"We're not going to vote to cut funding, period," Levin said. "But what we should do, and we're going to do, is continue to press this president to put some pressure on the Iraqi leaders to reach a political settlement."There are times when I’m ashamed to be a Democrat. That’s how I feel after reading that quote.
There are so many assumption in those words that are just plain damn wrong that I’m not sure where to begin when describing them.
“Continue to press this president,” huh. Into doing what? Pretending you exist??!!
And how many more of our people must be killed or maimed before the Iraqis decide to stop blowing each other up (with our military in the middle of course, trying to fend off attacks from al Qaeda and what I could call a completely energized Shiite enemy at this point) and work to achieve a “political settlement,” which of course means something tacitly approved from Tehran?
And as far as Congress cutting off funding for unpopular wars or military activity, the following examples are noted here: in 1970 and 1973 in an effort to keep Richard Nixon from escalating the Vietnam War, in 1984 when Congress opposed Ronald Reagan’s funding of the Contras in Nicaragua, and in 1993 after U.S. Army Rangers were killed in Somalia.
Why would Carl Levin oppose Harry Reid on this and act against the expressed wishes of the majority of this country?
I don’t know. Why don’t we click here and ask him?