Warner-Levin Would Block Troop Reduction in Iraq
By Erick Posted in Congress — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Here's a bright spot. Harry Reid, having killed one of the anti-war resolutions in the Senate, is set to push the Warner-Levin compromise resolution. Article 4 of the resolution states:
the Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such an action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions;
That's good news in this resolution. Though it should still be opposed, if it passes, it does say that Congress should not reduce or eliminate funding for the troops.
Meanwhile Matt Lewis has catalogued lots of Democrats saying they are in favor of the surge, except that they were saying this at the end of December, before the President actually proposed doing what they suggested.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | Killing the Baby AIDS Program -- They Did It For The Children — Comments (6) »
Warner-Levin Would Block Troop Reduction in Iraq 9 Comments (0 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It is still trying to tell the president and the generals how to fight the war and puts the handcuffs on our guys (check out the ROE section).
This is a bad resolution. Period.
I had a lot of respect for Warner. I do not understand his thinking on this.
Ha! I knew the Dems would pull the plug on Biden-Hagel, a resolution, that, despite endless spinning by the MSM, had no Republican support beyond its sponsors, RINOs Hagel and Snowjob.
the new Warner-Levin resolution does not have the offensive language of Biden-Hagel about the surge not being in the national interest, and it does have a new statement that no cuts in funding the troops will be allowed. However it contains other stuff from both Biden-Hagel and Warner-Collins about withdrawing from baghdad, negotiations with Iran/Syria, etc that are going to keep the Republican supporters in the single digits (my opinion).
Warner, Collins, Snowjob, Hagel, Bagel, Schmagel, Dopey, Grumpy, Sleepy...is that thirteen? They need 60 votes for this, they won't have Lieberman, Dodd or Feingold, I just don't think there are enough RINOs to pull it off.
Should be an entertaining debate next week.
who supports these measures are the dregs left in the catbox after the cat leaves.
Never have such a group of spineless, worthless cowards graced the seats of power. At least since 1968.
What's next? Another "Dear Commandante" letter to the President of Iran?
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
I am really becoming disappointed with Sen. Warner.
the last ten years or so?
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
"...as such an action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions...."
I'm no lawyer, but this clause looks big enough to drive a truck through.
Do you folks really believe that a non-binding resolution would be enough to stop Congress from cutting funding?
I don't.
McCain-Lieberman unveiled their resolution on Iraq, a straightforward support-the-troops-and-General-Petraeus statement, though with some yammering about benchmarks for Iraqis. But solid enough that all Republicans and right-thinking Dems (if there are any besides Lieberman) can and should support it.
I love it. This non-binding piece of legislation is pissing Kos off. And pissing off the rest of the anti-war crazies over at DailyKos.
But now some Democrats like Feingold and Dodd are now saying they oppose this non-binding resolution. But it is fun to see Democrats squirm and try to appease the anti-radicals.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/1/171732/1208