I think it’s too much of a smoke screen. The Feingold-Reid bill would leave something like 60,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely. It says nothing about the 100,000 private mercenaries that we’re currently funding, they could stay too. And it allows the US to keep its military bases inside Iraq.

…

It seems to me that this bill has been intentionally watered down so that pro-war Democrats can vote for it. The last time there was a straight up-or-down vote on a REAL withdrawal bill (Kerry-Feingold in 2006), Clinton, Obama, Biden, and Dodd all voted AGAINST withdrawal. …

There you have it folks. That’s the fault line within the Democratic party and it’s represented in the list of candidates for President too.

There are three positions I suppose:

1 The Republican stand mostly — For the GWOT (in all it’s glory), occupation of Iraq and oil theft.

2 The DLC position — Against the war in Iraq, but for a continued presence in Iraq (out from the cities in our fortress bases) and probably to steal the oil (that has yet to be debated).

3 The position all Democrats say they support, but only a few really do — Against war in Iraq, against occupation, against continued presence in bases and against the theft of oil.

Where do Democrats REALLY stand?

deserves nationwie spotlighting

What the hell is the senate thinking?

I’m with Edwards on this.

Clinton and Obama are dancing. I don’t like waltzes.

“By providing for the presidential waiver, we are removing any reason for the president to veto the supplemental funding bill,” Levin said in a statement.

Why the hell is that your objective, Levin?! That’s called capitulation to a warmonger. Does that make you proud of your Senate service? Gifting Bush every damn dime he wants of new debt for our suicidal mission in Iraq, and then some, with no strings attached? Talk about a cop-out, talk about a sell-out, talk about despicable.

I’m chalking it up to naked hostility toward the “ungrateful” Arabs of Iraq on your part, Levin, because I see no other justification anywhere in sight for a savvy, competent Democrat from Michigan to be promoting this savage madness (the excuses you’ve offered up publicly for your Iraq positions of late have been beyond pathetic). And because for every Member of Congress, I know that there’s an underlying reason for key actions like this vote, and we can’t counter-act effectively without understanding those reasons. So that’s my working theory (and it certainly doesn’t incline me favorably toward the guy) about Levin’s motivation (which is carefully in line with A*P*C’s motives, of course), until he gives us a better reason, and an explanation that doesn’t insult our intelligence.

The least the Senate should do is to hold the line on the progress they had made with Hagel’s and Smith’s help, since the Senate is the weakest link in this chain. But no – Levin apparently convinced Reid to offer Bush everything he wanted on a silver platter, as the Senate’s new fallback position. To what end??? Looks like Cheney had Levin & Co.’s number exactly right during his Sunday show predictions about Levin’s upcoming fold. Levin appears eager to write this emergency supplemental off as a done deal – and to go forward to the regular process of budgeting next year, starting October 1, that removes all leverage on the funding front from the Senate Democrats regarding Iraq. And Levin no doubt pretends to think that Republicans will “get principle” come September (for no particular reason, except maybe that the Republicans can then claim to be the ones ending the occupation), even without the oil plundering law yet in place… I think that’s called willful ignorance in service to an unseen agenda, and I absolutely condemn such duplicity from the likes of Carl Levin.

Wouldn’t it be sort of a nice idea if somebody in the Senate finally decided to tell us what is actually going on behind the scenes (within limits)? The reasoning above is the meager result of what I can deduce from the very limited information our federal legislators have condescended to share with us about our illegal invasion – which is an ongoing national disaster, on two continents, that ricochets with bad faith all the way back to our nation’s founding. All historical sense and perspective have apparently gone missing in Washington, D.C., and Round Two of the appalling 2002 AUMF approval process seems to be upon us, unless wiser heads in the House can somehow prevail, against all odds.

With every passing day, I’m liking Edwards more. I dig the quote above from Edwards. It’s cool. He da man.

Me too, OKK, but it’s easier for him to speak out than for someone looking to be re-elected to the Senate. Know what I mean? I don’t know which of the candidates will seek re-election though.

It shows 53.1 percent believe the Iraq war was a mistake and that 57.4 percent favor bringing troops home in the next year.

Only 37 percent, even in yellow-dog Republicanland, want to stay the course.

That is from a die hard Republican Kool aid area!

The D Senators are screwing their own pooch if this is all they will do… they should do nothing before playing these deadly games, imo.

What do you think, Siun?