Substantial Penalty for Early Withdrawal

The Senate Slumber party carried on during the evening hours Tuesday night and accomplished absolutely nothing. If Harry Reid thought he could bully Republicans into changing their votes by holding Capitol Hill rallies with MoveOn.org, he was sadly mistaken. All he did was unify a Republican Senate that was in danger of fracturing over the Iraq issue.

Special Report tells us what the Reed-Levin amendment would have done, and all the extensive planning that has gone into the Dems Iraq plans for after the troops have been pulled out:

News reports have repeatedly characterized the Reed-Levin amendment, which brought the Senate to a halt, as requiring U.S. troops to be out of Iraq by the end of next April. But the actual language of the measure does no such thing.

The amendment — which Republicans prevented from coming up for a vote — called for a "reduction in the number of United States forces in Iraq". It also provided for a "limited presence" and limited missions including training Iraqi forces and counterterrorism. It provided no numbers or any specifics on how much of a reduction in forces, or how big the limited presence would be.

But assuming the Democrats did manage to get U.S. forces out of Iraq, they admit they have no plan in the event of a sectarian bloodbath many acknowledge is likely.

House Appropriations Chairman David Obey tells the Los Angeles Times — "I wouldn't be surprised if it's horrendous. The only hope for the Iraqis is their own damned government, and there's slim hope for that."

And Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky of the "Out of Iraq" Caucus acknowledges the 70 member group has not looked beyond the end of U.S. military involvement.

The Iraq Study Group cautioned that a premature withdrawal would lead to what it called "greater human suffering, regional destabilization and a threat to the global economy."

The Dems just want out. They don't care what will happen next or the toll it may take on innocent civilians.