Levin, Funding, and the Super Secret Petraeus Meeting
By RS Insider Posted in Carl Levin | Congress | War — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Yesterday, Senator Carl Levin said…
"We're not going to cut off funding for the troops. We shouldn't cut off funding for the troops…”
…in the process, angering the Lefties who are still smarting over Levin’s acknowledgment of the need to confront the serious threats from Iran and Syria.
The RS Insider has a correction – and a very important revelation – to make about Carl Levin’s denunciation of the Reid/Feingold Iraq funding cut-off.
CORRECTION: the RS Insider previously wrote that “Democrats chose not to attend” the video-briefing General Petraeus offered Congressional leaders on the status of Iraq. It’s true that all House Democrats turned down the opportunity, but I’ve learned that one Senate Democrat did attend the briefing.
ABOUT THAT DEMOCRAT: the one Senate Democrat who attended the briefing with General Petraeus? Senator Levin.
So, the only Democrat who listened to the commander in the field is opposed to the Democrats defunding plan. After spending the last few years demanding Republicans listen to the Commanders in the field, perhaps more Senators should take their cues from Senator Levin - and from General Petraeus.
Levin, Funding, and the Super Secret Petraeus Meeting 14 Comments (0 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Let them.
It seems senator Levin is the only democrat not out to hurt himself.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
As much as I wish politics wouldn't affect our policies -- at least those dealing with war and other national security matters -- we're long past the point where that's realistic.
I think people on any and all sides of this issue -- with the exception, perhaps, of the White House -- are thinking only what actions, words, and votes will mean come November 2008.
You assume that Levin is acting politically wisely (not that his own seat would ever be in jeopardy, mind you). I question that. Not that I necessarily think he's being politically stupid, either.
I think the general consensus about the war and its impact on '08 is that it's too soon to tell and that it could go either way.
The always-incisive Mickey Kaus wondered if the surge will be kept up through the election, suppressing the violence for that period of time, and then afterwards some political end will be sought. It's not an implausible scenario.
That rests on the assumption that the surge is an (effective?) stop-gap rather than an end-game in itself that will have some political impact stateside -- namely that opponents of the surge, which will be seen as a success, will have something to answer for and supporters of it will have some reinforcement.
That's a brazenly cynical way to gauge a military strategy, of course -- we're on our way to having 150,000 men dodging bombs and bullets there. But, like I say, it's not implausible...particularly considering that we are, after all, dealing with politicians here.
I think the political calculus driving Democrats now is two-fold:
1) What does or does not encompass "ownership" of a) the war in general, and b) the surge strategy in particular?
2) Will ownership of either or both be seen as gold or poison in the '08 election?
To listen to Reid, he's not only disowning the war but he's disowning the surge as well. That strikes me as stupid. Obviously, owning the war, in general, carries only political trouble for anybody at this point...which is why they've all run away from their votes.
But it's very possible that the surge will be seen, by then, as a wise and valuable move -- opposition of which will, thus, be problematic.
Levin (and Obama, notably) have staked out some ground that gives them a rightful claim to, at least, not having impeded the surge from taking place...without having to go on record as supporting it (which would not be good for their base relations).
That could prove to be quite shrewd on Obama's part, for his own fortunes, and for the party as well.
Seems to me that they're just hedging their bets. Only time will tell how things will turn out and, assuming the surge does go well, how well they'll be able to convince voters that they have some ownership there.
scenario. They defund and we pull out. The ME turns into a war zone and they set back and blame Bush. Before the election we get hit hard here at home. The people would throw them all out but it sure as hell wouldn't be worth it to me. I don't understand the Dems wanting to govern a beaten country even if the latter part didn't play out.
...are making unilateral decisions on the war without even talking to the lead commander in the theater. Shocked, I tell you.
Sucking and ruining since October 2003.
What does he know now that he didn't a week ago?
and total a$$e$. And on public display at that.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
he just wasn't expecting them to so openly flaunt it.
could apply those same principles of the US pressuring the local politicians to get things done and meet benchmarks to New Orleans and its surrounding parishes. If he did that I think he could get some bipartisan support from small government conservative Senators.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Considering aas he is listed as an Indie these days...
There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.
But you already knew that.
head on a platter admitting they were wrong, and the democrats did in large blow off the meeting?
I am glad one democrat attended, although it is sad that he is apparantly now spitting against the wind, when it comes to the funding issue within his own party.
...had been one of the Democratic leaders invited to that tele-conference with Gen. Petraeus and I found out he/she did NOT show up for it, I'd be on his/her office doorstep asking EXACTLY WHAT was more important that day than that conference.