Spinegold

I mentioned earlier how dramatic it would be to see Sen. Johnson come back to the Senate to cast a vote against the war in Iraq. It would be nice if that vote was an actual opposition vote, instead of this nonsensical empty resolution, one not worthy of even gracing the halls of the Senate with its presence.

Unfortunately, the new Warner-Levin resolution that many Democrats are pushing is flawed and unacceptable. It rejects the surge, but it also misunderstands the situation in Iraq and endorses the President’s underlying approach. It’s basically a back-door authorization of the President’s misguided policies, and passing it would be a big mistake. Under the guise of constructive criticism, the Warner-Levin resolution signs off on the President continuing indefinite military operations in Iraq that will not address the fundamental political challenges in Iraq, and that continue to distract us from developing a comprehensive and global approach to the threats that face our nation.

Here’s a link to the resolution so everyone knows what we’re talking about. I’m going to pass over the first finding, which salutes the President as "Commander in Chief." And I’m not going to focus on finding (16), which salutes the muddled and wishy-washy report of the Iraq Study Group as "valuable." Instead, I’m going to focus on section 22 of the findings, which is nothing short of an endorsement of the status quo in Iraq and that is simply unacceptable. It rejects exactly what is most needed in Iraq – an "immediate reduction in, or withdrawal of, the present level of forces." If you vote for this resolution, you are voting against redeploying troops from Iraq. This resolution doesn’t fix the administration’s failed Iraq policy – it just takes us back to where we were before the escalation. It’s not enough to reject the "surge" if you aren’t willing to support a plan for redeploying our troops.

It’s all downhill from there in (b)2. The resolution goes on to support "continuing[ing] vigorous operations in Anbar province, specifically for the purpose of combating an insurgency." Apparently, some people think that our troops should be involved in putting down the Sunni insurgency in western Iraq. Actually, the President’s policy of maintaining a massive, open-ended military presence in Iraq has been inflaming the insurgency in that country from the start. I support the idea of targeted counter-terrorism missions to take out terrorist elements in Iraq, but we shouldn’t ask our brave troops to remain there to put down an Iraqi insurgency any more than we can expect them to end Shi’ite-Sunni sectarian conflict in Baghdad.

That’s why I introduced legislation this week to use Congress’s power of the purse to end our military involvement in Iraq. I was greeted with a tremendous response from this community. I’m extremely grateful for it because it was evidence of how badly change is both wanted and needed. But how does the Warner/Levin resolution change anything? We owe it to ourselves to demand action that will bring about change in Iraq, not take us back to a failed status quo.

Of course, he's just grandstanding because he wants to run for President. Oh wait, he isn't.

Chris Dodd will also oppose this nonbinding farce of a bill, and good for him.

This legislation, if you read it, authorizes the President (in a nonbinding sort of way) to continue the war. In fact, it endorses the worst kind of compromise: don't escalate but don't leave. In other words, do exactly what's been getting Americans killed and turning Iraq into a hell hole for the last four years.

We've failed Iraq and we're about to compound the mistake by bombing Iran (why do you think all the USAF jets and aircraft carriers are there?), and Sens. Levin and Warner are patting themselves on the back for a resolution that allows this foreign policy nightmare to continue?

I support Sen. Feingold and I am through thinking strategically about this, i.e. the symbolic significance of an opposition vote, or how to get Republicans on board, or whatever. Iraq is over and it needs to be brought to a conclusion. If Republicans want to yoke themselves to Iraq, have at it. There should be a vote a day until this is over. And the votes should mean something.