalition of support in this Congress, in committee or without, to make it happen.

The majority of our Democratic legislators are intent on actually crafting and passing withdrawal legislation which will confront Bush at his desk instead of adopting the strategy of sitting on their hands and doing nothing, in an action which directs the lame-duck loser to do NOTHING, and expecting him to notice or care enough about some funding shortfall to end his occupation.

[Vincardog]

11. Oh in that case we should continue to fund Bush's illegal war of aggression

We should continue to ignore the Illegal impeachable acts of the mis-administration. All because some elected "Leaders" don't want us to.

Do you remember that they REPRESENT US?

[bigtree]

12. "US" indicated in polling before and after the vote for the one supplemental

that they were as opposed to using the funding as leverage to end the occupation as they were against the occupation itself.

[Vincardog]

13. You tell me the answer you want and I will design a poll to get that answer

My point is there is a right thing to do. Becoming complicit in the Bushcrimefamily's crimes is not the right thing to do.

[bigtree]

16. I don't think giving funds to troops already deployed, after the FAILURE to get Bush to remove them

is complicity.

Their action in allowing the limited funds to proceed, with Democratic priorities included in the bill, was in keeping with the leadership's (correct) promise that they would not use funds intended for the troops as leverage for their politics.

[Vincardog]

17. Right our side promises not to use the Democratic process while the REICH wing

inserts politics into everything. Why do you think the founders gave Congress control of the purse?

Congress has the power to declaim war not the idiot in chief.
Just because a REpigLICKIN congress gave jr permission to start his illegal wars of aggression is no reason to continue enabling the fascist thugs.

Why not fund the troops in a timely safe withdraw but not fund the mercenaries?

[bigtree]

19. I don't think that one limited supplemental is so 'enabling'

one vote for legislation containing timetables with a veto-busting majority and the troops come home, money and all.

I think the next round of legislation attached to the Defense budget provides a way to attack the spending without the troops becoming directly involved in the equation.

[Vincardog]

21. Ask the American public. Why do you think Congress's approval rating is down and sinking?

[bigtree]

22. they are reacting to their inability to move Bush on Iraq

But that doesn't change the fact that withholding the one supplemental - which contained Democratic priorities for our troops which had been neglected by republicans for four years - wasn't likely to move him off of his occupation.

Besides, the polls showed that before and after the vote Americans said they did not want the funding to be used as leverage to end the occupation.

[madokie]

18. three rights make a left

[SoonerPride]

6. Under Pressure?

What, more gas bag speeches to an empty Senate or a strongly worded letter?

The only PRESSURE that W will feel is if they vote in a veto-proof majority to BRING THE TROOPS HOME.

Eveything else is not even window dressing, its salad dressing.

CAESAR salad.

[bigtree]

10. that's what will be offered, in amendments to the Defense bill and in free-standing legislation

[Demeter]

8. My Senile Senator Speaks Again. Sigh

Of course he hasn't mentored anyone--after all, he's never going to die or get tired of basking in power....but he sure needs a reality check or two.

[seemslikeadream]

14. yea right into Iran

[MasonJar]

15. I'm sorry, but as much as I truly despise Cheney, W is the president, and he is to blame!

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. What pressure? Even if there was pressure put upon those thugs, it wouldn't make one bit of

difference. They don't care what anyone thinks. Period. They certainly don't care what Congress thinks! Who's going to "pressure" them and actually change their agenda? NO ONE. T

[bigtree]

23. right, it'll never work. just quit . . .

. . .