I just read Reaper0bot's diary on the reason Barack Obama is likely supporting the current compromise FISA bill, and there was one comment that jumped out at me: someone said "okay, we'll lose the battle but win the war".  Why?

This is not a candidate diary, it's something more important that that.

Regardless of who is elected in 2008, the continuing evasion of personal responsibility by wealthy Americans will mean that working Americans are forced to pick up the bill.  It's dine and and dash for the ruling class. To the money shot.

"Liechtenstein's LGT Bank, which is owned by the Royal family, has apparently harbored numerous secret accounts which hid the taxable assets of thousands of citizens from around the world. It is my understanding that many U.S. citizens have also hidden assets at this bank, which is a real injustice to the millions of working families in this country who honestly pay their taxes every year.....

Offshore tax evasion produces an estimated $100 billion in unpaid taxes each year.

Bumped - Todd

Chris Dodd on the proposed supplemental bill.

"Now is the time for Democrats to stand our ground, stick to our principles and fight for an end to this war. I know when to make a principled compromise and this ain't one of those times."

As a contrast Matt Browner-Hamlin of the Dodd blog also provided statements from Senators Clinton and Levin about the compromise.

Earlier this week Hillary Clinton said the following about compromising:

"You have to know when to stick to your principles and fight," she said, "and know when to make principled compromises."

Yesterday Carl Levin said the following about compromising on withdrawing from Iraq:

   "If we have to make the spring part a goal, rather than something that is binding, and if that is able to produce some additional votes to get us over the filibuster, my own inclination would be to consider that."

Last year voters went to the polls and voted for change.  They elected a Congress whom they expected to end the war in Iraq.  Americans don't want non-binding goals.  It's well past time for a withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq and Senator Dodd is leading the charge.    

Dodd's website has a page set up where you can contact your Senators and insist that they too stand up for a firm deadline.  

I'm sorry, Senator Reid, Congressmen Obey and Murtha, and Big Tent Democrat, but September will be just like May, unless . . . you change this:

"I cannot vote ... to stop funding for our troops who are in harm's way."

-- Carl Levin

No, Rep. Obey, if you don't change the Carl Levins the following is b.s.:

I don't know what's up with Carl Levin.  After the election, he started making noise about military action against Syria and Iran.  And he started talking about how setting up withdrawal conditions was interfering with the military commanders on the ground, and that supporting the troops meant funding the war.

And now he's at it again, caving to Bush.  The headline of this story is 'Levin: Senate Will Keep Paying for War'.

D-Nev., said last week that if Bush rejects the Democrats' legislation, he would join with Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., one of the party's most liberal members who has long called to end the war by denying funding for it. Reid's latest proposal would give the president one year to get troops out, ending funding for combat operations after March 31, 2008.

"We can keep the benchmarks part of the bill without saying that the troops must begin to come back within four months," Levin said. "If that doesn't work and the president vetoes because of that, and he will, then that part of it is removed, because we're going to fund the troops.

"And what we will leave will be benchmarks, for instance, which would require the president to certify to the American people if the Iraqis are meeting the benchmarks for political settlement, which they, the Iraqi leaders, have set for themselves," he said.

Levin voted against the war, so it's surprising he is acting like such a dupe.  I guess it's because he's been in the Senate for so long.  If you have some time today, please call Levin's office at (202) 224-6221 and ask him to stop undercutting Senator Reid and Senator Feingold's attempt to hold Bush accountable and end the war.

Someone is giving Levin extremely bad advice.

Disclosure note: I'm working with UnfairCreditCardFees.com to help raise awareness about the interchange fee, and cross-posting a slightly different version of a post that first appeared at Michigan Liberal today.

At this site and others, you might recently have heard about the credit card interchange fee and Sen. Chris Dodd's efforts to expose predatory lending practices.  And as I stated in that diary, I'm doing some work with UnfairCreditCardFees.com to shed some light on interchange fees and how they hurt every consumer in America.  Tomorrow morning (3/7) Sen. Levin is shedding further light on the credit card industry in a hearing  entitled, "Credit Card Practices: Fees, Interest Rates, and Grace Periods."  According to the committee website:

It is the first of several Subcommittee hearings that will examine a variety of credit card practices that raise concerns. This hearing will focus on how credit card issuers apply interest rates and fees to consumer accounts. It will examine, for example, how credit card issuers select and apply interest rates and, for consumers carrying a balance forward, eliminate grace periods for repaid debts. It will also analyze high fees charged for late payments, over-the-limit charges, and other matters, including how those fees are assessed, how they add to interest costs, and how they contribute to consumer debt. In addition, the hearing will examine an industry practice requiring consumer payments to be applied first to balances with the lowest interest rates instead of to balances with the highest interest rates. The hearing will draw, in part, from a September 2006 GAO report detailing the finance charges, fees, and disclosure practices associated with 28 popular credit cards.

According to an American Banker (that is behind a pay door), the credit card companies are none too happy about this increased negative exposure and are worried about the fallout coming from this increased scrutiny coming from Capitol Hill.

Lobbyists said they worry that the hearing - featuring witnesses from Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Bank of America Corp. - will draw significant negative press attention, putting a dent in their reputations and pressuring other lawmakers, like Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, to act. [...] Publicly, industry representatives said their hope is to try to rebut any charge that credit card companies routinely use unfair or deceptive practices. [...] But privately, industry lobbyists said they know credit card companies are under increasing scrutiny. Sen. Dodd has already promised a series of hearings in the Banking Committee on credit card practices, and several consumer groups are promoting an independent documentary, "Maxed Out," that chronicles consumer problems with credit card debt.

Hopefully these hearings and the efforts of Senators Levin and Dodd can serve to raise awareness amongst not only other lawmakers but also consumers whom the credit card industry has intentionally kept in the dark for far too long.  While the hearing will not be televised, the committee website will have streaming audio starting at 10 AM EST.

McJoan points us to this discouraging piece of news.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, and Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, may offer their plan -- in the form of a nonbinding resolution -- as an amendment to the Surface Transportation and Rail Security Act, S 184. It is unclear how they will be able to overcome the main hurdle -- the need for 60 votes to cut off debate in the 100-member Senate -- that has blocked a final vote on other Iraq-related legislation.

Real antiwar Democrats, like Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold, people who are working to end the war, are damaged by this type of irresponsible behavior.  It's very clear that the Carl Levin's and Joe Biden's of the world don't get it.  Any power they delegate to Bush will be used badly.  If they don't use their power to restrict Bush's mandate, they are failing the public and enabling the escalation of the war.

The video snippet is Levin being frustrated that the military doesn't have a plan to go into Syria. Levin's office is Phone (202) 224-6221. If you have some time and are from Michigan, can you ask him why he doesn't support the Murtha plan to fully equip the troops before deploying them?

I was initially really excited that Carl Levin would be in a position of power in the Senate, but after reading his statements over the past few months, it's become clear that he doesn't get it on Iraq.  Here he is on Meet the Press today.

Things have changed in Iraq. We don't believe that it's going to be possible to remove all of our troops from Iraq because there's going to be a limited purpose that they're going to need to serve, including a training, continued training of the Iraqi army, support for logistics in the Iraqi army, a counterterrorism purpose or a mission because there's about 5,000 al-Qaida in Iraq.

There are two problems here.  First of all, he ratifies the right-wing talking point that we're in Iraq because of Al Qaeda.    More significantly, by saying that Bush needs to keep troops in Iraq, he's giving Bush carte blanche.  There is no pony plan here.  Bush is leading our forces, and he will until 2009.

Surely, though, Levin gets this, and would specific limits on troop withdrawals.  Well, not exactly.  This is a response to a question where Russert asks how many troops should be taken out by next March.

I don't want to put a specific number on it because that really should be left to the commanders who decide how many would be needed to carry out those limited functions.

So Levin wants to make sure that Bush can keep as many troops in Iraq as is necessary to carry out limited functions, a clear delegation of power to Bush.  But it's even worse - Levin doesn't want to use the only Congressional leverage that actually exists - funding.  And he doesn't want to use it for disgraceful reasons.

Most of us do not want to cut funding for our troops for two reasons. One is it's wrong. Our troops deserve our support as long as they're there, and we're not going to repeat the mistake of Vietnam where we took out on the troops our differences over policies with the administration.

Democrats need to stop equating funding the war with supporting the troops.  By arguing that Democrats cannot morally use the power of the purse, Levin is expressing a preference to sending our troops into Iraq underequipped and led by an entirely politicized and incompetent civilian leadership.

This strategy needs to change.  Senator Levin is a smart man, but his framing is playing to the right.

UPDATE: Kagro X makes a related point.

UPDATE: Levin isn't wrong that Al Qaeda is in Iraq, but Bush will not use our military forces in Iraq to go after Al Qaeda no matter how much Levin asks.