Why Chris Dodd Voted AGAINST the Levin-Reed compromise

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

As Atrios put it:

Levin-Reed bill was, of course, a toothless "compromise" bill, and even that couldn't get support.

Ben Smith viewed it this way:

Dodd raises the stakes ... The only surprise: Chris Dodd, moving the anti-war target, voted against it on the grounds that it's too weak.

A friend of mine sent this message about the bill this morning:

Levin-Reed: The Secretary of Defense shall...

Bush: No, the Secretary of Defense shall not.

Congress: Oh. Well, what now?

The bottom line is that Levin-Reed would not have ended the war, and that is why Chris Dodd voted against it.  The net result would have been, again, another blank-check appropriation for George Bush.

Tim