UPDATED--Former Petraeus Colleague Convicted of Accepting Bribes in Iraq

Sorry to do this, but the lede was buried. I am republishing this story with updated information and some observations--originally, I had planned to call Selph a "little fish in a big pond." It now appears there are some serious questions to be asked of some very senior leaders.

From the New York Times, August 27, 2007:

Several federal agencies are investigating a widening network of criminal cases involving the purchase and delivery of billions of dollars of weapons, supplies and other matériel to Iraqi and American forces, according to American officials. The officials said it amounted to the largest ring of fraud and kickbacks uncovered in the conflict here.

The inquiry has already led to several indictments of Americans, with more expected, the officials said. One of the investigations involves a senior American officer who worked closely with Gen. David H. Petraeus in setting up the logistics operation to supply the Iraqi forces when General Petraeus was in charge of training and equipping those forces in 2004 and 2005, American officials said Monday.

There is no indication that investigators have uncovered any wrongdoing by General Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, who through a spokesman declined comment on any legal proceedings.

[SNIP]

But now, American officials said, part of the criminal investigation is focused on Lt. Col. Levonda Joey Selph, who reported directly to General Petraeus and worked closely with him in setting up the logistics operation for what were then the fledgling Iraqi security forces.

That operation moved everything from AK-47s, armored vehicles and plastic explosives to boots and Army uniforms, according to officials who were involved in it. Her former colleagues recall Colonel Selph as a courageous officer who was willing to take substantial personal risks to carry out her mission and was unfailingly loyal to General Petraeus and his directives to move quickly in setting up the logistics operation.

“She was kind of like the Pony Express of the Iraqi security forces,” said Victoria Wayne, who was then deputy director of logistics for the overall Iraqi reconstruction program.

Still, Colonel Selph also ran into serious problems with a company she oversaw that failed to live up to a contract it had signed to carry out part of that logistics mission.

It is not clear exactly what Colonel Selph is being investigated for. Colonel Selph, reached by telephone twice on Monday, said she would speak to reporters later but did not answer further messages left for her.

Flash forward to today:

A retired U.S. Army colonel pleaded guilty Tuesday to awarding contracts in Iraq to a Kuwait-based firm in exchange for gifts.

Levonda Selph of Virginia admitted accepting $4,000 in cash and a $5,000 vacation to Thailand from the unidentified contractor, which was awarded $12 million in contracts to operate Defense Department warehouses in Iraq. [see below for Selph's link to Thailand]

She pleaded guilty to charges of bribery and conspiracy. She was secretly indicted on those charges in October; the charges weren't disclosed until her court appearance Tuesday.

Under terms of a plea agreement, Selph could receive up to 33 months in jail. She promised to repay the government $9,000 and to cooperate in an ongoing investigation.

Prosecutors said Selph was a lieutenant colonel at Camp Victory in Iraq in 2004 and 2005 when she led a committee that awarded the warehouse contracts.

The Justice Department said she will be free until her sentencing October 14 but will not be allowed to leave the country.

MISSING from that story is the original link between Selph and Petraeus, of course. Missing is the fact that Colonel Ted Westhusing killed himself over these very issues, according to his suicide note, which mentioned Petraeus by name. Think we'll hear anything about that?

UPDATED 8:50 AM - WS:

Now we know why there was a link to Thailand:

In a phone interview from Bangkok, John Hess, who worked as the assistant director of operations for an American-owned company that helped manage supplies for Iraq, said payments to the companies that supplied arms to Iraq were often delayed because of missing DD-250s. He said he believed that the officers had the right motives but used dangerous methods.

“Once those weapons left normal channels,” Mr. Hess said, “none of us were ever sure where they were really going.”

Several co-workers complained about the unorthodox tactics of the two officers, including an accusation that Major Cox, 38, was stealing weapons, Major Isgrigg said. However, federal officials said the officers were not the targets of an investigation.

Even when they managed to get weapons to the Iraqi military, Major Isgrigg said, it was hard for him and Major Cox to feel triumphant. The Iraqi commanders could barely keep track of their troops, much less stocks of new weapons, he said. He estimated that 30 percent of the equipment he and Major Cox delivered went to Iraqi soldiers who showed up for duty one day, and disappeared the next.
“There were times we would issue a batch of weapons and within 10 days they would show up at the Enemy Weapons Purchase Program,” Major Cox, who is on his second tour in Baghdad, wrote by e-mail, referring to a military effort to buy guns from the streets.

“We didn’t always think we were going about things the right way,” said Major Isgrigg, who left Iraq in July. But he said he believed that his actions were necessary, saying of his commanders: “They rushed it. Their goal was to get those units standing as fast as possible, and then to get out of there. There was no planning for the long term.”

As the American military hurried to train and equip Iraqi security forces in the spring of 2004, the Pentagon turned to contractors to operate warehouses to store equipment and weapons.

Mr. Saffar managed an armory on the grounds of the Baghdad Police Academy, which along with a nearby warehouse was operated by an American-owned company based in Kuwait.

In July, the company, American Logistics Services, which later became Lee Dynamics International, was suspended by the Army from doing future business with the government amid accusations that the company paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to military contracting officers. The company had won $11 million in contracts to manage five warehouses with arms and other equipment in Iraq.

The company’s armory, a long concrete building divided into two sections in the back, was a logistics hub for the new Iraqi police. Crates of AK-47s and Glock pistols purchased by the Pentagon were trucked to the armory by armed convoys from a large warehouse at Abu Ghraib, and Mr. Saffar issued them to cadets.

----------------
Yes, ALL of the crooks should be punished. But she gets prison while numerous others go free after building shit-encrusted buildings, a US Embassy complex that is an embarrassment to civilized society, setting up showers that electrocute troops, setting up water distribution facilities that distribute filthy water and shooting up Iraqis left and right?

We can send Colonel Selph to prison for pocketing a few grand but we can't even put Blackwater guards who have shot and killed human beings on trial because they have immunity? Is this a case where someone is going to point to her conviction and go, "see, we caught everyone who was stealing money, and we punished them, so the problem is now solved?" This is like claiming you saved America from terrorism by catching a bunch of guys who couldn't even buy combat boots.

Talk about a problem with your values system. Damn.

TPM Muckraker was ALL OVER this last year:

Commenter:
Nancy wrote on August 30, 2007 5:03 PM:
You are wrong about Joey Selph. You are getting half a story. I am assuming that you have never been in the military or have been some place like Iraq, during a war, with limited resources. If you knew Joey, you would know that she is an outstanding officer with superior morals. She would never and I repeat Never, do anything that was unlawful. She is the most patriotic person that I have ever met. I served underneath her and have only the utmost respect for her. When this is all said and done, you will find, that she did nothing wrong. Wait and see.......

As soon as Nancy, was done, some REAL commenting was done:

Jack the Bear wrote on November 11, 2007 2:14 PM:
LTC Selph is a nasty person. She lived in the ALS mansion in the Green Zone with the very contractor she was overseeing...drinking and carousing and having a big time corrupting good soldiers. Shame on you. Perhaps they will find out about the $5M in shipping containers you bought from Basil without authorization.

Jack the Bear wrote on November 12, 2007 9:42 AM:
Jon,
You must not have really worked for her. I too, worked with her. I predicted, sooner or later, she would pay a high price for her greed and avarice. She trampled and corrupted many a good soldier while she was downrange and now she is paying the piper. She laid up with her KBR/PWC boyfriend and crushed anyone in her way. LTC Davis, her cohort, was just as bad, but I didn't know him that well. Just that they were working hard to ensure ALS had all the warehouse business in theatre locked up. Now I know why they were so keen to back a broken company who couldn't execute. Anytime there is an irrational exuberation about any one contractor for no reason, there is something bad going on. She is no hero, just a skanky zero.

The Truth wrote on November 13, 2007 6:04 AM:
The shame of it all is that General Patreaus' good name is ruined by this "skanky zero". LTC Selph worked for COL Hinton and when ever he tried to control her she would go to her CENTCOM buddies and then to Patreaus spewing things like they are hindering the distrobution of weapons. She would obtain and distribute alcoholic beverages to E-5s and below she also had a co-conspirator in CW3 McPheron who left country under the guise of heart trouble only to return back to Iraq within a month working for Basil who was supposed to provide 20 trucks per day but rarely had more than five but was always paid the full amount. When complaints were made again she would run to her CENTCOM buddies. LTC Patreaus did and is keeping his eyes on the big picture and trusted that officer's would do the right thing.

Jack the Bear wrote on November 13, 2007 9:51 AM:
Truth,
You are correct. GEN Petraeus was busy focusing on the big picture and the "Scarecrow" LTC Selph was busy enriching herself and her cronies. There are other names not mentioned and I can't wait to see the next shoe drop. The KO who signed those sweetheart contracts forcing all incoming equipment into the ALS system had to be government. The stinky Taos weapons buys also had to be awarded by a govie. There will be much more uncovered before this is put to bed. Anyone who tried to manage the Scarecrow got stomped. Too bad for Gen Petraeus and COL Hinton. Two great soldiers whose reputations will be sullied by LTC Selph.

So who's going to ask General Petraeus to comment? Anyone?

Think we'll ever hear back?

This was in my original post, but it has been overtaken by events:
It is a good thing that she was caught, tried, and convicted when the evidence against her was weighed. You can't have crooks running around in Iraq if we're going to be there for a hundred years, obviously. And we can't have crooks who aren't smart enough to actually get paid--I mean, come on. You can save nine grand in a year if you ride the bus and use the generic toilet paper. I'm sorry, but nine grand is chump change for a O-5 deployed to a combat zone for a year.

Let's say she was at 18 years time in service, paid as an O-5, and we'll use the current numbers. Her monthly pay is, TAX FREE, $7,212.00. On top of that, she gets 12 months of imminent danger pay ($225 a month) and 12 months of family separation pay ($250 a month) if she has a family. Her income for one year of service in Iraq, just based on those figures, is approximately $92,200--and I'm not counting housing allowances or anything else. That's just her base pay, imminent danger pay and family separation pay. And she took a bribe on top of that for a measly $9,000? And risked her entire career, her retirement, everything for what amounts to a little more than a month of pay?

I don't know if it's better that we caught a crook or that we got one of Jerry's Kids out of uniform.

I'm not saying that she should have been given a free ride because she, quite clearly, did not hold sway over a whole lot of purchasing power while she was at Camp Victory in 2004-05. It looks to me like she was a very small fish in a much larger pond--full of people who were handling vast sums of money--so much so they needed forklifts to move it--and it looks to me like she was involved in some petty crimes.

Is anyone else spoilin' for a god-damned fight???

If you ain't pissed off enough to skip aerobics this morning, keep reading. I intend to make you mad enough to take to the streets with pitchforks and torches...okay, maybe we'll have to settle for patio Tiki's and garden hoes, but WTF, mate? You get the idea....

The Little Idiot's Splendid Wars™ are costing this country $15.8 Billion dollars...Every. Single. Month.

"This cost of this war is approaching $15 billion a month, with the Army spending $4.2 billion of that every month," Sen. Ted Stevens (Alaska), the ranking Republican on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, said in a little-noticed floor speech Dec. 18. His remarks came in support of adding $70 billion to the omnibus fiscal 2008 spending legislation to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, as well as counterterrorism activities, for the six months from Oct. 1, 2007, through March 31 of next year.

Come March, Dave Petraeus will be back in front of Congress and passing the hat for more money to continue the fruitless occupation of Iraq.

I, for one, am loud and clear about threatening the political lives of all my congressional representatives. (Fuck civility, Mayor Cleaver. I want someone right now with no qualms about deliverin' a knee-cappin' with a hickory stick to the feckless chickenhawk fuckers still backing the biggest cock-up since Suez.)

No more fucking around.

Turn off the god-damned money tap.

Or we, the electorate, will turn off yours.

We are, after all, 70% of the American electorate.

Get the fucking picture yet, Senators and Congressmen?

The aWol motherfucker is as good as gone.

Unless you want to join him, stand the fuck up, right fucking now.

March is coming.

We are watching.

And come November...WE ARE VOTING!!!

Obey Stands Up...Again

Once more, David Obey (D, WI 07) has done what he alone among congress-critters, Democrat or Republican, seems able to do.

He took a principled stand.

The $522 Billion omnibus spending bill that had been scheduled for a House Vote today was held up when Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee Obey announced last night that he would not file it, and recommended the bill be scrutinized and revised before it goes to a floor vote. Obey, clearly disgusted, said he is prepared to cut billions from domestic programs and eliminate all earmarks for home-state spending projects, which congresspersons of both parties are addicted to.

“I’m not in the business of trying to pave the way for $70 billion or $90 billion for Iraq for $10 billion in table scraps,” Obey said. “We asked Bush to compromise. He has chosen to go the confrontation route.”

“I want no linkage what-so-ever between domestic [spending] and the war. I want the war to be dealt with totally on its own. We shouldn’t be trading off domestic priorities for the war.”

In October, you may recall, Obey put a hold on the $190 Billion war supplemental spending bill lusted after by Chimpy McWarPorn, announcing that until there is a definitive change of course where the unholy clusterfuck of Iraq is concerned, there would be no supplemental spending legislation coming out of committee, Nancy and Steny (especially Steny) be damned.

The omnibus bill was the product of weeks of wrangling and back-room wheeling and deakling, and had been an attempt to find some middle ground with the administration, which upon losing the majority in that thumpin' last November got the fiscal responsibility religion and joined a cult with some weird ideas. Bush wanted $10.6 Billion cut from the spending bills passed by the House last summer, while simultaneously addign emergency funds for the State Department and for border security, a pet issue of the Republican party.

Obey is not just directing his anger at the Bush administration, but at his congressional colleagues as well, especially Steny Hoyer, whose comments last week suggested a trade-off was in the works - war funds for domestic spending.

Liberal blogs - this one included - went nuts.

In order for the bill to ratchet down to the spending levels Resident Evil™ would sign would have required cuts that would have effectively frozen many agencies spending levels at 2007 levels. Obey said, in effect, "fuck that notion." Okay - what he really said was “If we’re going to lose we might as well lose with clarity so that people understand who is responsible for those inadequate investments,” the combative Obey said. “And if you take those bills down to the president’s level, it is very hard for me to understand how earmarks can survive. It’s not a threat. It’s a reality. Win or lose, we have to move on,” Obey said. “I don’t want to chew last year’s cud 15 more times. I’m willing to win. I’m willing to lose fair and square. I just want to cut the bull gravy and get to the bottom line.”

Democrats caution that Obey's strident stand is not mere posturing. There is a growing impatience both among the anti-war Democrats in Congress and among constituents in everyones district.

Good for Obey - if there is only one set of stones in Congress, I'm glad they belong to the guy who chairs Appropriations. And I wish the entire Democratic side of the aisle would have breakfast tomorrow from that same box of Wheaties. Maybe if they did, they could truly give aWol what I want to give him for Christmas...a stroke.

Congressional Dems...have you been paying the least bit of attention?

Apparently not.

After weeks of posturing and tough talk, the Congressional Dems are set to bravely cave in to the bloodthirsty jackals of the Republican party.

But cave they will, because if we learned anything from FISA, it is that congressional vacations are sacred and can't be fucked with. Congress getting their sixty-ninth vacation break of the year will take precedence over the will of the people on this, just like it did in August when they simply had to get to the beach, and the hell with the Fourth Amendment.

Here is a sneak-peek at the plot-line for Pelosi's little scene-chewing operetta that will open this week:

• First, the House will pass a version of the omnibus spending bill that will not include any war funding.
• Next, it's to the Senate, where Majority Leader Milquetoast Reid will allow those craven fucks on the repugnant side of the aisle to attach a spending amendment to fund the war. It will have no timelines.
• After the amendment is attached, the bill will go to conference where compromise language for the legislation will be hammered out.
• Finally, Pelosi will allow it to pass quietly - without timelines - probably late on the last day before the Christmas break.

All this disgustingly transparent little ploy will be missing is a balcony and an overwrought anthem bleated out by Madonna.

No, You DON'T Get to Move the Goalposts...

Unbelievable...

Do they really think they're going to get away with denying that they're just moving the goalposts each and every time it looks like they're failing to make any significant progress in Iraq?

From the NY Times:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 — With American military successes outpacing political gains in Iraq, the Bush administration has lowered its expectation of quickly achieving major steps toward unifying the country, including passage of a long-stymied plan to share oil revenues and holding regional elections.

Instead, administration officials say they are focusing their immediate efforts on several more limited but achievable goals in the hope of convincing Iraqis, foreign governments and Americans that progress is being made toward the political breakthroughs that the military campaign of the past 10 months was supposed to promote.

NO MORE MONEY! Make them accept a timetable for withdrawing US Troops and the Webb Amendment, giving service members equal time at home station for time spent deployed in Iraq.

This should go out as a wake-up call to Democrats who want to waffle and flip-flop--we're not only going to demand "better Democrats" but we're going to go after Democrats who cave in and support the administration over the needs of our troops and the overwhelming desire of the American People to end this war.

The US Ambassador had this to say:

Ambassador Crocker drew a distinction between the effectiveness of the American military buildup in quelling violence and the influence the United States could bring to bear at a political level.

“The political stuff does not lend itself to sending out a couple of battalions to help the Iraqi’s pass legislation,” he said.

Still, he said, there were some positive signs that Iraqis were interested in making headway on some thorny issues. Provincial governors, he said, were pressing for a law to define their powers. “We are past the point where it is an American agenda,” the ambassador said. “It is what needs to be done in Iraqi terms.”

I want to see Democrats out there, NOW, calling out the Administration for moving the goalposts. I want to see outrage and indignation. And I want it backed up with votes and with deeds.

Hear that, Presidential candidates?

Meanwhile, Huckleberry Graham sets the stage for the coup that was planned when the surge strategy was announced:

BLITZER: But what happens if they fail to divide up the oil, if they fail to get those elections, they don’t disband all the various militias by the end of the year? Then what does the United States do?

GRAHAM: So I am hopeful that some of these people at the local level will have a stronger voice. And I’m hopeful that Talabani, Maliki, and Hashemi and all the major players can have a breakthrough.

I’m asking them to do things they say are important for their country. The conditions are right now and, quite honestly, if they can’t do it by the end of the year, I have real doubts that this group will ever do it so we need a new political strategy to find a group that can.

WHAT???

"We'll find a group that can?"

I thought we had a law against overthrowing foreign governments. You'd think a sitting US Senator who pretends to know something about the law would know that.

Pardon me while I reset my indignation and outrage meters...

So where do we go from here?

***linked at Salon Blog Report on 25 May 2007

That is the question.

The bill is passed, it will be signed and the war is funded through September.

I am disappointed that the Democrats caved – but for some reason, I keep flashing back to my youth and a saying I first heard all those years ago in Britain…The game isn’t worth the candle.

You have probably never heard that adage, but it basically means “No thanks, I’ll pass on the Pyrrhic victory.” I had not thought of that expression for years, but for some reason, that was the first place my mind went when I saw that the Senate had passed the war funding resolution.

Did the Democrats capitulate; or are they trying to set up the chess board, knowing a checkers man is on the other side? I honestly don’t know what they were thinking. But I can see a couple of plausible reasons for things playing out the way they did.

First of all, we need to remember the hard-fought supplemental should not have even been necessary. That this battle even had to be waged was a final, petulant “fuck you” from the 109^th congress that did not pass a budget before their fired asses schlepped out of the Capitol for the last time, until their triumphant return as lobbyists.

If they had done their job, this drama would never have played out, and that was a Republican, rubber-stamp congress. They did not do the job we paid them to do, so this whole sorry spectacle is a legacy of failed Republican leadership.

Remember that first and foremost, and remind those who forget – or purposely try to dishonestly gloss over that part.

Now let’s get realistic and take stock. The funding resolution that just passed over our objections covers the near-term. It funds the war through September. We are already planning our Memorial Weekend barbecues. Does anyone reading this honestly think that there is not sufficient money in the pipeline already to muddle through the next 16 weeks? (If so, email me about this bridge I’m trying to unload.)

Sixteen weeks is the blink of an eye – but September is magic for a few reasons – not the least of which is that it is also the end of the fiscal year. That, and sixteen weeks is not a hell of a long time to spend debating the funding for the next entire year.

In September, before the next years funding is finalized, General Petraeus will be back before the congress, reporting on the status of the situation on the ground in Iraq.

Does anyone believe that it is going to get better between now and then? Of course not. Between now and then, the number of American dead is going to cross the 4000 mark. The Congress he will appeal to at that time will have a burr under their collective saddle called an angry electorate. And the more dead they bury the angrier they are going to be. September is only 12 weeks from now on the chronological calendar, but on the electoral calendar, September is light years away from now. By then, even entrenched incumbents will be campaigning…

Please don’t misread that as I am willing to use troops as political pawns. I have personally loved too dearly too many of them to ever go down that path – but on that note, Carl von Clausewitz was indisputably right – war is policy by other means. And frankly, in the final analysis of the cold equation – every American in uniform in the volunteer military knows that to be true. It is accepted. We all have our reasons for signing up and signing on. Some are economic, some are idealistic, some are nebulous. But it all clears up pretty quickly once you are in, or that troop is out before the end of boot camp.

I am not absolving anyone of anything, I am just assessing the knowns, and I can see a scenario or two where the Democrats might have looked at the calendar and decided that the game just wasn’t worth the candle.

[Cross-posted from Watching Those We Chose & The Out of Iraq Bloggers Caucus]

An Open Letter to Congressman Cleaver (and every sitting congresscritter, for that fact)

Congressman Cleaver;

I know I am a pain-in-the-ass constituent. I admit that freely - wear it as a badge of honor, in fact.

I am also fed up with this feckless president that has brought our country low. I simply will not abide a congress that enables him. He needs to be impeached, not placated for fucks sake.

I am just a humble-blogger – but I am getting less humble about it every day.

The hell with the press – they are all bought and paid for. We are actually watching you, We are actually reading the policy papers and We are actually writing about your records from the public record. We are unconcerned with “access” because we don’t have any; and for the record - veracity doesn't need a bio (or a byline for that fact).

I issue a friendly warning now – any Representative that backs this apostasy of a funding bill with no timelines – especially in light of the Iraqi parliament backing withdrawal plans with timelines – will face the wrath of the blogs. And any Representative that does not take that seriously is in for a rude awakening.

If this passes the House, there will be an electoral bloodbath in November of 2008, and the carcasses of Republican and Democrat alike will litter the landscape. The way the system is gamed, we are a two-party system, and only a perfect storm of feckless perfidy will change that.

Say hello to Unity 08 and the Progressives.

Check the calendar. It’s storm season.

[Cross-posted from Watching Those We Chose & The Out of Iraq Bloggers Caucus]

It's Mother's Day - let's play the analogy game...

It’s Mother’s Day, so I’ll work in a gratuitous anecdote about childrearing. I raised three, and my husband’s commitment to the USAF meant that a great deal of that time I was essentially a single parent.

I had neither the time nor the inclination to brook foolishness. When they held their breath, I let them. The middle one actually passed out once – and promptly started breathing again. Every time the Useless Tool™ threatens a veto of the funding supplemental, I think about my daughter trying to throw a hissy-fit at the queen of the fit-throwers, and ending up passed out in the kitchen and getting stepped over as I continued to make dinner.

There is another oldie-but-goodie from my childrearing days: Whenever a kid was having a terrible, horrible, no-good, very-bad day, stomping around with a little black rain cloud overhead and generally being a pain, I would pull that kid aside and remind them that if you have a problem with everyone, and everyone has a problem with you, the chances are overwhelming that you (being the only common denominator) are the problem. (That one really rings true when we are talking about the Resident, doesn’t it?)

Today’s Washington Post has a comprehensive article on the status of the interactions between the White House and the real Deciders in Congress. This bit, from an unnamed Republican jumped out at me (especially in light of last weeks trip to the Oval by a disgruntled group of GOP congresscritters with a nervous eye cast toward ’08.)

The trouble for the White House is that increasingly, the mistrust may not be not limited to Democrats. As evidenced by a contentious Bush meeting last week with House moderates complaining about Iraq policy, Republican lawmakers are increasingly leery of a president whose war policies many believe are leading the party to ruin in the 2008 elections. The result is that the president finds himself in an uphill struggle not only to win a few domestic victories on his way out of the Oval Office but also to maintain necessary GOP support for continuing the war in Iraq. (emphasis added)

Joshua Bolton, the Resident’s Chief of Staff predictably downplayed the discord. "I could have seen a scenario in which Republicans would be blaming the president for being in the minority status and trying to distance themselves aggressively from the president, and I don't see it happening," he said.

Methinks Mr. Bolton might be spinning it just a tad – (okay, he's spinning it hard enough to make cotton candy.)

From the same article:

But one conservative House Republican with close ties to the leadership said the concerns expressed by the congressmen in the meeting were widely shared across ideologies. "That wasn't the Tuesday Group speaking," he said, referring to an organization of moderate GOP legislators. "No, that's the Republican sentiment."

It isn’t just the RINO’s that are bristling. The reality of November 7 is sinking in to quite a few of our legislators.

And hopefully that awakening is reaching the executive branch as well…

White House officials acknowledge that they are trying to make up for lost time with Democrats and are looking for any angle, however unconventional. When Rep. John P. Murtha Jr. (D-Pa.), among the most prominent and outspoken Democratic war critics, showed up at a recent meeting with national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, Cheney stopped by. The two men had worked closely during the Persian Gulf War, when Cheney was secretary of defense and Murtha was the top House Democrat on defense spending issues. Cheney seemed to want to question Murtha on what the Democrats were planning with the then-upcoming vote on war funding.

"I just told them where I was, what I was going to try to do, how I felt about the war -- that I didn't think we could win it," Murtha said in an interview, adding that he told Cheney that House Democrats would pass a tough spending bill with benchmarks and conditions on the war. "I don't think he believed we were going to pass the legislation."

But pass it they did, and when the Useless Tool™ vetoed it, they came back like there was a Mother in charge and passed a more restrictive bill for funding. (I’ve said it before, and I will say it again – he should have to ask my mother for the money he wants.)

After the Veto, another invitation was extended to congressional leaders for a meeting, and the operative thinking was that they would begin negotiations on the next bill. They assumed wrong, and the Resident was taken aback, left slack-jawed and dumb-founded (although to be fair, that is not much of a stretch.)

But according to several sources familiar with the meeting, Pelosi made it clear that House leaders would not engage in serious negotiations with the White House until after another bill passed and moved to a conference committee with the Senate.

Sounds to me like someone get sent to their room with no dessert and no tv, and now has to think about what they have done.

Too bad that approach is being tried half a freakin’ century too late.

We'll see your veto and raise...

The Democratic Congress saw the Resident’s recent veto of the war funding resolution and raised the bet by passing an even more restrictive package last night; one that only funds the short term and would require the Useless Tool™ to return to Congress and justify further funding in approximately 60 days.

Another veto is promised, but Congress remained steadfast and defiant, passing the legislation 221 to 205.

Now the Senate must pass a place-holder bill and then committees from each chamber will get together and hammer out the final language of the bill that will be presented to the president.

I gotta admit – the Mom in me is getting a thrill in watching the Congress check the chump. When my kids screwed up, they lost something they had or they didn’t get something they wanted. When the first veto was affixed – on Mission Accomplished Day, no less – I said that every future bill should be more and more restrictive.

I said a while back that he should have to ask my mother for the money to fund this fuck-up. And while he’s at it, he should just try telling her that it’s gonna be his way or not at all. She would put her wallet away and say “fine.” And the discussion would be over. Continue to quibble and find yourself performing some unpleasant task. (I always suspected she kept one in reserve to make a point.)

What I found really interesting was the separate bill to mandate withdrawal of all combat forces from Iraq that failed.

Democrats mustered 171 votes for far tougher legislation that would all but end U.S. military involvement in Iraq within nine months. The 255 to 171 vote against that measure meant that nowhere close to a majority backed it, but the fact that 169 Democrats and two Republicans voted for it surprised opponents and proponents alike.

"I didn't think I was going to get anywhere near 171 votes," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), the withdrawal bill's chief author. "This is proof that the United States Congress is getting closer to where the American people already are."

The American people are not going to suddenly, at some point over the summer, have an epiphany and rally support for a failed war effort, launched on lies for the vainglorious ego-fluffing of a small, pathetic failed man with Daddy Issues.

That 171 number is like the number of casualties and war dead – it can only go one way.

Iraqi Lawmakers endorse US Withdrawal

A majority of Iraqi lawmakers today took up their own legislation calling for timelines and benchmarks for the withdrawal of the forces occupying that country.

BAGHDAD - A majority of Iraqi lawmakers have endorsed a bill calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops and demanding a freeze on the number of foreign troops already in the country, lawmakers said Thursday.

The legislation was being debated even as U.S. lawmakers were locked in a dispute with the White House over their call to start reducing the size of the U.S. force here in the coming months.

The Iraqi bill, drafted by a parliamentary bloc loyal to anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, was signed by 144 members of the 275-member house, according to Nassar al-Rubaie, the leader of the Sadrist bloc.

The Sadrist bloc, which sees the U.S.-led forces as an occupying army, has pushed similar bills before, but this was the first time it had garnered the support of a majority of lawmakers.

Time to consult our programs…

• We have our own congress demanding accountability as a condition to keep funding this fuck-up.

• We have the Iraqi Parliament taking up legislation that would put an end-date on the occupation.

• We have General Petraeus, the supreme allied commander in Iraq, downplaying expectations of what might constitute success, and stating publicly that the solution is not going to be military, it will be political.

• We have a Useless Tool™ “Commander Guy” in the Oval office wagging his veto pen at every funding bill that isn’t a blank check – insisting he is willing to compromise, so long as he gets his way on everything and everyone else can go pound sand.

• And just for good measure, we had a natural disaster at home last week that pointed up perfectly that the nations ability to protect the homefront is compromised by the war in Iraq to a frightening degree..

We, the People, must contact our congressional representatives and tell them we support timelines and benchmarks and an end to this senseless war. Tell Congress not to cave in to George Bush. He has been wrong about everything where this mess is concerned, shows no sign of ever being right about anything, and should be impeached, indicted and probably hung.

Cave in to him and you are as worthiless and corrupt as he is, and the whole lot of you can look for new jobs together in January 2009.

General Distrust, General Disgust

General Batiste does not need my help. He says it just fine all on his own.

Watch it. In 30 seconds, he holds both the Resident and the Congress accountable.

The Final Friedman?

Are you sick of “six more months” and “corners” where the turning is always imminent but never quite happens? Or worse still - when a corner is turned, it puts us in the middle of the Sharafiya Bridge?

Emboldened by public support, Democrats are taking a firm stand against the Resident and are holding tight to the purse strings. He ain’t getting what he wants.

As Democrats gain strength, the Republicans are cracking.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who has taken a hard line in Bush's favor, said Sunday, "By the time we get to September, October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B."

Ah, September…End of the federal fiscal year…The Bureaucrats New Years Eve. Any ventures wanting continued funding are peddling their wares in September. The war will be no different.

But this year is different. We, the People, are kind of a pain in the ass when we get riled, like we are now. Every single one of 435 Congressmen and 1/3 of 100 Senators are running for re-election on what happens by September.

But the new proposal's momentum in the House underscores just how quickly time may be running out on a war that is hemorrhaging political support.

"There were always two debates in the debate over timelines to end the war," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.). "George W. Bush is hellbent on January 20, 2009, when he walks out of the door, leaving a box stamped 'Iraq' for the next president. The Republicans are hellbent on not going through the next election with Iraq tied to their ankles. All Boehner said publicly was what Republicans have been saying privately for months."

Democrats are ready to rush that process. The new House proposal would immediately provide about $43 billion of the $95.5 billion the administration says it needs to keep the war going through Sept. 30. That infusion would come with language establishing benchmarks of success for the Iraqi government, and it is likely to include tougher standards for resting, training and equipping troops. Binding timelines for troop withdrawals would be dropped to try to win Republican support and avoid a second veto.

The remaining $52.5 billion in the bill would be contingent on a second vote in late July, after the administration's progress report.

That bill Bush vetoed is likely to start looking real good to him in hindsight once this gets ginned up proper.

Long, hot summer anyone?

So Veto it, Bitch!

.

The Senate passed the Supplemental today, brushing aside threats of a veto and mountains of stale rhetoric and presidential pissing and moaning about Democrats determined to set a “date certain for surrender."

The Dems kinda shrugged and said “Whatever” like a parent ignoring a toddlers temper tantrum. (When my kids screamed "I hate you!" after I had the audacity to set limits and enforce them, I calmly responded "Good. That means I'm doing my job." Same principle applies here.)

From the Blue Dog conservatives to the progressive left, the Democrats said “No” with one voice to Bush's demand for war money with no policy strings attached. "He's not getting what he wants," said Rep. Dennis Cardoza (Calif.), a conservative "Blue Dog" Democrat. (emphasis mine)

The bill will get to Bush on Monday – and Tuesday will be the fourth anniversary of the farcical dog-and-pony-show on the flight deck of the Abraham Lincoln. You remember Mission Accomplished, right? (I’m guessing he doesn’t whip out the 'ole veto pen before Wednesday.)

Behind the scenes, the talks on the next version have already started, but Democrats are not willing to give any more ground than Bush. House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) said yesterday that putting the force of law behind benchmarks has always been an issue that has divided congressional Republicans from the White House -- making it a potential wedge to push next week.

The bill passed yesterday sets strict requirements for resting, training and equipping troops but would grant the president the authority to waive those restrictions, as long as he publicly justifies the waivers. The bill also establishes benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet: Create a program to disarm militias, reduce sectarian violence, ease rules that purged the government of all former Baath Party members and approve a law on sharing oil revenue.

Unless the Bush administration determines by July 1 that those benchmarks are being met, troops would begin coming home immediately, with a goal of completing those withdrawals by the end of the year. If benchmarks are being met, troops would begin coming home no later than Oct. 1, with a goal of completing the troop pullout by April 1.

As the president commences the wailing and gnashing of teeth over being told “No” the Democrats are getting their act together and going on the offense. Democratic leaders in Congress are working in concert with Liberal organizations and planning hundreds of rallies, meet-ups and news conferences to protest the coming veto. Americans Against Escalation in Iraq is organizing what it anticipates – and fervently hopes - will be a historically large outpouring of sentiment against the Iraq war within hours of the anticipated veto. Planned events include news conferences just after the veto and "signature rallies" -- some of which could draw thousands of people -- the following day in about 50 places represented by fence-sitting Republicans lawmakers.

I, for one, am positively spoiling for this fight. I want to see this newfound backbone and resolve calcify and become a permanent fixture of the Democrats and obstacle to the Republican perfidy, malfeasance and flat-out hackery that have been the hallmark of the last six years.

[--Cross-posted from Watching Those We Chose]