On Friday, Michigan Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow voted in support of an Iraq spending bill that gives President George W. Bush $50 billion to fund the occupation of Iraq. Grand Rapids Representative Vern Ehlers supported the bill--which is the product of a compromise effort sought by the Democrats and Carl Levin--in a vote in the House of Representatives on Thursday. The bill passed the House but it was defeated in the Senate by 53-45 procedural vote with 60 votes needed.

The bill offered a number of provisions ostensibly designed to limit President Bush's ability to wage the Iraq War. These included a non-binding "goal" of removing most troops by December 15, 2008, assigning remaining troops the goal of protecting U.S. interests, training Iraqi security forces, engaging in counterterrorism operations against "terrorists" in Iraq, and mandating that this "withdrawal" begin happening in thirty days. Additionally, the bill reduced President Bush's $196 billion to $50 billion.

However, the bill was largely designed to enable the Democrats to pass at least some legislation "against" the war, despite its practical effects on the war. In light of repeated failures since being elected by a public that voted them in a largely antiwar vote in the 2006 elections, Democrats such as Michigan Senator Carl Levin believed that the passage of such legislation was necessary. In his floor statement on the bill, Senator Levin made clear the limited nature of the bill:

"It's the goal of completing the transition that he objects to - although it's a goal and not binding. Setting a goal may be too much for he who is unwilling to set a goal - but just don't misrepresent it as a fixed timetable when it is stated as a goal."

Despite this, the bill was characterized as a "withdrawal" bill in much of the corporate media's coverage, including in an Associated Press article printed in the Grand Rapids Press.

Senator Levin also once again framed the bill in the context of the Iraqis' "dawdling" on their "political commitments." Levin has repeatedly done this, arguing that Iraqis essentially are undeserving of the United States' assistance:

"Those commitments, made one and a half years ago, which were to have been completed by January 2007, have not yet been kept by the Iraqi political leaders despite the breathing space the surge has provided. As a matter of fact, the Iraqi leaders appear to be farther apart today than they were at the start of the surge. The Iraqi political leadership's response to the breathing space provided by the surge has been nothing less than abysmal."

He went on to assert that:

"We need to do more than say to the Iraqis that our patience has run out and that they need to seize the opportunity that has been given them. Their dawdling will only end when they have no choice."

These paternalistic comments towards the Iraqis are consistent with Levin's statements on Iraq (1, 2) since the so-called end of "major combat operations" in Iraq. Rather than focus on U.S. responsibility for the situation in Iraq, Levin has instead assigned much of the blame for the current situation in Iraq on Iraqis.