There seems to be a little bit of confusion about what, exactly, Levin Reed actually would have accomplished.  The short answer is ... nothing.

That's why Senator Dodd voted against the legislation earlier this morning.

Despite pledges about only casting votes to end the war, Chris Dodd was the only Presidential candidate to stick to his guns in the Senate this morning.  Here's his statement:

"This bill (Levin-Reed) will not stop this President from continuing to wage this war. While a firm deadline is necessary, it is not sufficient without it also being enforceable through the power of the purse. Given this President's loyalty to his own failed policy, it is clear to me that anything short of firm, enforceable deadline that forces his hand will only serve to perpetuate our involvement in this civil war. I will only vote to fully fund the complete redeployment of our troops out of Iraq." -- Chris Dodd

Chris Dodd has been a leader in the fight to restore America to some sort of sanity once the maniacs who currently run the joint without restraint are done.   Now he's speaking out against the Levin-Reed Amendment.  Good for him.  It's a terrible bill.  But here's the thing: speaking out to potential supporters in emails asking for our contact info and a donation is not enough.   That's why I called Chris Dodd for President (202.737.3633) and politely suggested that the Senator take a stand on the floor of the Sentate and filibuster this bill until he drops or it drops and a better one has been offered in its place.  The young man who answered the phone told me that I was the third person who called with the suggestion.

So ... this is an email the campaign just sent out to our entire list of supporters.  We're not asking you to pick our campaign theme song, we're asking you to help prevent bad legislation on Iraq from seeing the light of day in the Senate.

And we can ...

chrisdodd.com/stopthebill

If you have your own blog, please encourage your readers to contact their Senators on the reported "compromise bill."

It's also important to note, there is a solid alternative that ALL Democratic (and Republican) Senators should be rallying behind during the upcoming Defense Department Authorization bill.  More information on that below the fold.

Tim

Many pixels have been spilled on just how crappy a job the establishment media has done in covering the all-night debate and Republican filibuster of the Levin/Reed amendment (and Republican obstruction of Democratic initiatives, in general), not just because, as I observed last night, the debate was not carried by any broadcast outlet, but because the ladies and gentlemen of the fourth estate just can’t seem to be bothered to take the time to explain what was going on this week.

Harry Reid pulled the gentleman's agreement out of play and made the filibusterers show up and physically cry and demand no vote.

Now their stunt got enough Republicans to bow for Bush so only 52 votes were available...but that is better than last time. Harry has just upped the ante bigtime though.

He doesn't want to consider the mammoth pork loaded billionaire feeding Defense Appropriations Bill until the Iraq War Amendment gets its own up or down vote. There it is: Republicans, voting to stay in Iraq or not indefinitely like Cheney and Bush want. Mr 11% and Mr 26%. (More)

I just sent my probably pointless fax/email or whatever it is to Senator Warner from the Howard Dean "put on a pot of coffee" call to action. I hated the boilerplate provided. As much as I know no one will ever read my missive, and sending it pretty much only amounts to a vote, I still hate political marketingese. Representative democracy seems such a farce when my representative has pretty much never voted the way I would and there is pretty much nothing I can do about it.

Here's the way I phrased the letter. I write this diary so that it'll be saved someplace.

I was wondering if those more in tune with the minutiae of Senate rules can tell me what exactly is going to happen tonight?

More to the point, if all the Republicans stop talking can we finally have our up-or-down vote?  Does each Senator only get one chance to talk or can one talk for 30 minutes, someone else talks, and the first Senator gets back up?

The names of our fair elected who "produced a feel-good amendment that gives political comfort." (quote Sen Feingold.)

With Senate Democrats increasingly united, it looks as if for the first time, a majority of the Senate will support binding legislation with a firm end date for our open-ended military presence in Iraq, something I first called for, with support and input from so many of you, back in August of 2005.

This would be a watershed moment but we all agree that it has taken far too long to get here. The binding language in Levin-Reed makes this amendment significant and I will support it. But there are aspects of the amendment that are cause for concern – in particular, the exception for "providing logistical support" to Iraqi troops could give the administration too much wiggle room to "repackage" its failed military mission instead of redeploying our troops.