That's the conclusion I'm reaching.

Given the choice of (1) settling on a particular text and (2) temporising while trying to snow the rest of us under a growing pile of different texts, Dem MCs go for Route (1) every time.

The fundamental fact which facilitates this choice is that, as things stand, nothing Dem MCs do, short of defunding, will stop the war. (And we know defunding is a dead duck.)

So - if they vote for a text that's a political liability, they would be jeopardizing their career for a meaningless gesture.

Events can change that situation: if 200 or 300 US troops get killed in a single incident, say, and there's a surge (!) of antiwar sentiment, Dem MCs will no doubt recalibrate their strategies. (All 280 of them.)

But, right now, there's nothing doing.

If the Dems could only coordinate their doing nothing, that, at least, would be an improvement...

the anger that their futility and cowardice is going generate among the base? Do they care?

If you say "if they don't use their power," what exactly are you talking about? If you can't even get 60 votes on a first-step non-binding resolution, there's no way you'll get 60 votes to cut off funding or direct strategy. Without Hagel, you might not even get 50 votes. How, exactly, is that power?

Measuring your strength, which nonbinding resolutions do, is a first step. Revoking the Authorization for the Use of Force is a good second step, which is what Biden and Levin are doing. Why is it nonbinding? Because the initial Authorization was just a nonbinding resolution, something we forget! And who won't these guys advocate pulling out now? Because it's hypocritical to demand we stop one Darfur while simultaneously demanding we create another.

And as for Murtha, Biden indicated last night here at Dartmouth that he supports that plan. He didn't explicitly say so, bu that was the tone of the remarks. Going from memory here: "How many of you are familiar with Jack Murtha? No one could call Murtha a peacenik. Why do you think he's so upset? Because they're breaking his Marines, they are breaking his Corps! And they are!"

yes, its a rw talking point, but is a lw talking point as well.  They know (as does America) the war ends with the purse.  Utterly shameful. I will use the power of my purse,and no longer send $$$ to the DSCC.

I called and was surprised I got right through. Please keep this Dairy up for a long enough period to get the appropriate exposure. See if you can cross post to Dkos we need to swarm the man!.

An important clarification. Senators Biden and Levin are doing exactly what Matt suggests above: using their power to restrict Bush's mandate.

Sen. Biden and Levin's proposal would be BINDING legislation  --  not a non-binding resolution as the linked story suggests. The legislation would repeal the original 2002 war authorization and replace it with a much narrower and achievable mission for our troops in Iraq.

Congress should make clear what the mission of our troops is: to deny terrorists a safe haven, train Iraqis, and help Iraq defend its borders. The legislation would also set as a goal removing from Iraq. To read more, please see Sen. Biden's op-ed in yesterday's Boston Globe:

Congress Should Repeal Its Authorization to use Force in Iraq

Sen. Biden has also said that revisiting the 2002 authorization is the right next step but it cannot be the last step. The United States must also answer a two-word test: "What next?" Sen. Biden and Les Gelb have put forward a 5-point plan for Iraq which offers a roadmap to a political settlement in Iraq that gives its warring factions a way to share power peacefully and us a chance to leave with our interests intact. More details can be seen at:

PlanForIraq.com

Eric Carbone
Biden for President

Matt,

Biden's reauthorization effort is hardly non-binding.  It ties the president's hand and begins to bring our troops home.  How can you even non-bindingly repeal a use of force resolution?  There is a reason the only source you can cite is one reporter with the army times.

You're right that the margins in the senate are thin, but any house bill will likely be faced with the same veto threat.  We'll need republican support to end this war so get working on pursuading them, not attacking our own.

Matt -

Senators Biden and Levin no more want to "escalate the war" as you put it, than I want to be stuck in a room for two hours, without any means of escape, listening to a pitch from an insurance salesman.  

In a speech at the Brookings Institution last week, Sen. Biden explained the 2002 Iraq War authorization should be repealed because it is "no longer relevant to what U.S. troops are actually doing right now in Iraq."

"We gave the president that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein," he stated.  "The WMDs were not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq."

And many think he's correct. I agree: that particular resolution is meaningless right now.

Senator Biden and Senator Levin are drafting legislation that would be a different authorization.  It will state what will be the next mission for our troops: to responsibly draw down, while continuing to combat terrorists, train Iraqis and respond to emergencies. "e should make equally clear what their mission is not: to stay in Iraq indefinitely and get mired in a savage civil war," Sen. Biden explained.

I am going to call my Senators (in NJ - Menendez and Lautenberg).  There are several Senate conversations going on right now, and I feel there will be a higher count in favor of this bill than most people think.   Will they get the 60 votes they need?  I'll be very interested to see the outcome here.  Let's revisit this as the legislation gets debated.  

Erin Medlicott
www.JoeBiden.com