by Matthew Hay Brown
The principal sponsors of legislation seen by Senate Democrats as their best hope of winding down U.S. military involvement in Iraq said today that they would take out a now-defeated troop withdrawal deadline in the hope of picking up more Republican support.
Speaking minutes after Republican senators blocked their measure to pull out most U.S. forces within nine months, Democratic Sens. Carl Levin and Jack Reed told reporters that they would come back next week with a new version that would soften that deadline into a non-binding goal.
The revised Levin-Reed amendment still would narrow the U.S. military mission to focus on training Iraqi forces, protecting U.S. troops and counterterrorism – changes that the measure’s supporters say would have the practical effect of reducing the U.S. presence in Iraq.
"There is, I believe, a very strong majority here to change the mission," said Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "We’re going to continue to try to find a formula" that can attract the 60 votes needed for passage.
The 47-47 vote on the amendment to the 2008 defense authorization bill this morning capped a week of defeats for antiwar Democrats. On Wednesday, Republicans successfully blocked a proposal by Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia to guarantee troops more rest between deployments. Yesterday, Republicans and Democrats together rejected a proposal by Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin to cut off funding for combat by next June.
The Senate, which is letting out early today for Yom Kippur, is set to resume work next week on the defense authorization bill, legislation that has attracted some 300 proposed amendments.
Asked today whether any of them were "hot-button," Levin said: "Oh, yeah. About 250 of them."
Sen. Levin, above right, AP photo; Sen. Reed, above left, PBS
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Nothing says leadership like "non-binding." Is it any wonder the American people are rating the democrat-controlled congress at all-time lows?
Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2007 12:40 PM
...Mr. Bush, you have hidden behind the General's skirts, and today you have hidden behind the skirts of 'the last question' at a news conference, to indicate once again that your presidency has been about the tilted playing field, about no rules for your party in terms of character assassination and changing the fabric of our nation, and no right for your opponents or critics to as much as respond.
That, Sir, is not only unAmerican -- it is dictatorial.
And in pimping General David Petraeus, Sir, in violation of everything this country has been assiduously and vigilantly against for 220 years, you have tried to blur the gleaming radioactive line between the military and the political, and to portray your party as the one associated with the military, and your opponents as the ones somehow antithetical to it. You did it again today, Sir, and you need to know how history will judge the line you just crossed.
~Keith Olberman~
Posted by: John E | September 21, 2007 12:47 PM
"The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail...and so far it's working for us. Democrats are taking the blame for not getting anything done."
(R) Trent Lott
Roll Call - April 18, 2007
Posted by: Don't Taze Me, Bro | September 21, 2007 1:02 PM
Why don't they just "regroup" around voting against any further attempts to fund the war? Or is doing their job too hard to figure out?
Posted by: John W. | September 21, 2007 1:29 PM
"Dems to regroup around 'non-binding' withdrawal"?
I don't know why the Dems even bother with these non-binding amendments.
They should go ahead and let the Rethuglicans kick their war can down the road because they will pay for it in 08....but unfortunatly alot of people are going to die between now and then.
Posted by: John E | September 21, 2007 1:33 PM
Hey, isn't Keith Olbermann, former Fox employee, too busy naming himself worst person in the NFL to actually have an informed opinion? Or could he just be a pompous windbag? You make the call.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2007 1:55 PM
Hey, isn't Keith Olbermann, former Fox employee, too busy naming himself worst person in the NFL to actually have an informed opinion? Or could he just be a pompous windbag? You make the call.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2007 1:55 PM
We've already made "the call" about you, you are a racist clown.
Posted by: John E | September 21, 2007 2:46 PM
Actually, aren't you the one who calls Hispanics burritos? You calling me a racist is hilarious in that regard. Why don't you head back to third grade and let the adults run the discussion here, okay? You've probably already missed your nap.
p.s. I'm not the anonymous who commented on Michael Vick, either, if that's what your basing your uninformed opinion of whether or not I'm a racist on. Racist.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2007 2:57 PM
Come to think of it, coming from someone like you, that accusation is a compliment. Thanks.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2007 3:01 PM
And after the "non-binding resolution", what next---Double Super Secret Probation?
Posted by: Bruce | September 21, 2007 3:17 PM
Non-binding NONSENSE again!
Simply put, the REPUBLICANS cannot pass funding for this war unless the Democrats go along with them. As they have in the past.
I don't care if we shut this damn government down.
If the Democrats want ANY support they need to bring this issue to a head. That's the ONLY way that Bush and the Republicans are going to negotiate a withdrawal.
If Senators were dying in the aisles of the Senate, we sure as heck would see appropriate steps being taken!
Posted by: dogjudge | September 21, 2007 3:31 PM
Other Anonymous,
John E always calls people who express ideas that he doesn't understand (and of course that means nearly everybody) "racist" or "neocon" or "wingnut".
He's a hate filled little bug. Trying to communicate with him isn't worth the effort.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2007 3:35 PM
Maybe they'll hold their breath!
Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2007 3:42 PM
racist is hilarious in that regard. Why don't you head back to third grade and let the adults run the discussion here, okay? You've probably already missed your nap.
p.s. I'm not the anonymous who commented on Michael Vick, either, if that's what your basing your uninformed opinion of whether or not I'm a racist on. Racist.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2007 2:57 PM
Come to think of it, coming from someone like you, that accusation is a compliment. Thanks.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2007 3:01 PM
"If the shoe fits, wear it"
These are words for you to live by "anonymous" aka Leo T/Juanito
No one on here cares how smart you think you are.
Posted by: John E | September 21, 2007 3:49 PM
Hey John E,
You've been calling ME Juanito Leo for weeks, and now you've suddenly switched to the other anon?
Or are both of us Juanito Leo?
Or maybe there are many Juanito Leo's? Hmmm... this is mysterious.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2007 4:01 PM
Okay, who the hell is Juan Leo or whoever this is he keeps accusing both of us of being?
Posted by: Anonymous2 | September 21, 2007 4:13 PM
And after the "non-binding resolution", what next---Double Super Secret Probation?
Posted by: Bruce | September 21, 2007 3:17 PM
Bruce = PROPAGANDA!!!
Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2007 4:36 PM
Anonymous2,
My theory is that Juanito leo juanie T (the name changes all the time) is John E's name for the Boogie Man, or the monster under his bed. It's a fictitious character that he must believe is real in order to give substance to the things he fears and doesn't understand. Making the fearful unknown knowable -- thus fightable -- if you get my drift.
That's my theory, anyway. Seems childish and primitive, but this is the guy who INSISTS that 2x0=1, so...
Posted by: Anonymous1 | September 21, 2007 4:59 PM
I think Harry should introduce a non-binding resolution to hold his breath until he's blue in the face or the Republicans start listening to him. Whichever comes first.
Posted by: Anonymous2 | September 21, 2007 5:09 PM
Any resemblance between the Dem Congress's "non-binding resolution" and the "double Super Secret Probation" of the movie "Animal House"?
Actual, the movie's "Double Super Secret Probation" has more substance to it that Congress's "non-binding resolution".
A common theme of the Dem presidential candidates such as Clinton and Obama is that their magical eloquence will somehow persuade the terrorists to stop their evil ways and will persuade the Middle East nation to all live in harmony (withhold your laughter). How can anyone expect these magical persuasions to happen when the same senators can't even get their fellow senators together on anything?
Posted by: Bruce | September 22, 2007 11:25 AM
Well said, Bruce
Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2007 11:51 AM