Send lawyers, guns and money

Michigan Senator and armchair generalissimo Carl Levin describing his proposed Senate resolution on his appearance yesterday on "Meet the Press" --

The new resolution would "modify" the previous resolution in October 2002 that authorized the use of force against Iraq, Levin explained to MTP newsman Tim Russert, "so that we would be in a supporting role rather than a combat role."

A surge in grief counselors comes to mind ...

"Things have changed in Iraq," Levin stated further.

Yes, the Baathists are now slaughtering people right out in the open, instead of in dungeons like they used to ...

"We don't believe it would be possible to remove all our troops," Levin said ...

Such a strategy bearing an awkward resemblance to retreat ...

" ... but there is going to be a purpose that they are going to need to serve," Levin said, "included continued training of the Iraqi army, support for the logistics of the Iraqi army, a counterterrorism purpose, or a mission ..."

Purpose, mission, whatever ...

" ... because there is 3,000 in al-Qaeda in Iraq ..."

Once again refuting the claim that Iraq and al-Qaeda have nothing to do with each other ...

" ... so we want to modify, we want to transform ..."

Micromanage, tie the commander in chief's hands ...

" ... the earlier resolution to a more limited purpose."

Thereby limiting our nation's prospects for success but saddling a huge debacle around Bush's neck for eternity ...

Russert asked, why not just cut funding for the war?

Levin's response -- bad for the troops and would help Bush if rejected by Congress, a likely scenario - "So it's the wrong thing to do and it would also strengthen the president's hand and we don't want to do that, we want to change the president's course. He is on a course that is leading to defeat."

God forbid that Democrats do anything to "strengthen the president's hand" in time of war. This runs the risk of making them appear ... what's the word I'm looking for? ... patriotic?

Hardly a week passes that the Democratic Party does not confirm something I've suspected for years -- that defeating Bush is more important to them than destroying the threat from radical Islam.