Senate Democrats to Netroots: F@*# YOU!

Twenty three Senate Democrats today showed that they are cowards and will bend to the slightest threat by the right wing. They all joined every single Republican Senator in censuring MoveOn.org's advertisement in the New York Times. The add, now famously known as the "General Betray Us" ad, asserted that General David Petraeus had a record of carrying the political water of the Bush Administration and that a less than honest assessment of the situation in Iraq was a betrayal of trust.

It's not rocket science. In fact, none of the people attacking MoveOn even bothered to take issue with the facts contained in the advertisement. Not one. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Instead, one after another, pathetic, cowardly Democrats allowed the not-so-invisible hand of Karl Rove to make them fear that they would yet again, be questioned as to whether or not they support the military. Seriously, HOW MANY TIMES WILL THEY FALL FOR THIS?

Here's the list of cowardly Senators:

Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Ben Cardin, Tom Carper, Bob Casey, Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan, Dianne Feinstein, Tim Johnson, Amy Klobuchar, Herb Kohl, Mary Landrieu, Pat Leahy, Joe Lieberman (not that he really counts, anyway), Blanche Lincoln, Claire McCaskill, Barbara Mikulski, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, Ken Salazar, Jon Tester, and Jim Webb.

So far in the 110th Congress, the Democrats that the Netroots worked tirelessly on behalf of, has been one disappointment after another. The support they gave this resolution condemning MoveOn is an embarrassment.

MoveOn has done more than anyone else in this country to bring an end to the war. Anyone. (I can already hear the bitching that folks on the Hill will be doing about this statement.) The fact is that all summer long, MoveOn worked with a coalition of organizations throughout the country to target Members of Congress to influence their vote on ending the war.

Meanwhile, the White House ran circles around the Democratic Leadership in the PR game leading up to the conclusion of August recess. In advance of the Petraeus testimony, MoveOn set to frame the expectations in a provocative, fact-based way.

What MoveOn hasn't told you is that the "General Betray-Us" moniker isn't their invention. It's been reported in the British press to be coined by a retired General.

Critics, including one recently retired general, are privately calling him "General Betraeus" on the grounds that he is too ambitious to deliver a balanced report on the war.

But, the Democrats in Congress didn't take the time to look past the baseless finger pointing and elementary name-calling. Instead, they gave in to cowardly instinct and said a big "F@*# YOU" to the millions of Americans who call themselves a part of the Netroots Movement and have worked side by side with MoveOn to end the War.

If the Senate Democrats can't be trusted to stand up to simple attacks like this, there is likely no way they can be trusted to end this War. What are we to do?

Petraeus in Perspective and Bush No Way Forward

The Center for American Progress has compiled a 2 1/2 minute video that gives a realistic perspective on the situation in Iraq. It's well sourced and includes a bi-partisan survey of national security experts.

Bottom line: Petraeus' report to Congress was inaccurate, any suggestion the latest PR stunt is a drawdown in troop levels is false, and Bush has no clear idea on what the way forward should be.

Petraeus' Pullout Politics

Today's Washington Post Headline reads, "Petraeus Backs Initial Pullout". That is pathetic. The headline should have read something like: "General dons rose-colored glasses in report to Congress".

The idea to 'propose' withdrawing some troops is a mere political ploy to continue funding the war with the least pushback possible from Democrats in Congress. General Petraeus' intention remains to stay in Baghdad for the long haul.

The general asked Congress to defer decisions on further reductions until March to get a better sense of the political and security situation.

Like Ambassador Crocker, I believe Iraq's problems will require a long-term effort," Petraeus testified before the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees. "There are no easy answers or quick solutions. And although we both believe this effort can succeed, it will take time. . . . A premature drawdown of our forces would likely have devastating consequences.

Nonetheless, the Republicans jumped all over the latest gamesmanship being offered up to them by the top military brass in Iraq.

Republicans, by contrast, seized on the plan as a political lifeboat after months of being forced to vote against measures repudiating Bush's policy. "Let the generals in the field dictate," said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (N.C.). "We would support it," said Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.), a member of the Appropriations subcommittee on defense.

Meanwhile, Democrats huddled in Speaker Pelosi's office to "plot" their next step. What the hell are they doing trying to figure this out now? Where were they in August when the White House was in full PR mode in preparation for this debate? It seems to me like they have been asleep at the switch.

Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com has teamed up with Fire Dog Lake and Open Left to create a petition to send to the Leadership. Please watch Glenn's video, which puts General Petraeus' testimony in proper context. Also, please take a moment to sign the petition and share it with a few friends.

Bush's expensive photo op

Bush's 'surprise' visit to Iraq is nothing more than a carefully, and though I hate to admit it, brilliantly conceived public relations plan in advance of General Petraeus' report to Congress in a couple weeks. Petraeus' testimony is in turn part of the larger plan to pressure Congress to continue funding Bush's Iraq disaster.

The Washington Post has bought the PR effort hook, line, and sinker. They actually published this quotation from the President:

"General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker tell me if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces," the president said.

Seriously, this has been the deadliest summer in Iraq since the war began. The logic in Bush's statement is on such a slippery slope that I can't even believe he said it. But then again, they've lied and been disingenuous with us countless times before.

If Bush actually draws down troops, without Congressional mandate, before leaving office, the only reason will be to strengthen his party's nominee for President. That scenario would likely play out only in a close race. Regardless, their propaganda may achieve their objective of continuing this war.

Recent feedback from staff of Democratic Leadership in Congress leads me to believe that they are either resigned to losing the battle over the War or haven't yet put together a game plan. Either way, I think it's pathetic. The White House is running circles around them in the PR game and this may ultimately apply just the right amount of pressure on moderate Republicans and a handful of Democrats to continue giving a blank check to Bush's Iraq disaster.

Pentagon PR Push pushes the envelope

I planned to write about this on Friday, but found myself far busier than I had planned. Better late then never!

This Washington Post article (which was on page 13) shows how the Pentagon must push their propaganda not only to Congress and the American public, but also to the rank and file troops.

The sheets of paper seemed to be everywhere the lawmakers went in the Green Zone, distributed to Iraqi officials, U.S. officials and uniformed military of no particular rank. So when Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) asked a soldier last weekend just what he was holding, the congressman was taken aback to find out.

In the soldier's hand was a thumbnail biography, distributed before each of the congressmen's meetings in Baghdad, which let meeting participants such as that soldier know where each of the lawmakers stands on the war. "Moran on Iraq policy," read one section, going on to cite some the congressman's most incendiary statements, such as, "This has been the worst foreign policy fiasco in American history."

I find this reprehensible. A source of mine who has worked in Public Affairs for a branch of the military tells me that this is, without a doubt, a product of Psychological Operations, or PsyOps, as many people refer to it. He says that Public Affairs would never engage in something like this, even with all of the shady things this Administration has pushed.

Further, the military allowed no contact from anyone that wasn't a part of the carefully scripted visit by Members of Congress. People who tried to insert themselves into the dog and pony show were silenced.

At one point, as Moran, Tauscher and Rep. Jon Porter (R-Nev.) were heading to lunch in the fortified Green Zone, an American urgently tried to get their attention, apparently to voice concerns about the war effort, the participants said. Security whisked the man away before he could make his point.

And, just so you know how serious the Iraqi government is about listening to American government officials and convincing them that they are dedicated to making their government work:

At one point, the three were trying to discuss the state of Iraqi security forces with Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, but the large, flat-panel television set facing the official proved to be a distraction. Rubaie was watching children's cartoons.

When Moran asked him to turn it off, Rubaie protested with a laugh and said, "But this is my favorite television show," Moran recalled.

Finally, buried at the tail end of the article is a noteworthy quotation from Republican Congressman John Porter of Nevada.

"I tend to lean with the rank-and-file members of military who have nothing to gain," he added. "They want to go home as soon as possible."

Will it reflect his vote on the upcoming appropriations supplemental or it is more lip service that we've been seeing from Republicans who seek to distance themselves from the disaster the Iraq war has been, while supporting it at every step along the way.

GAO Report cites little progress in Iraq

Yet another headline in the Washington Post screams what we already know: there's little progress to be shown for the thousands of dead Americans and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the Iraq War. The Post snagged an early copy of the report. Here's a snippet:

The strikingly negative GAO draft, which will be delivered to Congress in final form on Tuesday, comes as the White House prepares to deliver its own new benchmark report in the second week of September, along with congressional testimony from Iraq commander Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. They are expected to describe significant security improvements and offer at least some promise for political reconciliation in Iraq.

The draft provides a stark assessment of the tactical effects of the current U.S.-led counteroffensive to secure Baghdad. "While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced," it states. While there have been fewer attacks against U.S. forces, it notes, the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians remains unchanged. It also finds that "the capabilities of Iraqi security forces have not improved."

The other interesting tidbit in the report is found here, in addressing how the Post came into possession of a report not yet released to Congress:

The person who provided the draft report to The Post said it was being conveyed from a government official who feared that its pessimistic conclusions would be watered down in the final version -- as some officials have said happened with security judgments in this month's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Congress requested the GAO report, along with an assessment of the Iraqi security forces by an independent commission headed by retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, to provide a basis for comparison with the administration's scorecard.

Interesting, huh? Government officials are now leaking reports because they fear the White House or the Pentagon will change them so much that they will no longer accurately reflect the truth. It's pathetic that I'm not surprised one tiny little bit. That's how far gone my trust in the Administration is. It's also all the more reason why Congress needs to stand up and put an end to this charade and stop the War.

A Tale of Two Democrats: McNerney and Schakowsky

Progressives were recently chagrined over the remarks of newbie California Congressman Jerry McNerney upon his return from a Congressional trip to Iraq. He was elected as a progressive, anti-war Democrat, defeating a DCCC-backed candidate in the Primary and Richard Pombo, the only Republican Committee Chair to lose re-election in resolutions, to be more conciliatory with Republicans who might also be looking for a way out of the war.
2006.

McNerney's election was a huge victory for the netroots, as they wrote extensively about the race and steered significant amounts of money from readers to his campaign. He was expected to be a solid anti-war vote, but he has turned out to be a mixed bag.

During the August 2007 recess, McNerney traveled to Iraq to gain firsthand knowledge of the situation and receive briefings from military officials. The Washington Post quoted McNerney upon his return, giving reason for Progressives to be concerned.

But in an interview yesterday, McNerney made clear his views have shifted since returning from Iraq. He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need. And, he said, Democrats should move beyond their confrontational approach, away from tough-minded, partisan withdrawal.

"We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning," he said, adding, "I don't know what the [Democratic] leadership is thinking. Sometimes they've done things that are beyond me.

Contrast this with remarks by Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. She has been in the Congress since being elected in 1998 and has, shall we say, considerable more experience than McNerney. The Washington Post also asked her about her impressions when she returned from Iraq.

But the military presentations left her stunned. Schakowsky said she jotted down Petraeus's words in a small white notebook she had brought along to record her impressions. Her neat, looping handwriting filled page after page, and she flipped through to find the Petraeus section. " 'We will be in Iraq in some way for nine to 10 years,' " Schakowsky read carefully. She had added her own translation: "Keep the train running for a few months, and then stretch it out. Just enough progress to justify more time."

"I felt that was a stretch and really part of a PR strategy -- just like the PR strategy that initially led up to the war in the first place," Schakowsky said. Petraeus, she said, "acknowledged that if the policymakers decide that we need to withdraw, that, you know, that's what he would have to do. But he felt that in order to win, we'd have to be there nine or 10 years.

In this comparison, it seems to me that McNerney is the victim of inexperience. It's almost as if he's a young, impressionable teenager. I'm sure it's quite convincing to sit across the table from General Petreus and listen to him assure you that progress has been made. Couple that personal meeting with all of the nuances of being a part of a Congressional trip to Iraq and you can feel pretty darn self important. No wonder he's strayed from his original position. He was under the influence of the ultimate propaganda: a Congressional junket.

McNerney would do well to go back home and listen to his constituents on the subject of the war in Iraq. That was the top reason he was elected.

He would also do well to consult with more senior members of his party. Maybe it is a little unreasonable to suggest this, but I think he needs a 'Congressional mentor'. Normally, a seasoned Chief of Staff would fill this role until a Member became accustomed to the demands of office. However, McNerney has his own impressionable newbie Chief of Staff.

Perhaps Jan Schakowsky will take McNerney under her wing and show him the way. Otherwise McNerney could end up on the wrong side of the biggest and most important issue of our time.

Veteran: New Iraq make political props out of soldiers

Yesterday, we began to learn details about Freedom's Watch. It is a new effort, led by former Bush spokesperson, Ari Fleischer, that seeks to pressure Democrats and Republicans to continue giving President Bush a blank check in Iraq. They have bought $15 million in ad time. This tells me that MoveOn.org's Iraq Summer campaign must be working, and working very well. It is also a great testament to the effect that VoteVets has been having on educating Americans about the situation in Iraq.

The ads are very heavy on connecting Al Qaeda and Iraq. I wrote a few days ago that I couldn't believe that the Administration was still spouting this crap. Well, they're now behind $15 million to keep selling that lie.

Raw Story has video of Ari Fleischer on Hardball. It's about 6 minutes long, but you've got to make it to the end, where the veteran who represents veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan gets a chance to comment on Ari's appearance. He's not happy.


**UPDATE

Americans United for Change has produced a response to the Freedom's Watch ads. Watch it below.

More insulting Cheney comments on Iraq quagmire

On Sunday, I posted an interview that Dick Cheney gave in 1994 where he defended the decision not to invade Baghdad. He makes a really good case for not invading Iraq. If you haven't seen it, please take a moment to watch it.

After wide distribution of this video, a local CBS affiliate was able to get a, well, non-response from the VP's office.

“He was not Vice President at the time, it was after he was Secretary of Defense,” a spokesperson told CBS 5 San Francisco. “I don’t have any comment.”

But, the incredibly talented folks at Think Progress found the transcript from an interview that then-VP Nominee Dick Cheney gave on Meet the Press on August 27, 2000. Here's the relevant part, which responds to Tim Russert asking if he regrets not taking out Saddam Hussein in the 1991 Gulf War:

I don’t, Tim. It was–and it’s been talked about since then. But the fact of the matter is, the only way you could have done that would be to go to Baghdad and occupy Iraq. If we’d done that, the U.S. would have been all alone. We would not have had the support of the coalition, especially of the Arab nations that fought alongside us in Kuwait. None of them ever set foot inside Iraq. Conversations I had with leaders in the region afterwards–they all supported the decision that was made not to go to Baghdad.

They were concerned that we not get into a position where we shifted instead of being the leader of an international coalition to roll back Iraqi aggression to one in which we were an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world taking down governments. So I think we got it right, so suppose it’s one of those things that’ll be debated for some time. But I thought the decision was sound at the time, and I do today.

So, he held the same philosophy in 1991, 1994, and 2000, that going into Baghdad would create a disastrous situation. So, it begs the question 'what changed his mind?'. I asked the VP's Press Office the question and they referred me to an interview he did with Jonathan Karl from ABC News February 23, 2007:

Q: Back in 1991, you talked about how military action in Iraq would be the classic definition of a quagmire. Have you been disturbed to see how right you were? Or people certainly said that you were exactly on target in your analysis back in 1991 of what would happen if the U.S. tried to go in --

A: Well, I stand by what I said in '91. But look what's happened since then -- we had 9/11. We've found ourselves in a situation where what was going on in that part of the globe and the growth and development of the extremists, the al Qaeda types that are prepared to strike the United States demonstrated that we weren't safe and secure behind our own borders. We weren't in Iraq when we got hit on 9/11. But we got hit in '93 at the World Trade Center, in '96 at Khobar Towers, or '98 in the East Africa embassy bombings, 2000, the USS Cole. And of course, finally 9/11 right here at home. They continued to hit us because we didn't respond effectively, because they believed we were weak. They believed if they killed enough Americans, they could change our policy because they did on a number of occasions. That day has passed. That all ended with 9/11.

Okay, so I want to make sure I understand this correctly. He changed a decade or more of his opinion, based on the events of 9/11, even though it is clearly established that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on the U.S. Blatant hypocrisy at its worst. Hypocrisy that has cost us nearly 4,000 American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars that could have been spent on health care, education, and developing alternative fuels.

I can't believe that Bush-Cheney world is still spouting this crap. 9/11 is not a justification for war with Iraq. Period. It's insulting and a downright lie that they've been telling the American people. I think it's gross misconduct in office.

Bush's Generals on the War

Bush keeps telling us that we need to wait for a report from General Petraeus before Congress considers passing another time line for withdrawal. But we don't need to wait. Thanks to the folks at the Iraq Summer Campaign, we know what they've already decided.

This should provide additional urgency for the Democrats and Reasonable Republicans (yes, they exist) to build a solid majority in favor of setting a time line for withdrawal when the issues comes up next month. Anything short of that is a gross dereliction of their responsibility to the American people.

Cheney makes the case against invading Baghdad, says it would be a quagmire

This video is shocking to me; shocking in the hypocrisy that oozes out of this man. Here, in a video in 1994, Cheney defended the decision to NOT invade Baghdad, saying that there would be no other government to put in place and that the country would likely splinter into several pieces. He further says that the 146 American casualties were a high price to pay.

Money quote:

...and the question for the President, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein was how many additional dead Americans Hussein was worth, and our judgment was not very many and I think we got it right.

Let's see if the main stream media will be willing to throw this quote back at the now Vice President and ask him how he came to believe that nearly FOUR THOUSAND dead Americans are worth removing Saddam Hussein. Further, how he thinks we can settle the quagmire which he correctly predicted with out further loss of American lives. Finally, I'd like to know why he was the chief architect behind the current war in Iraq given his crystal clear understanding of what a disaster it would be.

It's time for an Accountability Moment.

Message to Dem Leadership: America is giving you a time table

Today's "deal" between the Democratic Leadership in the Congress can be framed in more than one way. At the end of the day, nothing has really changed the course of the war in Iraq. It's that simple.

The Democratic Leadership needs to understand something. In November, the American people elected you to control the United States Congress.That's a big deal. The number one thing they want you to do is change the course of the war in Iraq.

Thus far, you're failing. Now, you've got your own time table. If you aren't able to pass meaningful legislation in September that will begin the process of bringing our troops home, then you will lose credibility with us, the American People.

Bush ignores Constitutional responsibility in appointing 'War Czar'

By now, we know that the George Bush Administration doesn't have a great understanding of, nor respect for the Constitution of the United States. However, given his penchant for war, the last part of the Constitution I would expect him to ignore was his role as Commander in Chief. Yet, that's what he's done.

If you've followed the story, then you know that Bush reached out to no less than FIVE four-star Generals to fill this newly created role. All promptly turned him down. So, he's finally found a three-star General by the name of Douglas Lute to take on the moniker of "War Czar" and move into the West Wing. His job? To handle the day to day details of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Is it me or don't we already have a Commander in Chief, Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Security Council, National Security Adviser, and a cadre of military commanders that should have been doing this for the past four years? There are many problems with this.

The President of the United States is our Commander in Chief. It is his duty to oversee the day to day operations of the Military. Especially when he has made his so-called "Global War on Terror" the center-piece of his Presidency. I've said it before: Bush can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

Here is Tony Snow's response to a question about this during today's Press Briefing at the White House:

Q Back on Lute. Why did it take so long, now into the fifth year of the war, to come up with somebody of his seniority and stature?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I think what happened is, again, as you're taking a review, it became clear to us that this -- as you develop -- as you move into a new phase of the war -- keep in mind, we are still in the process of deploying people in this new way forward, as the President called it, and therefore, it seems proper at a time like this also to task somebody with the job of keeping an eye on all the different players who are involved in it.

What we do have is a different set of policies governing what's going on in Iraq. It is something that is government-wide in its scope, and therefore, it is appropriate to have somebody coming in, in a new position, in support of a new philosophy and a new way forward in Iraq, not only to monitor progress, but to do everything possible to assist those on the ground to help them succeed.

Q So you think this is a new need and you did not need someone to do this for the previous four years?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I'm not going to try -- I don't know. I don't have an answer for you. I'm telling you that's what he's here to do now.

This is further evidence that the President and his advisers inadequately planned for this war. They were negligent and it has cost us nearly 3500 American lives and over 20,000 injured soldiers.

Lute will assume the official titles of Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser. However, his military rank is still that of a Lt. General while he is in a position to be directing four-star Generals, Cabinet Secretaries, and senior White House staff. Given that extensive and complicated protocols are well established that govern the uber craziness of the flow-chart that is the Military bureacracy, this appointment may only complicate things. From the same Washington Post article linked above:

Bush hopes an empowered aide working in the White House and answering directly to him will be able to cut through bureaucracy that has hindered efforts in Iraq.

I can't believe this is coming out of the White House and that anyone would take it seriously. How many times have we heard Bush assert his authority? Now, he justifies giving away Constitutional authority as a means to cut through bureaucracy. If the President of the United States can't cut through his own bureaucracy, we can't expect a three-star General to do it.

This action and all of these reasons are further evidence that we need a change in course immediately. It is time for the Senate to adopt the legislation recently passed by the House of Representatives. It is also time for Republicans to get on board with holding this Administration accountable for its failure in Iraq. Failure to do so will only result in more deaths of our soldiers. Get with it!

New Iraq Spending Plan: Details and Opinion

Since Congressional Republicans continued to stick with "thirty-something W" and voted to uphold his veto of money for our troops and accountability for his handling of the Iraq war, we've waited with baited breath to see how Democrats would respond. Now we know.

Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey has drafted two separate emergency supplemental appropriations bills. The first deals with Military funding, Katrina recovery, Children's Health Insurance Program, Veterans Health care, and a few other things. The second bill deals with Agriculture assistance and Western States appropriations.

It would have been nice to send him a bill ONLY with military spending, so he can't find some ridiculous reason to veto it again. But, I'm going to concentrate just on the Military piece, since that's what this is really all about.

The total military spending contained in the new Iraq Accountability Act totals about $96 billion. Some of this is only available through September of this year, just under $56 billion to be exact. The rest is available to be spent through either September 2008 or 2009. Most of this funding is for things like procurement of armored vehicles and new airplanes or special programs like eradicating land mines. This adds up to almost $40 billion, which is NOT subject to any timetable.

To get some of this money, the President will have to prepare a report to Congress and have it approved. Here is the language detailing what Congress is expecting:

SEC. 1330. The President shall transmit to the Congress a report in classified and unclassified form, on or before July 13, 2007, detailing—

(1) the progress the Government of Iraq has made in—
(A) giving the United States Armed Forces and Iraqi Security Forces the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias;
(B) delivering necessary Iraqi Security Forces for Baghdad and protecting such Forces from political interference;
(C) intensifying efforts to build balanced security forces throughout Iraq that provide even-handed security for all Iraqis;
(D) ensuring that Iraq's political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces;
(E) eliminating militia control of local security;
(F) establishing a strong militia disarmament program;
(G) ensuring fair and just enforcement of laws;
(H) establishing political, media, economic, and service committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan;
(I) eradicating safe havens;
(J) reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq; and
(K) ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi Parliament are protected; and
(2) whether the Government of Iraq has—
(A) enacted a broadly accepted hydro-carbon law that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis;
(B) adopted legislation necessary for the conduct of provincial and local elections, taken steps to implement such legislation, and set a schedule to conduct provincial and local elections;
(C) reformed current laws governing the de-Baathification process to allow for more equitable treatment of individuals affected by such laws;
(D) amended the Constitution of Iraq consistent with the principles contained in article 137 of such Constitution; and
(E) allocated and begun expenditure of $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.

Should the President fail to conform with this requirement and his report be approved by a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress, then approximately $50 billion in spending will not be approved. Some of that $50 billion is meant to be spent by September of this year.

Aside from the money issues, there are provisions that require that all troops be deemed combat ready according to DOD regulations before being deployed. The bill also prevents the deployment of troops to be extended beyond one year. Further, it requires that troops be home for a minimum of 210 days before being deployed for an additional tour of duty.

Unfortunately, it allows the President to waive any of these provisions of the law with a notification to Congress that it is because of national security needs. This ability to waive that requirement takes a lot of the teeth out of what this could have been. It is, however, consistent with the first bill passed by the Congress.

So, what should we make of all this? I'll have to say, at first glance, I was pretty mad that there was no timeline for withdrawal in this bill. But, after really taking a look at it and seeing how the funding mechanisms are built in, it looks like a decent compromise. Many Democrats and Republicans on the Hill, taking a cue from General Petreus, have established September as an informal deadline for knowing if any progress will be made under this new leadership and the President's so-called "new" strategy.

Our ultimate goal should be to end the war as soon as possible. While I have advocated not caving to the President on a single point, I think this is something we should support.

First, it requires the President to go on the record on many issues which are pertinent to the stewardship of the war in Iraq. It also requires DOD to provide the Congress with a complete report on Contractor activity in Iraq. This is something that has not been required previously. With this, we can learn how much money is going to the troops and how much is lining the pockets of Corporate America. Most importantly, it funds the war until September, at which time, we will likely have much more support for putting an end to this atrocity.

As impatient as I am, I can live with this. I can only hope that moderate Republicans come to their senses and get behind this. There is a better chance of this happening than the arrogance in the White House being won over by sound reason and compromise. I urge everyone to put pressure on these Republicans to team up with Democrats to make this legislation a reality.

*****UPDATE*****
Speaker Pelosi has talking points on the legislation on her website here. It includes something that I failed to see when I went over the legislation which strengthens my support for the bill. Here it is:

Those procedures would also guarantee a vote in the House on an amendment to provide that defense funding related to Iraq could only be used to plan and execute the redeployment of troops within 180 days of enactment. The only exceptions to this troop redeployment would be for troops protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the U.S. armed forces; serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions; engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach; or training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

Democrats Poised to Abandon Troops AND American People?

Today's Washington Post contains the headline, "April Toll is Highest of '07 for U.S. Troops". More than 100 Americans have been killed in the past month. This brings the death toll, the ultimate cost for this "War of Failed Leadership" closer to the 3500 mark then ever before.

Meanwhile, the headline in the Washington Times today reads, "Democrats conceding on war bill". Here's an excerpt:

Democratic leaders in Congress are slowly backing down from a standoff with the White House over tying war funding to a troop-withdrawal timetable, saying they can use other bills to confront President Bush on Iraq.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, is courting Republican support for compromise war-funding legislation to follow Mr. Bush's promised veto this week of a $124 billion bill that would start a pullout as soon as July.

Senior Democratic aides say that although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not similarly talking to Republicans about a post-veto agreement, she privately acknowledges that eventually the "money will get to the troops without timetables."

Here is a recent Washington Post article that tells us, according to a Post/ABC News poll, that Americans overwhelmingly trust Democrats in Congress to do the right thing on Iraq, edging out Bush by 25%. That's a HUGE margin. Democrats have the support of the American people on this issue.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE SHOULD WE CEDE THIS ISSUE TO GEORGE BUSH. It would be an abidcation of the trust placed in the Democratic Congress by voters nationwide in November 2006. It would also be an abandonment of the responsibility we have to our troops.

Here is an excerpt of an email from a friend in South Carolina whose son is in Iraq. He is organizing a grassroots effort to show that the American people care about our troops since there apparently aren't enough people in Washington that are willing to use the power of Congress to show them that they care.

"I just received word from my son Joshua that his unit's tour of duty in Iraq is being extended to November--they were originally scheduled to come home in July. Needless to say, the soldiers are depressed and upset at this news. I am sincerely asking that everyone who can help do at least one shoebox, and get their family members and friends to do one also. In December we sent 45, lets break 100 this time. Besides getting the news of their extension, 4 men in his unit were killed in action the week before Easter. Let's send love and support from the lowcountry."

Democrats in Congress need to coalesce around a shared goal of truly changing course in Iraq. You have the support and confidence of the American people. George Bush does not. If you show solidarity on this issue, you will win in the court of public opinion.

Send him the SAME BILL again. Repeat over and over that you are funding the troops and bringing them home. That's the mandate you were given in November. It's what the People want. It's what the Troops want. Do not succumb to a President whose approval rating has been stuck in the low 30's for as long as we can remember.

STAND UP. DO NOT BACK DOWN. MAKE US PROUD.

Iraqis Still in a 'Disastrous' Situation

This was the headline for a very small article in the Washington Post Express at the end of last week. For those of you outside of DC, the Express is an abbreviated newspaper that the Washington Post provides for free to people riding the subway.

Since the article was so small, I'll post it all here for you:

Millions of Iraqis are in a "disastrous" situation that is getting worse, with mothers appealing for someone to pick up the bodies littering the street so their children will be spared the horror of looking at them, the International
Red Cross said Wednesday.

"The conflict in Iraq is inflicting immense suffering on the entire population," the agency said in a report. "Every day dozens of people are killed and many more wounded."

"The humanitarian situation is steadily worsening," said the report, which went beyond the neutral agency's usual appeals for all sides to protect civilians, as required by the Geneva Conventions.

This is the coverage that this report received. Pathetic. The International Red Cross is perhaps the most unbiased source of information on what the situation is like on the ground there.

Despite John McCain's bogus claim that the market in Baghdad was so nice that his delegation "could just walk around" and Lindsey Graham's exciting purchase of "two rugs for five bucks", things are not going well there. (Did you see the dozens of military body guards surrounding his delegation?) McCain further said that the full story isn't being told about Iraq. When I first heard him say that, I thought it was the first step in him adjusting his position and to begin assuming a reasonable posture on the issue. Not so much.

I would venture to say that the average Iraqi was better off under the reign of Saddam Hussein. Perhaps that is controversial because of how he has been villainized in American culture. By the way, that is a characterization which is not commonplace worldwide. Hussein was no angel, but he was able to rule a nation which is divided by major cultural and religious differences without a civil war.

Speaker Pelosi is meeting with President Bush today to discuss the Iraq Accountability Act. The Washington Post released a poll today that says 58% of Americans trust Democrats in Congress to do the right thing in Iraq and only 33% trust President Bush to do the right thing. Accordingly, Pelosi should stand firm on her position. To do otherwise would betray the trust of the American public.

Further, Democratic solidarity is incredibly important. This poll shows that more than two full weeks of offense by the White House has not moved public opinion. We still have the advantage. Stand together and do the right thing.

There are reasonable Republicans who want to support benchmarks and a time line. A united Democratic front will give them more of a reason to break ranks with the 'Blank Check' policy the White House wants to continue with. Irresponsible comments by Leading Democrats make it harder for these Republicans to join us by giving the Administration a reason to continue pressuring these lawmakers.

Let's keep hammering away on this issue. We're losing Americans everyday in a war that was based on false pretenses.

Getting Out: The next step

Congressional Democrats did a fantastic job passing the Iraq Accountability Act, which funded our presence in Iraq at the levels requested by the Administration and also contained a timetable for withdrawal of our troops. They deserve a big pat on the back for the work to make this happen, as it is one of the most substantial pieces of legislation passed in YEARS. After four years of war in Iraq, there is a glimmer of hope that it will end.

Of course, the monkey in the White House has promised a veto. I earlier posted that we should turn the argument on troop funding right back at him: "If George Bush vetoes this bill, he will unilaterally be cutting off funding for the troops."

Now, I'm hearing chatter about "post veto strategy." It sounds like many Democrats have already given up on forcing the funding being tied to benchmarks for progress and the time table for withdrawing troops. Giving up already is WRONG.

We need to unite as Democrats, Progressives, Liberals, and Centrists on this issue. The American people overwhelmingly support the Iraq Accountability Act and the policies contained in it. Accordingly, we should not simply allow a President, who does not have the support of the people, to dictate this issue.

I would suggest that we spend time pressuring the President to sign the legislation that will reach his desk in a month or so. But, we all know he is too arrogant to realize how wrong he is. So, let's stick to the message I suggested above. This gives us the benefit of applying pressure on the President without massive grassroots mobilization. It also has the side-effect of pressuring the Republicans in Congress who might waver on the issue.

There is credible evidence that many House and Senate Republicans are "closeted" supporters of the Iraq Accountability Act. We need to find them and ride them long and hard. I remember when I was a young staffer in the Senate. The right wing mobilized people to engage in a massive phone campaign targeting Democrats who were planning to vote to sustain President Clinton's veto of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. It was relentless. By the end of it, I was ready to scream at my boss to vote to override the veto. Of course, they engaged language like "baby killer" over and over again. Perhaps we could remind them about young American men and women dying every day in Iraq.

That phone campaign gave the impression that an overwhelming number of people supported overriding Clinton's veto. When, in actuality it wasn't. Imagine what we could do with this! We've got a large majority of Americans who want this legislation. Perhaps if we can harness this support in a direct lobbying effort of vulnerable Republicans, we can get close to the number of supporters to override the veto.

There will be many efforts at ensuring that we have a firm time line for withdrawal. MoveOn.org has been a real leader in this, so be sure to watch for their leadership.

In the meantime, DO NOT ACCEPT DEFEAT.

Since it's a big job to gain another fifteen votes in the Senate and many more vote in the House, just for a moment, I'll suggest what the Democrats in Congress should do if they can't override the President's expected veto: PASS IT AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL GEORGE BUSH REALIZES HE IS A BUMBLING IDIOT. (that should take enough time until we can replace him)

Latest misleading headline in the Washington Times

In today's Washington Times (aka the "Moonie Times"), there is a headline that reads "Iraq war funding in limbo on Hill". You can see it here. This is yet another instance of the conservative rag furthering a message meant to mislead the American people.

Let me be clear. The Democratic Congress has passed legislation funding the troops. There is nothing in limbo on the Hill.

The decision on funding the troops now rests with President Bush. If he vetoes the Iraq Accountability Act, he will have unilaterally cut off funding for the troops. Period.

A Bush Veto Avoids Accountability and Harms Troops

Both Houses of Congress have passed an emergency supplemental appropriations bill that contains benchmarks and goals for progress in Iraq as well as a timetable for redeployment of American troops in Iraq. This is about accountability that has so far been lacking in the Bush administration's execution of the Iraq War.

George Bush's threat to veto this accountability is embarrassing. It sends a message to the world that his policy is to sustain a failed war policy that is further increasing instability in the region. It also signals to the nascent Iraqi government that we will prop them up, regardless of their unwillingness to assume responsibility for their own country.

It should further be said that the benchmarks and goals contained in the bill were originally suggested by Bush's own Department of Defense. Democratic Leadership simply placed those suggestions into law.

To veto the supplemental would serve only to avoid this accountability. For the past six years, George Bush has not had a Congress that was willing to hold him accountable for anything. Thankfully, the Democratic Congress has lived up to its responsibility to do what the Republican-led Congress wouldn't.

If Bush vetoes this bill, it will deny much needed funding to the troops. The military would not be able to afford to deploy new troops, effectively extending the already-extended tours of the men and women currently in Iraq. He should be mindful of this before acting grossly irresponsible and using his veto power.

Those of us on the Left should repeat this argument as often as possible. To repeat in much simpler terms, a veto avoids accountability and harms our troops.

Here is a video of Speaker Pelosi's comments on the bill, the Iraq Accountability Act. For good measure, I'm also going to include what I think are two more amazing speeches. The second one is Representative Jack Murtha, who is a veteran and largely responsible for moving us so far in the right direction on Iraq policy. The third is Freshman Representative Patrick Murphy. Patrick is a fantastic guy and continues to make me proud with the way he is conducting himself in office.

Bush's Stupid, Pointless Speech and Spineless Senators

I swear, George Bush is a total idiot. I am watching his remarks on the 4th anniversary of this disastrous war. He couldn't even walk through the door with grace.

Then, he started out by saying that we embarked four years ago to remove Saddam Hussein from office and to remove the threat he posed to the region.

What a crock! This is yet ANOTHER angle that the George "Idiot" Bush is using. First, it was to prevent the production of WMD's. Then it was about freedom. Now it is about us deciding who is fit to lead another nation. Hell, we suck at picking people to lead our own nation! We're the last country in the world to figure that one out. Unfortunately, it's more than six years too late.

Now, Bush is telling us how great things are in Iraq and that he has JUST gotten an update from the Iraqi Prime Minister. Breaking news.....wait for it: We should know that the "new strategy" is at the beginning stages.

Enough of Bush's remarks. It's nothing we haven't heard before. He should stop banging his head against the wall. The American people have given up on him and this war. Talk about being politically tone deaf! He must really feel like an idiot to have declared "Mission Accomplished" so long ago. But he still has the nerve to come to us asking for our patience.

Here's the reality of what we've done. We have staged a failure of a military action in Iraq. We have ultimately destabilized the region because, while stumbling through this war, we have failed to engage anywhere else in the region in a meaningful way.

We have ignored Iran and that has caused their President to engage in reckless activity to gain any attention or respect. There has been no meaningful engagement in the Palestinian/Israeli peace issue. Syria is cozying up with Iran in defying the United Nations and the United States. Kuwait and Egypt must be wondering when Bush/Cheney/Rice will get their heads out of their asses and make some progress diplomatically in the region.

The new Democratic Congress has a responsibility to express the will of the American people. Speaker Pelosi has provided meaningful leadership in the House of Representatives. Majority Leader Harry Reid can't get anything passed in the Senate. He can't even get a majority of the vote to favor ending this war.

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas joined with shameful non-Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman in opposing a Resolution calling for a timely withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. This is an issue that is fundamental to America's place in the world. They don't have the courage it takes to serve honorably in the U.S. Senate and should not be treated as such by the Democratic Party.

While I'm talking about spineless Senators, I should also mention the Republicans who have publicly opposed Bush's policy on Iraq. They include Susan Collins of Maine, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, John Warner of Virginia and Gordon Smith of Oregon. Only Senator Smith of Oregon voted appropriately.

The rest of them are an embarrassment. Their public statements on Iraq are not reflected in their votes on the issue. They are liars and cowards. I hope that the voters of their States will hold them accountable.

Cross Posted at Huffington Post