Norm Coleman votes for another blank check for Iraq occupation

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) once again voted for another blank check for the continued occupation of Iraq. Norm has never found a war funding bill he didn't love and continues his 100% support of President Bush's catastrophic policies in Iraq. He used Norm-speak^TM to couch his vote in terms he hopes MN voters will find more favorable:

"I strongly believe we need to transition the mission of our forces in Iraq into a supporting role" Coleman said. "But I don't believe we can delay funding for our troops on the ground any longer. Time has run out, and the president has indicated that he will veto a troop funding bill with 30 pages of prescriptive policy provisions."
(St. Cloud Times)

In actual fact, Norm has never taken any substantial action to force the Bush Administration to begin any sort of transition of US troops. Norm just wants MN voters to think he does so he will get reelected. The few instances he has elaborated on his idea of "transition", it becomes apparent that his position is incoherent:

"My colleagues have considered redeploying out of Iraq ... but there are consequences to doing this. There may come a time when we consider redeploying outside of Baghdad if the Iraqis can't stop the civil war. Then they're going to go at it and we're going to do some other things. Continue to fight the insurgency, continue to fight the foreign fighters, continue to make sure that Iran is not meddling more than it is ... [mumbles incoherently] ... Bottom line is we need specific benchmarks. [If they aren't met] then talk about consequences if benchmarks are not met."
(MPR's Midday)

"If in six months the Iraqis are not meeting benchmarks, we better start talking about redeploying, looking at a policy where our troops in Baghdad are not in the center of this anymore."
(MPR's Midday from 2/26/07)

Of course, when has come down to it, Norm has always opposed establishing any benchmarks with actual consequences. He always goes along with the Republican talking points requesting yet another Friedman Unit or two. He always wants to talk about consequences after the next Friedman Unit when whichever General will report on the non-existent progress which Norm will stretch beyond all reason to find signs of hope. Fundamentally, he will not listen to the vast majority of Minnesotans who want a new direction on Iraq. He holds this position because he believes he will vindicated.

"Time will prove me right. I'm up for election in '08. If I'm wrong, folks, they'll have a chance to articulate that but I'm fairly confident, as I kind of look at the lay of the land, that we will have a change of mission, we will have significant drawdown but we're doing it without telling the enemy this is when we are getting out of here, without cutting off any funds, any support for the troops," Coleman said.

He did not say exactly what a "significant drawdown" would look like.
[emphasis mine]
(Pioneer Press, 7/14/07)

The reason that Norm won't specify what transition plans he supports is because he wants them secret. This is not the coherent, consistent stance we expect of a US Senator from MN. This is pandering. This is Norm-speak^TM. This sounds like Michele Bachmann.

Furthermore, General Petreaus and Pentagon Chief Robert Gates are trying to sell postponing any drawdowns until the fall to make sure that the surge doesn't fail before the elections. I wonder how Norm will attempt to weasel out from under this position?