How to Frame the Iraq Appropriations Bill

Sen. Carl Levin gets an F for these remarks on ABC's This Week (here's Matt Stoller's take from MyDD and the Young Turks reaction from Air America) ...

"We're not going to vote to cut funding, period," Levin said. "But what we should do, and we're going to do, is continue to press this president to put some pressure on the Iraqi leaders to reach a political settlement."

Levin is correct in saying that Democrats support the troops and wouldn't cut the funding. However, Levin is using the Republican frame to make his point. By insisting that Democrats won't cut the funding it instantly makes people think that the Democrats will cut the funding. The reality is Democrats passed a bill that funded our troops, a bill that Bush is going to veto. Bush is the one that is against funding our troops.

Sen. Jim Webb understands this and earns an A+. Here is how Webb reframed the issue...

"President Bush has threatened to veto the Iraq War supplemental bill, which is favored by a majority of Americans and a majority in Congress. This is just another example of the one-dimensional approach of this administration with respect to the resolution of this ill-conceived war.

"In the Constitution, the Congress appropriates funds and writes the checks. We're sending the President a bill that provides $100 billion for our troops to continue their mission in Iraq. Nobody is cutting the money from the troops unless the President vetoes the bill Congress sends him."