Last week, the national liberal advocacy group MoveOn announced that they were raising money to run an ad targeting Michigan Senator Carl Levin for his vote against a Senate bill calling for the redeployment of US forces in Iraq. The bill, which failed by a procedural vote of 29 to 67, would have mandated that the United States begin redeploying its soldiers in Iraq within 180 days of enactment and required the complete redeployment by March 31, 2008. Levin was one of small number of Democrats who voted against the bill.

The ad prepared by MoveOn reads:

First Woman: It's sad.

First Man: I just feel let down.

Second Woman: I expected more from him.

Announcer: They're talking about our Senator, Carl Levin.

We were so proud when he voted against going to war in Iraq, proud when he became Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

But that pride has turned into disappointment. Because this week, Carl Levin was one of just a few Democrats to vote against the Feingold-Reid Amendment, a real plan for withdrawing from Iraq.

It would have mandated an end to the war by early 2008. That's what the overwhelming majority of voters in Michigan want: an end to this endless war.

Senators Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama voted for it. But not Carl Levin.

Shouldn't Carl Levin support the majority of Democrats in Congress as they increase the pressure on George Bush to change his strategy?

Isn't it time for Carl Levin to make us proud again?

While MoveOn effort to pressure Senator Levin makes tactical sense as part of an effort to end the war and hold politicians accountable for their actions, the advertisement is misleading. The proposed bill was not "a real plan for withdrawing from Iraq." Rather, the bill would have allowed a substantial number of United States soldiers to remain in Iraq carrying out missions indefinitely, while also saying nothing about the presence of private security contractors in Iraq. Some soldiers would have been moved out of Iraq, but a significant force would have remained under the guise of fighting terrorists and training Iraqi forces.

Instead of promoting measures that would mean a true end to the occupation, the advertisement promotes the idea that the Democratic Party is making a serious effort to end the war. While some Democratic Party members certainly want a rapid end to the war, much of the Party is seeking an end to the war in a manner that does not challenge the imperial nature of United States foreign policy in the Middle East. In particular, Senator Carl Levin has advanced such a view, being a frequent promoter of forcing the Iraqi government to adhere to a series of "benchmarks." This view has been adopted by much of the Party, with several Senate Democrats releasing a report last week arguing that the Iraqi government has failed to meet these benchmarks. The benchmarks cited include the disbanding of militias, passing a provincial elections law, passing a revised de-Baathification law, and amending the Iraqi constitution.

The antiwar movement, challenging the legal basis of the occupation, has criticized these benchmarks. Prominent activist David Swanson has reviewed the benchmarks in the legislation passed by the Democrat controlled House of Representatives and has charged that most of the benchmarks require the Iraqis to change their laws at the behest of the United States. In particular, Swanson and others have criticized the insistence that the Iraqi government pass a proposed oil law that was developed by the United States and representatives of major oil companies.

Along with the discussion of benchmarks, there has been little discussion by Democrats of the suffering of Iraqi civilians under the occupation, despite the fact that it has been the Iraqi civilians who have born the brunt of the United States assault. Credible estimates have put the death toll at more than 655,000 Iraqis killed, while as more than a million of Iraqis have been displayed. The country's infrastructure was decimated in the war and has not been rebuilt. The effects of the 2003 invasion come on top of the devastating effects of the 1991 Gulf War and the 12 years of United States supported sanctions. Despite their suffering, Democrats have not listened to the Iraqi people, the majority of whom now support an immediate end to the occupation of Iraq.