Levin's egregious capitulation to Bush's whiny, bullying threats to "veto the bill" reaffirms public perception of the Democrats' lack of resolve to end the occupation. I believe Reid should smack-down Levin publicly to send a message to the rank and file to either get on message or get off the stage.

Though I agree with those who want to end this war, anything other than de-funding the war is interference. He's being realistic, pragmatic. Unless this president comes down from his throne or is impeached, we'll need a change of commander in chief to simply pull the plug on the war as some think it can be done. Marshalling public opinion is not enough. As it stands, the next president will be a Democrat, certainly. Try a coup?

three weeks ago by passing the weakest imaginable benchmarks in the supplemental. As some of us warned back then, we really have no starting place from which to negotiate.

He and Obama are saying the same thing.

Doesn't the article say he's supporting Feingold's bill in the first paragraph?  Am I reading that wrong or is that a typo?

Maybe he's reading the polls that say the American people are opposed to the war, but don't want to see Congress defund it.

Unfortunately, I think politics is at play here.  The Dems won a crushing defeat last year by running against the war.  If the war is still on in 2008, they can run against it again.  If not, they will have to search for a different issue or issues.  I think there's an element of "let's come out against the war and look like we're doing something, but let the Commander in Chief still do what he wants because he's digging his party's grave by doing it" in Levin's and Obama's actions, especially Obama since he's already running for '08.

I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong, either.  If letting the war go on for another year and a half nets the Dems the WH, +6 Senate seats, and +10 House seats in the '08 election before the war is officially ended, will it be worth it in retrospect to play this game for a while now?

The argument against it of course is that people are dying unnecessarily while this is going on, so politics should be damned.  I would, of course, prefer Washington to think more like that, but that's just not the political reality in this country.

I could not believe my ears. Levin was on This Week opposite Kyle from AZ. Levin was strong, forceful in describing how the Dems have been out front on issues like body armor, armed Humvees, and money for the VA. And then he completely caves on the timeline.

Kiss my ass.

I live in Michigan, born and bred all my life.

Levin has been and will be our Senator for as long as he wants the job, specifically because he does what's right instead of cowtowing to a few America hating computer geeks.

Funding the troops is not a partisan issue, its an American issue whether you're anti-war or not.

Stop thinking you matter, get your head out of your ass and leave the smartest Democrat in the party alone.

I think Levin is simply telling all of us what we don't want to hear about where the votes are.

Levin is one of the best liberals in the Senate, he was against the war from the start, and yet the progressive blogosphere rarely fails to call him every name in the book.

There's room to the left of Carl Levin, but not a whole ton of it, particularly in the Senate.  Let's stay focused instead of powering up the circular firing squad yet again.

1) Set a date certain in a bill.

2) Have Bush veto the bill.

3) Set up another date certain in another bill.

4) Have Bush veto that.

5) Set up the ads for 2008: If republicans win, you will never get out of Iraq.  Democrats have tried and tried and tried to get us out, but Republicans will not allow the troops to leave.

there are not enough dead for the Republican human sacrifice machine.

I contacted his office. first I complimented Levin especially his Vote against the War. Second I expressed my dismay at his statement abount funding Bushbag's WAR. Then last but not least. I made my pitch for Levin to make up for his Gaff by CO-sponsoring The Reid-Fiengold Bill to end funding.

Michigan bloggers don't seem concerned.

Never answer the question they ask.  Always answer the question you want to answer.  The question is not "funding our troops".  Our troops will be funded.  The question is whether or not funding will come with conditions.

If Bush vetos, then Dems should filibuster any supplemental that does not include conditions.  We may not have 50 votes, but we should be able to get 40.

I really wish the people on this site would wake up and smell the coffee. Not just on this site, but on all the other blogs. We are never LEAVING Iraq. Blame George Bush and the fake intelligence he feed America and the Congress. WE are less safe because of this WAR. WE can not leave Iraq even if we wanted to. We will set-up permanent bases there, get used to this FACT. What fantasy world are you living in? The only candidate being honest is Hillary. She will be leave 75,000 troops there if she is elected. Edwards, Obama, Richardson, Biden and the others aren't being honest. We DON'T have the votes to DEFUND WAR. WE NEED 67 to overcome the veto. The congress can't stop the war WE DON"T HAVE THE VOTES!!!!!!!!! What is wrong with you people?

What about AIPAC, AIPAC, AIPAC? WE ARE NEVER LEAVING IRAQ.

Hillary 2008 (Bill, First Man)

The coming veto of the funding resolution and the next steps taken by the House and the Senate will not occur in isolation. The political calculus by the end of April may well be substantially different from the political calculus of today, April 9th.

(1) The Bush Administration is imploding virtually by the hour as the Democratically-led Congress, the blogosphere, and (however timidly) the MSM uncover new evidence of corruption and sheer incompetence. Even favorite Establishment "moderate" Joe Klein in this week's Time Magazine dismisses the Administration and Bush 43 personally in extraordinarily harsh terms. Erstwhile White House apologists and enablers even in the MSM are becoming fed up and are beginning to resist corporatist editorial control of their message. The White House is becoming increasingly strident and desperately defensive in trying to promote its propaganda line (as with the editorial hack piece on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the Washington Post last week--likely Fred Hiatt's work). Any MSM journalists with a remaining molecule of integrity will resist serving as a stenographer for such crude, transparent propaganda.

(2) Events on the ground in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia will not be static. Just one example: we can expect that with Moqtada al Sadr now shifting the focus of his Mahdi Army from persecuting and killing Sunnis to resisting the U.S. occupation, levels of violence and American and British casualties will probably rise in Iraq. Each week the Administration's happy talk about the success of the "Surge" will become even less credible. As Chico said in Duck Soup, "Who you gonna believe? Me? Or your own eyes?" More and more journalists, not to mention the viewers and readers, will believe their own eyes.

(3) Their credibility and their power seeping rapidly away, the Boys in the Bunker will likely increasingly lose touch with reality. Perceiving reality has never been their strong point, and now they will likely start making a terminal series of blunders in a last ditch effort to keep their grasp on the levers of control, whether information, legislative, judicial, military, or police:
--They will say stupid, obviously untrue things.
--They will try to ratchet up public levels of fear.
--They will stonewall Congressional requests for key documents, such as those missing from the 16 or 18 day "gap" in the U.S. attorney scandal or from RNC e-mail accounts.
--They will begin to frighten the more rational among the Republicans in the House and the Senate, perhaps by moving toward an attack on Iran without bothering to seek authorization from Congress.

What happens when credibility and power seep away? Irrational and illegal orders are ignored by subordinates. (Kissinger knew better than to follow through on Nixon's more irrational demands in the days before Nixon's resignation). Leadership from elsewhere flows into the obvious void, as Speaker Pelosi sought to offer by travelling to Tel Aviv, Beirut, Damascus, and Riyadh.

It may not be too early to start the death watch for the Bush/Cheney/Rove neocon regime. The principal culprits will thresh around in their final agonies. They will bluster. They will threaten. They will throw more hissy fits. They may consider starting yet another war in one last desperate effort befuddle their domestic opponents and clutch on to power. But even now, in these early stages of their terminal political condition, it is difficult to see how they can survive in office another twenty-one months. In Chinese terms, they have clearly lost the "mandate of heaven." With astonishing rapidity, their dynasty is coming to an end.

Redstate is linking to this post