|
Feingold, Levin dispute anti-war bona fides |
|
By Elana Schor
|
|
Posted: 06/22/07 06:41 PM [ET] |
In an internecine skirmish over control of Democrats’ anti-war message, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) yesterday accused Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) of misrepresenting his plan for withdrawal from Iraq.
Prominent voices in the liberal blogosphere echoed Feingold’s challenge to Levin, urging the powerful Armed Services Committee chairman to embrace limits on troop funds as a tactic to end the war. The two Democrats’ scuffle portends a tense summer for the majority as at least three Iraq plans vie for votes on the defense authorization bill.
Feingold’s rebuke came after Levin wrote in The Washington Post yesterday that Feingold’s proposal to block spending on certain deployments in Iraq would endanger troops “in harm’s way.”
Levin also unfavorably compared his war plan, co-authored by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), with Feingold’s plan, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) backs. While Levin won 51 votes in April for his approach, the chairman wrote, “only 29 senators so far — none of them Republican — have voted for a funding cutoff. That’s a long way from the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster.”
Feingold, who had taken pride in the majority of Democrats supporting his and Reid’s language, issued a stinging statement yesterday. He noted that the war-funding cutoff legislation he wrote, backed last month by three of the four Democrats running for president, would take effect only to prevent troops from being redeployed and later returned to combat.
“Senator Levin knows full well that the plan I introduced … would end funding for the war in Iraq only after our brave troops have been safely redeployed out of Iraq,” Feingold said, labeling Levin’s portrayal of his plan as disingenuous.
Levin’s office declined to respond to Feingold, and a spokeswoman for Reed, also mentioned by Feingold, did not respond to a request for comment by press time. Yet the true counterpunch may not come until after the July 4 recess, when Reid has said the Senate will take up the proposals of Levin and Feingold as amendments to the defense authorization bill. There is also another offering in the works from Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.).
Feingold did not let up late yesterday. On liberal-leaning pundit Ed Schultz’s radio show, he tagged Levin a flip-flopper for voting against a binding timeline for withdrawal from Iraq in summer 2006 before supporting it this year.
Meanwhile, a slew of liberal bloggers blasted Levin for suggesting that Congress should continue paying for the war until President Bush heeds calls to withdraw.
“Despite Levin’s flip-flop today in now supporting a redeployment timeline, his capitulation on the 2008 Defense Authorization bill only proves why he is not the man to force a change in Bush’s Iraq policy,” Steve Soto wrote on the Left Coaster blog.
Several singled out Levin’s decision to quote former President Lincoln in discussing the challenge lawmakers face on Iraq.
“There are no pretty words to describe what Levin has done here — he has disingenuously and cravenly used Abraham Lincoln to defend his actions,” Big Tent Democrat wrote on the popular liberal blog TalkLeft.
“Cut the crap,” blogger Bob Johnson warned Levin and fellow Democrats on the popular Daily Kos website. “Don’t insult us with quotes from one of the most courageous of American presidents … to justify your own cowardice to stand up to the bullies in the Executive branch.”
Anti-war activists began openly targeting Levin last month, when MoveOn.org ran radio ads criticizing him for voting against Feingold’s language.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), chief author of the June 2006 war timetable that Feingold then cosponsored, moved to snuff the fires of disagreement among Senate Democrats in Reid’s war cabinet.
“Everybody’s working to move in the same direction,” Kerry said, adding that Levin’s plan probably is best positioned to win GOP votes at present. “I understand the strategy, and that is one of the things we should be voting on.”
One Republican squarely in the majority’s sights for a future anti-war vote, Sen. Norm Coleman (Minn.), said the Democratic debate over whether to cut off war funds is unrelated to the practical and difficult choices of how to leave Iraq.
“The bottom line is, we will be in Iraq for a while,” Coleman said. |
