The reason why he said that one of the reasons that we need to maintain troops in Iraq because of the presence of al Qaeda is because there actually is a presence of al Qaeda.  And al Qaeda will do whatever they can to hurt Iraq and its people.

Now, the reason that al Qaeda is in Iraq is because we invaded the place in first place.  But we, because of Bush's policy, caused that.

And the reason that he feels that the commanders should have the say as to troop levels is because commanders in the field know best.

And regarding funding the troops?  It's the wrong agrument.  Cut off funding and watch public outrage.  

Democrats should understand that the surge is going to happen...no matter what...and then demand Bush talk about the strategy that follows.  Now is the time for the Dems to frame the debate for beyond the surge.

Why was my post deleted?

Here is my post without the insults.

Here is the gist of post again.  It was deleted the first time.

I finally had to create an account to comment.

While I agree with most of the post, selective editing doesn't help.

Levin also said, "SEN. LEVIN: It's now a haven for terrorists. It wasn't before we attacked Iraq, but it now is. The question is how do we try to turn that around. And I would leave a limited force, as I indicated. And I think our resolution will do this for a number of purposes, including a limited anti- or counterterrorism purpose. There are now 5,000 to 6,000 al-Qaida people in Iraq. There weren't any, or there were just a handful, prior to the war. Now they're there because of the policies of this administration. And we believe we should leave a limited force for a number of limited purposes, that being one of them."

One simple question: 'Who funds Levin's campaign coffers?'

Oh...looky! 10% of his funding comes from pro-Israel PACS and our 'defense' industry. The only other sector that give him this much are the trial lawyers everybody else is at 1-2%.

Gee...

What a frikin' surprise.

Carl Levin proud member of The Money Party.

Proud advocate for Endless War.
.

So what is wrong with Obama's Iraq De-escalation Act of 2007.  It addresses all of these issues but mandates a timed withdrawal with various checkpoints that must be met by Iraq and other circumstantial variables.  It uses ISG recommendations and Bush administration promises as threshold triggers to suspend withdrawal if they are met, which is unlikely, to create justifiable support among Republicans, especially in the Senate.

It commences in May 2007 ends in March 2008, gives operational responsibility to the force commanders and leaves counter-terrorism forces in the theatre to deal with the al-Qaeda threat created by our misadventure as well as an over-the-horizon presence in the Persian Gulf to deal with contingent threats as they occur.

It has two co-sponsors in the senate and the sister bill, HR.787 sponsored by Mike Thompson, has twenty-seven co-sponsors in the House including Patrick Murphy, our newly elected Iraq veteran, among others.  What are we waiting for?

The correct response is to point out the insanity of the Administration's created double bind. By rejecting the Iraq Study Group's exit strategy, Bush turns this into a lose-lose situation. I actually wonder if this is Bush's exit strategy - force Congress to cut him off, then disavow any responsibility for the inevitable chaos. What is the correct response to an impossible situation?

• Confront it's creator
• Do nothing

This ball's in his court...

Bottom Line: Blood For Oil.

We would have easily been able to buy oil from Saddam, keep him from getting WMD, and even force him to treat his subjects semi-reasonably. We chose to do none of these things. In fact, Bush did something vastly worse than merely invade Iraq. He gave Fallujah the Dresden treatment, but with white phosphorus. He tortured Iraqis just like Saddam at Abu Ghraib. By doing these things, he guaranteed that we would never be able to bargain with Iraq for Oil again. What this means is that, if we want any of their Oil, we must take it by force. By doing these things, he made it almost impossible to leave the place.

The endless driving SAND gets into watches and radios and tanks and jet engines, etc. So these must constantly be replaced. Forever. We are totally screwed.

I would decline any further funding anyway. The US people know the score. And I keep parroting, form 100 committees and make every white house traitor, including the Chimp, attend 10 meetings each day. Just do it. Punish the bastards.

I've never known Senator Levin to be anything but a man of good faith, and the sort of person who consistently puts thoughtful policy over raw partisanship.

That doesn't preclude wondering, as Matt does, what his thinking could possibly be in this case.  It doesn't preclude thinking that he's going in the wrong direction.

But this is a man who voted against the war, and has a decades-long record as a strong liberal in Congress.  The people who insist on screaming "AIPAC AIPAC AIPAC" really make me sick.  Not everyone who disagrees with the truths you personally find self-evident is evil or corrupt.

huh? the al qaeda point is relevant. he didn't say we went because of al qaeda, he said we might need to stay because of it.  big difference, as one is true and the other isn't.

P R I M A R Y   C H A L L E N G E

I don't give a fuck how great you've been in the past.  If you're a Democrat and you're not pulling your weight to end this war, I want you stupid ass jettisoned from the position you occupy.

Levin has become completely useless (and not just on the war) and it is time for him to get the fuck out of the way, or be KICKED out of the way.  We don't need any more Liebermans on this war.  Bye, Carl.  Time to take the AIPAC lobbying position and get the fuck out of the Senate.

  Once again, a Democrat tumbles into right-wing frames when discussing Iraq. And it's not even a red-stater who might have SOME excuse.

  I'm at the point where I believe that the Democrats' problems with messaging and framing are 100% voluntary and intentional. We've KNOWN for about a decade that the Republican message machine steamrolls ours, we've had dozens of pundits and analysts repeatedly point this out to our leadership with increasing urgency, but our next sign of progress on this front will be our first one.

  I mean, how HARD can it be to market the idea that "we shouldn't send troops to Iraq without the proper equipment"? How can that possibly be a tough sell, even in a red state? ESPECIALLY with the public increasingly fed up with this stupid war?

  The Democrats' failures to meaningfully stop the Iraq madness will destroy them in the 2008 elections if they don't get their act together. But maybe that's the idea. I get the feeling that they don't like being in the majority -- it involves actual work.

An election is what's up...

Carl faces a re-election in 2008 and considering the tactics of "Do Nothing" Debbie Stabenow and the election results, I am sure the Washington insiders who are running his campaign are advising him to adopt the same strategy.

As for a primary challenge, the bench in Michigan is not very deep and the Party is controlled by several different families who would never do any such thing.

why don't you threaten to "primary" him?

Excuse me, I just got some message `warning' me.  It said that I couldnt post anymore unless I acknowledged its instruction to "knock it off".  Please explain.  I wrote wit the opinion that it is ridiculous, wasteful and unwise to continually threaten to "primary' our own hard fought congressional allies. Is it the policy of this site to not breach any criticism.  My goodness, some of the harshest words Ive ever read have been geared towards those unpopular with some on this site and what is this a goose and the gander situation.  My, my - shades of Ari Fleisher - "should I watch what I say?  Potential web sensor I ask you this, "how do you spell - freedom of speech?"  Amazing...

hopefully better than I spelled censor!

Wow. Not only did Levin vote against authorization, but then he said, if we do want to go in, we can't go in without the support of the UN and most importantly Muslim nations. Once we did go into Iraq, Levin said, we must reconstitute the Iraqi military. It was Levin who tirelessly (with fire in his belly) led the investigation into the pre-war intelligence of the administration.

Call me crazy, but I used to work for him, and Levin has shown wisdom in the past and even if I may differ in some of his opinions, I most certainly don't question his motives.

He makes a strong point about why pushing a bill to defund the war is strategically wrong. Strategy for change differs greatly in the Senate then it does in the House.

Here, here!  What Stoller seems to not understand is that McConnell is gonna require 60 votes on this and every other iniative.  We cant win with bills that have no chance to make that hurdle.  Plus, the press will announce any defeat as a win for Bush.