BREAKING: Levin And Warner Reach Compromise On Anti-Escalation Resolution
BREAKING: Levin And Warner Reach Compromise On Anti-Escalation Resolution
Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and John Warner (R-VA) have reached agreement on a compromise bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush’s Iraq escalation policy. Levin and Warner had co-sponsored competing anti-escalation resolutions, both of which risked failing to garner enough votes to break a conservative filibuster.
CNN’s Dana Bash reported moments ago, “What is going on as we speak, behind the scenes, Wolf, is Democrats and Republicans who oppose sending more troops to Iraq are trying to figure out how to join forces, come up with one single resolution that can get them the 60 votes that they need in order to pass that resolution, making clear to the president they disagree with his plan.”
Watch it:
The Levin/Warner compromise is unexpected and very significant. Robert Novak reported Monday that Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) had tried and failed to reach agreement with Warner late last week.
This new deal is likely to foil right-wing efforts to prevent the Senate from passing a strong anti-escalation resolution. Conservative leaders “had hoped to divide Senate opinion largely along party lines, to allow Bush to argue that any outright statement opposing his plan was politically motivated partisanship,” the Washington Post reported today.
Full transcript:
BLITZER: This just coming into “The Situation Room,” a possible deal on Capitol Hill with significant ramifications for the president’s plan in Iraq. Let’s go to our congressional correspondent, Dana Bash. What are you picking up, Dana?
BASH: Wolf, what happened this evening is, Democrat Carl Levin, the chairman of Democratic Armed Services Committee and one of the major sponsors of the mostly-Democratic resolution that we expect to come up next week opposing the president’s plan in Iraq, he tonight signed on to one of the resolutions supported and proposed by Republican John Warner and several other Republicans.
Now, he did that after Senator Warner and other Republicans made some minor changes to their resolution. And the significance is this. What is going on as we speak, behind the scenes, Wolf, is Democrats and Republicans who oppose sending more troops to Iraq are trying to figure out how to join forces, come up with one single resolution that can get them the 60 votes that they need in order to pass that resolution, making clear to the president they disagree with his plan.
BLITZER: Well, this is a significant development. Because Carl Levin is the new chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. John Warner was the chairman. He’s the ranking member. But both are highly respect on national security issues. The presumption would be they’re going to bring in a lot of their fellow senators into this joint language.
BASH: That is the presumption, especially on the Democratic side. You know, it was sort of expected when we got to the point where Democrats were going to have to choose, that they would probably go ahead and vote for the resolution that’s being sponsored mostly by Republican John Warner. But the fact that Senator Levin decided to go ahead and sign onto this resolution now is significant. It just shows what’s going on behind the scenes to try to figure out thousand get this vote as big as possible. And it comes down next week.
What’s interesting is, Senator Warner changed this language to appeal not just to Democrats, but also Republicans. For example, he put language in here that Senator Judd Gregg, the Republican from New Hampshire says that they wants to make clear they’re not going to cut funding for troops in Iraq.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK
January 31st, 2007 at 8:05 pmBut thisnis a non-binding resolution, isn’t it? What good is it if Bush can ignore it like the last one?
January 31st, 2007 at 8:07 pmWhile this is good news, I still think Bush is going to do whatever he wants regardless or in spite of congress. I wish they would put a little PUNCH into this “non-binding” resolution.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:09 pmIt is warranted that Roger x2 and others in the bottom 3rd of the bell curve justify their defense and rationalizations for not holding the Failure in Chief accountable. You will receive no response nor credibility until you can start explaining yourself. Go ahead……..
January 31st, 2007 at 8:10 pmWill this stop Cheney from going forward with his NeoCons plans?..Cheney is warming up these days for the next conflict with Iran..the coming USWar 111. Cheney does not think that Senate or the Congress can change the Administration’s mind,or even have that power..”We are going forward..” Cheney said lately..
January 31st, 2007 at 8:11 pmIf their not talking about articles of impeachment, I’m not listening.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:16 pmHow many of those that have supported this resolution can we count on to support something stronger?
January 31st, 2007 at 8:18 pmDo the words “not in our national interest” appear in the document?
January 31st, 2007 at 8:19 pmHell, do the words “Stop wasting our God damned money and getting Americans killed mother fu*ker!” appear in the text anywhere?
January 31st, 2007 at 8:29 pmSo, is there any real guts to this resolution? At this point in the game I am highly distrustful, and I’ll believe it when I see it. Show me yours, and I’ll show you mine… -heh-
January 31st, 2007 at 8:37 pmI want to see articles of impeachment from the House, yesterday. Anything else is just pure BS and a waste of time, meaningless.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:38 pmI do not trust Carl Levin.Watch him being ridiculed to the extreme by anti-war hero George Galloway in the US senate.Not too long ago, 2004.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSsl8vd8Wb8&mode=related&search=
January 31st, 2007 at 8:39 pmyes,cut the f’n funding
you gotit zooey
word on the street is that PT is funded or run by Clinton backers
i mustadmit Ifind this hypothesis believable considering that very little of the “news postings” on PT cover Democrat negatives. PT, as advertized “supports the progressive cause”, but most of the postings seem to reinforce the narrow partisan gimmick: Do we send more troops or redeploy to the mega bases being built in Iraq.
I’d beinterested to hear you people’s feed back. As Rebel in California recently commented he willno longer be commenting to avoid feeding the Hillary CLinton machine.
I think my comments are going to move away from discussing how evil the republicans are (we all agree on that) and onto how almost evil the democrats are…
January 31st, 2007 at 8:40 pmThese resolutions have no teeth,and unless they do…Bush/Cheney & Condi will not listen, change or alter any of their plans…they will smile instead as they see this helpless CONGRESS PRETENDING TO ACT..with a ‘non biding’ resolution that took them sometime to hammer…Unless Democrats ‘the leading party in the House’ come with better convincing resolutions, sound and bold ones..they will find soon that their honeymoon with their constituences will come to end faster than they think.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:46 pmThis is good news, a positive deveopment in the effort to stop Bush and his War. It’s step one, not as fast as we want, but a significant thing for the Senate majority to oppose Bush’s escalation. This lays to rest McConnell’s threat of a filibuster. There will be a debate next week and we will see GOP Senators forced to state publicly that they oppose the escalation.
I’ve been thinking lately about the Senators, media people, and the general public who supported Bush’s War in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006. It must be a very heavy load to carry, knowing that the War has been a horrific disaster in every imaginable way. May the Senate debate bring all issues to light, just as the Libby Trial brings us closer to the truth about Cheney, Bush, and all other crooks in 2003.
And may Molly Ivins rest in peace.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:50 pmIt seems this would be a “warning shot” over the bow of the SSBushyCheney. Wich they will politely, well, not even politely, tell them to stick up there a*s.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:50 pmJoin the club.
I was a little disappointed that I was the only one who didn’t wish Judd a fond farewell. He is going to try and help Hillary get elected, so I will be doing everything I can to make sure that doesn’t happen. Hillary is republican lite. She has supported the war way too much to start back peddling now. I’ll go with somebody that was against this stupid friggin’ war from the beginning or throw away my vote to a Goofy write in before I vote for Hillary.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:51 pmOh, and the graphic on that picture kind of looks like there is a big stream of liquid gushing up from Levin’s waistline.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:52 pmCut the f*cking funding.
Comment by Zooey — January 31, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN!!!
“For example, he put language in here that Senator Judd Gregg, the Republican from New Hampshire says that they wants to make clear they’re not going to cut funding for troops in Iraq.“
Now THAT’S the power of a Minority willing to filibuster to get it’s way!
The Democrats can’t even get a NON-BINDING resolution passed without promising to KEEP THE MONEY (and blood) FLOWING!
January 31st, 2007 at 8:53 pmSince this is a non-binding resolution there is no reason to put any kind of language in the resolution about cutting off Iraq war funds.
That’s pure nonsense.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:55 pmThe snail’s pace of the negotiations is maddening. This non-binding no-confidence measure is just the first step and look how long it drags on.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:03 pm#11
January 31st, 2007 at 9:05 pmJason Leopold let us down hard last year with his certainty that Rove would be indicted, bringing down the entire administration. So we read his comments now with a wait-and-see attitude.
This resolution says Bush and Cheney keep looting the US treasury because we do not have the balls to stop you.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:08 pmSpudge Boy, I am with you.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:08 pmClinton is Republican lite, as you say. She used to be a Goldwater Girl, before she became a Democrat. NOthing wrong with coming to one’s senses, but her statements and her votes are too center-right for my taste. She should remain a Senator – NY likes her – she does an OK job on committees, but I want a real Democrat for president.
I’ll go with somebody that was against this stupid friggin’ war from the beginning or throw away my vote to a Goofy write in before I vote for Hillary.
— Spudge_Boy
I feel the same. She was for the war, and acted just like LIEberman up untill the election, then she changed to the way the political wind was blowing.
As I said in another thread this just rings false with me and I am tired of false politicians. We have had enough dishonesty from the Repukes already.
Only way I would vote for her if it came down to the wire of her vs a Repuke. I would vote for Donald Duck before I ever vote for another Repuke.
In the primaries I will only vote for someone who voted against the war, period.
Also if the Democrats do not get the fire going and really change things, I am going to be pushing to get rid of every incumbent as well next election. They better quit sitting with their thumbs stuck in their asses and stop this Criminal Administration. We are at the point now, the only way to regain any dignity in our government is to impeach and the prosecute these criminals.
Do I sound fed up?
January 31st, 2007 at 9:14 pm#9- From what I’ve seen on t.v., “not in our national interest” appears in the Biden Resolution. Warner’s resolution doesn’t have it. Also, I’ve heard Senators say the resolution is a “first step.” I think I’ve heard that cutting off funds is the next issue. In my opinion, that’s why the administration has reacted so vehemently to it (”If you don’t agree, then cut off funding” talking points, etc.). Bush, Cheney, and Company REALLY don’t want this bipartisan resolution passed. If it’s such a big deal to these guys, then I’m interested.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:19 pmYou know, none of these people are criticizing the Busheviks for the venality with which they started the Iraq war. The criticism is all about how incompetently they executed the war, not the rights or wrongs of starting it in the first place… this is just a different shade of the same shit color.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:30 pmhow could he turn down ben franklin? …
January 31st, 2007 at 9:32 pmMarie and SpudgeBoy:
I’ll go with somebody that was against this stupid friggin’ war from the beginning or throw away my vote to a Goofy write in before I vote for Hillary.
— Spudge_Boy
yes, i’m there too
January 31st, 2007 at 9:50 pmLet’s see, which soup will I want: the one with just water or the one with water and a carrot? Neither one is tasty, but I am hungry. Unfortunately, neither one will address eliminating the danger to my existence. These 2 proposals are the same. They do nothing for the existence of what used to be our country. Put something substantive and help us survive, or we stop being the country we should be.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:20 pmkarl ex,
Are you having trouble posting comments already? I noticed your name changing.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:20 pmLevin was one of the few that voted against the war back in 2002 – for that alone he deserves props. At times he’s certainly deserving of criticism – I should know – he’s my senator – but to the folks trying to end this war- he’s as friendly as they get in DC. This non-binding business may be window dressing – but with the Republican support needed to make the resolution filibusterproof – this is more than just a facade – this is a turning point.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:37 pm67 Senators are needed to impeach President Bush, and VP Cheney, so that is what Levin and Warner need to get busy to do, and find 67 votes!
January 31st, 2007 at 10:50 pmIt’ll pass, after the republicans tack on a tax cut.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:52 pmLevin really does look like Ben Franklin with a haircut.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:29 pmEnjoy the smoke and mirror show Kiddies.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:33 pmAll these creatures have done is put off the
inevitable collapse for another year, and use
this silly resolution business to stay in Iraq
for another 18 months. The American voters
sent a clear message in November, that we
want our kids out of that rat hole NOW. The
people making billions off this farce are down
to their last 100billion$,and just need to
bleed the Treasury for just a few hundred
billion more, before we “pull out”. Grow up
America, their screwing you, and not even
giving you kiss, or buying you a drink.
Breaking: Bush and Cheney reach compromise. Agree to ignore a non-binding Senate resolution.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:02 amMolly Ivins and Cindy Sheehan were lesbian lovers a woman in Beaumont Texas is reporting today.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:09 amThis just a show. It means nothing. Bush will do what he wants until the advocates for the American citizen grows some balls and stops him. This is just a distraction from the real business that the house and senate need to conduct. Investigate, Impeach and imprison!
February 1st, 2007 at 2:58 amA non-binding resolution means nothing. Who do these Senators think they are fooling?
February 1st, 2007 at 4:49 amStop, or I’ll say stop again!
February 1st, 2007 at 7:16 amI hate to say it but, we’ll take any compromise to discredit bush further. This may be all we get at this point but to drive bushes ratings lower than any president in our country’s history may help to get his impeachment to the floor of the house.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:03 amJust like Molly Irwin says in the following post about her death, “make the ridiculous look ridiculous.” We need to start somewhere Molly left off.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:08 amWhat a DISAPPOINTMENT! The Decider is preparing to blow IraN to smitereens and Senator Levin is playing footsie with the Republicans. And George Bush is laughing all the way to the bank.
This is why I no longer support the Democratic Party. A useless bunch of spineless talking heads. Yes, Levin included.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:21 amWhat kind of hogsh*t is this?
Dear Mr. Emperor,
We oppose sending more troops to Iraq…
…but will gladly keep giving you more money with which to do it…
-Your Humbled Servants-
This country (when the Blackwater mercenaries return to American soil and their rich al Crackker elitist masters turn them loose on the people)…
…is going to make Iraq look like a church picnic social…
…and Levin and Warner are demonstrating…
…that there is NO Congressional bulwark against these facist PLUTOCRATS!
February 1st, 2007 at 10:10 amBUSH IS THE KING! ALL HAIL THE KING!!
February 1st, 2007 at 12:49 pmImpeach! Where is info on the Libby trial? Isn’t Carl Levin a member of the Council For Foreign Relations or is it Bilderberg. Levin wimped out on the anti-torture bill and rubberstamped bush’s decrees. I am tired of Dinos. Rep. Jerrold Nadler has a real bill to PROTECT OUR TROOPS AND BRING THEM HOME. Tell your Congressperson to vote for it.
We need to stop these maniacs and save our armed forces. Why are are Naval carriers being used as sitting ducks in full range of Iranian missles?
February 1st, 2007 at 4:18 pmBush doesn’t care about non-binding resolutions. He doesn’t even care about binding ones. That is what signing statements are for.
February 2nd, 2007 at 3:26 am