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]

Does John Boehner know how to spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y?

Back in 1993, as the situation in Somalia (which Bush 41 saddled Clinton with, by the way) John Boehner cast numerous votes opposing deployment of troops to Somalia, and even backed a six-month timeline for withdrawal of forces.

Times change, I guess. Boehner now attacks those who take the exact same tack he did then as "defeatists" who want to set a "date certain for surrender."

Boehner, however takes it to a new level - In spite of his public record of opposing Somali intervention, he had the audacity to say yesterday that we can't bail on Iraq "just like we did in Somalia."

Watch it:

Details on Boehner’s Somalia votes below:

Boehner voted to reduce troop timeline in Somalia from one year to six months: “Gilman, R-N.Y., substitute amendment to reduce from one year to six months the authorization of U.S. participation in Somalia and delete the section of the bill complying with the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (PL 93-148).” (House roll call vote #179, 5/25/93)

Boehner voted to move up the deadline to bring troops home from Somalia: “Gilman, R-N.Y., amendment to change the deadline for the removal of U.S. troops in Somalia from March 31, 1994, to Jan. 31, 1994.” (House roll call vote #555, 11/9/93)

Boehner voted against $1.8 billion in funding for the operation in Somalia: “Passage of the bill to provide $1.8 billion in new budget authority in fiscal 1993, including funds for Operation Restore Hope in Somalia.” (House roll call vote #188, 5/26/93)

(Hat tip to Think Progress for the legwork on the voting record and for posting the video for me to steal.)

On to the Senate

The House of Representatives has approved the Supplemental, and now the legislation moves on to the Senate where it is expected to pass tomorrow.

It is expected to reach the president on Monday – one day before the fourth anniversary of him standing on the flight deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln in front of the “Mission Accomplished” banner and declaring major combat operations over.

Since the mission was ostensibly accomplished, more than 3100 more Americans have lost their lives.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I am frankly offended at the audacity of demanding yet another blank check. It is simply jaw-dropping to me that they would have the stones to suggest they should have all the money they want and by the way, the people who have been wrong about everything, think we should just give them what they want with no strings attached?!?!?!?!? In fact, they would rather take nothing than be accountable?

What. The. Hell.?

Veto it George, you spoiled brat. When it comes back, the Appropriations Committees need to take a fresh look at it too. In fact, they need to go over every penny of it, line-by-line. Especially since we learned this week that half of the $94 Billion you asked for is to be used for other GWOT^® stuff and is basically an end-run around congressional oversight of that spending.

So yeah, veto it. We want you to veto it. We are feeling our Wheaties, George. Get that pen out, and veto the damned thing. Veto it the week of the anniversary of Chimpy McCodpiece and the “Mission Accomplished” banner.

I hope Congress is spoilin’ for a fight to the same degree I am. I am so far beyond “had it” it isn’t even funny.

.
[--Crossposted from Watching Those We Chose]

Language on the Supplemental Resolved

Negotiators from the House of Representatives and the Senate have finished hammering out a compromise agreement on the Supplemental War Spending Bill.

The legislation establishes benchmarks for the government of Iraq, and includes measurable progress in the development of Iraqi security forces. It would also give U.S. soldiers and Marines more authority to pursue extremists and wuld establish a program to disarm militias and pursue political reconciliation between the sects and protect minority rights.

If the benchmarks are not being met, troop withdrawals would start on 01 July of this year, with a goal of completing the draw-down in 180 days. If benchmarks are beign met, then withdrawal would start on 01 October, also with a goal of completing the draw-down in 180 days.

The current language must be ratified by both chambers of the congress and then it will go to the president for either a signature or a veto.

The president has promised a veto as he is allergic to any form of accountability.

Bush "is the only person who fails to face this war's reality -- and that failure is devastating not just for Iraq's future, but for ours," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) declared in a speech this afternoon.

Bush has repeatedly vowed he will not sign any bill with benchmarks or timetables, and he repeated himself today on that assertion in brief comments to reporters followign a meeting with General Petraeus. "I will strongly reject an artificial timetable [for] withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job," Bush said.

Here is hoping the Democrats retain this newfound backbone and make him accept accountability. It's high time. He's sixty years old, and most of us start to develop a modicum of it by age six.


[Cross-posted from Watching Those We Chose]

Sure would be nice to have a "Plan B" about now...

.

[Shameless self promotion alert: This was cross-posted to Watching Those We Chose, and from there it was linked at the Salon Blog Report.]

On Sunday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced that construction of the “wall” around the Adhamiya neighborhood would stop, saying it was too reminiscent of “other walls.”

He did not elaborate, but he did not need to. The reference to the fence separating Israelis and Palestinians was obvious. “I oppose the building of the wall and its construction will stop,” Mr. Maliki told reporters during a joint news conference with the secretary general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa. “There are other methods to protect neighborhoods.”

Meantime, the messages coming from the American command. were in disarray. Lt. Colonel Christopher Garver declined to verify whether construction would continue or not, stating that the military remained “in dialogue” with the Maliki government. At the same time, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV was backing away from the “concrete caterpillar” as fast as he could, practically denying the idea was ever more than that – an idea. “The military does not have a new strategy of building walls or creating gated communities.”

(Yet last week it was all the rage...)

The fact is, sequestration of neighborhoods was reported in the LA Times in January; but it actually goes back to Vietnam and the idea of “Strategic Hamlets” – a notion that failed miserably then, too, by the way. (The only example I can come up with of it actually working was the British in Malaysia, but talk to a sociologist about the dynamics that made it possible there that do not exist in Iraq).

Opposition to the wall has gathered steam since the American military announced it, and on Sunday both Sunni Arab and Shiite groups sharply criticized the idea. The Sunni Arab Iraqi Islamic Party and the Shiite group linked to the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr both announced that they opposed dividing Baghdad by sect. In sharp statements, they said the wall would increase sectarian hatred and fuel efforts to partition the country.

“Surrounding areas of the capital with barbed wire and concrete blocks would harm these areas economically and socially,” the Islamic Party said in a statement sent by e-mail to news organizations.

“In addition it will enhance sectarian feelings. This will cause great damage to the neighborhood’s residents and have a negative effect on these areas instead of solving problems. It will deepen the gap between the people and encourage sectarianism.”

Abu Firas al-Mutairi, a representative of the Sadr movement in Najaf, said: “The Sadr movement considers building a wall around al-Adhamiya as a way to lay siege to the Iraqi people and to separate them into cantons. It is like the Berlin Wall that divided Germany.”

“This step is the first step toward dividing the regions into cantons and blockading people there,” he added. “Today it happens in Adhamiya. Tomorrow it will happen in Sadr City,” the Shiite slum in Baghdad that is a stronghold of Mr. Sadr.

There is a great deal of disarray amid the chaos these days, it seems. Things appear to be coming to a head. The dynamics are shifting perceptibly. Every new day unleashes fresh horrors. As American men and materiel are wearing out in the desert, the insurgents adapt. They gain strength and strategic skill. I’m sorry, but I can’t see any scenario in which the situation improves and Americans are still in the country.

The congress needs to hold firm and refuse to authorize any more funding without an exit strategy.

For the love of Mike, the way the sands are shifting it makes absolutely no sense to pour more blood and treasure into this mess without binding conditions. I'm frankly offended that they would even dare to ask for such a thing! I mean really, aren't you the least bit offended at the insistence on a blank check when they haven't gotten one thing right so far? What the hell?

Enough is enough. Deal with the fact that we aren’t going to win because that isn’t even an option. Stop with the sacrifice of young men and women on the altar of Bush’s vanity. The refusal of the president to deal with reality is costing a lot of deaths among young Americans. They are constituents of the members of Congress. It is time they serve them and bring an end to this madness. Let the 30% who are never going to come around anyway continue their shouting down the well of delusion. Is trying to placate those people enough reason to continue the escalated death of Americans? I don’t think so. They are unreachable. Write them off and move on. We have to stop the war without them. They are going to yammer on no matter what. They are still yammering about Vietnam, for crying out loud. you think there is any possible way they won't do the same damned thing this time? I don't. Not if their past work is any indication.

For those who have to tell themselves that something was "won," fine. Here’s your chance to declare victory and go home. Please take it.

Thank Mr. Maliki for standing up and telling the military “No.” Then roll up your gear, and get the fuck out.

So who is going to blink first?

.

As they seek to reconcile two versions of the spending resolution to fund Bush’s not-so-excellent adventure, Senate Democrats are looking at making timelines and benchmarks “advisory” rather than binding.

They are also considering giving Bush the authority to waive troop readiness standards.

Sounds to me like they are folding like a bunch of cheap suits. Their compromise will cost them dearly with the staunchly anti-war members of the party, but will likely pick up some Republican support.

Bush claims he will veto any legislation that isn’t 100% to his liking, and insists he will never compromise. Timelines, to his way of – ahem – thinking – ahem – are a “date to surrender” you see. (Never mind that American forces are viewed as occupiers, and are caught in the crossfire.)

The haggling between congressional Democrats came as their leaders met at the White House with Bush to try to hash out their dispute. Both sides termed it a polite, productive meeting in which they restated their positions but emerged without an agreement. Democrats promised to send Bush their bill next week.

"We believe he must search his soul, his conscience, and decide what is best for the American people," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters on the White House driveway. "I believe signing the bill is that."

White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino said later that Bush has not changed his mind. But she expressed optimism that after a veto, Democrats would pass legislation without conditions to provide $100 billion to continue operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "It was clear that ultimately there will be a bill that can fund the troops, that the troops will get the funds they need," Perino said.

It is, of course, brinksmanship, pure and simple. This is all positioning for the post veto phase of the process. One Democrat was reported to have said that Congress might pass a 60-day spending bill, without conditions and continue the debate on the supplemental. . Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) said Democrats are treating June 1 as the final deadline for passage of a war-funding bill that would not be vetoed.

Bush offered platitudes, assuring the congressional leaders that he believes in benchmarks and has been pressing Iraqi leaders to meet them, he just doesn’t want them to be binding or anything he has to live up to. Democrats want to make the benchmarks binding.

Democrats were quick to cite Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who told reporters traveling with him in the Middle East yesterday that demands for withdrawal have been constructive. "The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact . . . in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment," Gates said.

When the House convenes tomorrow, Speaker Pelosi will have quite a task on her hands keeping the Democratic caucus together.

.

Lots of sound and fury...

...emanating from the president.

Signifying nothing, of course.

For all his chest-thumping about vetoes and the vital objective of funding the troops, even as congress was out of town for the Easter recess - the president - unopposed - as in all by himself - managed to lose support among the American people. (Poll data here)

Bush used a backdrop of military families to declare: "We should not legislate defeat in this vital war." Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), flanked by retired Army generals, fired back, "The president and the vice president continue to desperately cling to their failed escalation strategy and attack those who disagree with them."

Democrats appear to be standing on firm political ground, as they work toward a final bill. A Washington Post-ABC News poll of 1,141 adults, conducted April 12-15, found that 58 percent trusted the Democrats in Congress to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq, compared with 33 percent who trusted Bush.

If this were an ordinary day, the cliff crumbling from beneath the elephant would be getting a lot more attention...

Flailing Pitifully

I am saddened by the desperate demise of Senator McCain. It is depressing to watch a once-respected man turn into a caricature of himself as he desperately attempts to resuscitate the fervor for a failed war that should never have been launched.

His rantings have become increasingly unhinged, distanced from reality and strident in affect. When the house voted to attach conditions to the allocation of further war-funding, McCain edged further round the bend.

"I watched with regret as the House of Representatives voted to deny our troops the support necessary to carry out their new mission," McCain said. "Democratic leaders smiled and cheered as the last votes were counted. What were they celebrating? Defeat? Surrender? In Iraq, only our enemies were cheering."

Give. Me. A. Fucking. Break.

Just as America can’t win another countries civil war, they also can’t surrender. All an occupier can do is leave. Insisting otherwise is either stupid, stubborn, or stupidly stubborn.

Jim Webb was not in any more of a mood to trifle with the senile senator than I might have been. He wasted no time shooting back forcefully and vigorously.

I’m disappointed in John McCain. I’ve known him for many years. The day before we began the debate on the Iraq bills, he pulled me aside on the Senate floor and said, ‘Jim, we do not want the situation we had in the Vietnam War. We do not want one side impugning the patriotism of the other side,’ and John McCain has been doing this consistently since that time. I don’t believe that it is in anybody’s interest for members of the Senate to be impugning the other side’s patriotism, or by the way, to be hiding behind the troops as political justification for what we’re doing.

Admiral, I am disappointed too. And embarrassed. Every time I see him doddering about, using the tricks of Castro and Breshnev before him (like walking a short distance briskly, then immediately crumpling to rest when he thinks the cameras are off) to appear able and sound when he so obviously is not…I simply want to weep for a man I never agreed with, but at least respected.

At what cost?

George Bush is going all-out on the war funding issue, because he is desperate to keep the killing on pace for another 21 months – long enough for him to slink off back to Texas and bluster that Iraq wasn’t lost on his watch, and then he can set about re-writing the history of his failed presidency on a Big Chief tablet with a fat pencil. January 20, 2009 is the scheduled date for the end of an error - unless we just throw his ass out now, and I'm all for that notion...

Whatever avenue the next occupant takes to the Oval, the next president will be the one charged with making the tough decisions that will have to be made to end it.

Make no mistake – aWol is not escalating the war in a last-ditch effort to salvage victory. There is no victory to salvage. The troop escalation that is currently underway is not a strategy for the elusive *victory* that is unachievable. Sending troops into violent sectors of the city is merely relocating the violence.

Yesterday, it relocated to the Green Zone.

There is no victory to be had when the only thing the warring factions in Iraq can agree on is that killing Americans is a top-notch notion, and a game the whole family can enjoy.

In March, more American soldiers were killed than Iraqi soldiers.

What bush is looking for now is not victory. Instead, what he seeks is a petticoat to hide beneath. He hopes it will provide enough cover that he can launch a few salvos at *defeatocrats* from that vantage. He pathologically clings to the desperate meme that “Iraq won’t be lost on his watch” in a thin, reedy wheeze.

The only hope he has of achieving that end is a showdown with the newly seated Democratic Congress.

But those who will pay with their most precious coin are the American troops and their families. Specifically, the Soldiers of the United States Army, who on Wednesday learned that their deployments will be extended to 15 months from 12 months – effective immediately.

The Army National Guard is being likewise exploited. Four Guard brigades got word last week that they would be redeploying, even though the contract they signed when they enlisted limited the time they could be deployed. Need troops? Change the rules. They won’t mind…

Let’s clarify something – I don’t give a tinker's damn who fathered Anna Nicole’s whelp. I don’t care who got booted from American Idol. I’m always glad when a pig like Imus gets told to grab his ankles and take it for a change, but on balance, none of that registers on my radar.

I care about the 3300 who have died for lies. I care about the 50,000 who have been wounded. I care about the families that have been left behind, and the children who are growing up with parents deployed.

What will be achieved if this clusterfuck continues for two more years? Thousands more dead? Tens of thousands more wounded? How many more dead American, war orphans, destroyed marriages and damaged psyches is this small, vapid little man willing to sacrifice at the alter of his *legacy* in history?

When you are a delusional sumbitch like aWol…

.

…negotiation means you all can come on up and listen to me tell you how it’s gonna be, see?

The president is in high dudgeon.

The Democrats are standing up to him on the war funding issue, and it is not setting well. Not wetting well at all. He has become increasingly shrill, going so far as to threaten the safety and well-being of the troops in the field.

Bush warned today that Congress's refusal to give him a "clean bill" without the timetables and the domestic spending will have "consequences." He said the military will shortly notify Congress that it will be "forced to transfer $1.6 billion from other military accounts to cover the shortfall" in war funding, taking money from "personnel accounts" and programs that affect readiness.

“The bottom line is this,” Mr. Bush said. “Congress’s failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated. This is unacceptable.”

What is unacceptable, of course, is a president who wishes to subvert the will of the American people - who have had enough (except for the 25% hard-core war-hawks - who ain't fighting it by the way - and I could not possibly care less what these delusional stateside Schmendrick's think) the American people overwhelmingly support attaching benchmarks and timelines to further funding of the Iraq clusterfuck - But the Pinocchio president thinks he can just go on ahead and do whatever the hell he wants.

Congressional leaders are welcome to come to a meeting with him and listen to him tell them how it’s going to be, but discussion or compromise? Not a chance.

Meanwhile, the Senate was not chastened in the least. In fact, former golden-gloves boxer Harry Reid was scathing in his response to the presidents latest pedantic outburst. “We are speaking for the American people,” Mr. Reid said at a Capitol news conference. “He isn’t.”

“Democrats are united in our commitment to fully fund our troops on the ground in Iraq and here at home,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader. “But we are also determined to provide our troops a strategy for success in Iraq, which President Bush has failed to do from the very start of this war over four years ago.”

Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin and several other Senate Democrats, meantime, appeared more than willing to one-up the lame duck, stating that if the president does veto a bill with a timetable, they will push for legislation cutting off most money for the Iraq war on March 31, 2008.

“Since the president refuses to change his failed Iraq policy, that responsibility falls on Congress,” Mr. Feingold said in a statement.

Dick Keeps His Hatred and Anger Focused

The vice president lashed out like a wounded animal yesterday, denouncing the Democratic House of Representatives war funding resolution, which carries a withdrawal date.

"They're not supporting the troops. They're undermining them," Cheney told a gathering of the Republican Jewish Coalition at the oceanside Ritz-Carlton hotel in Manalapan, Fla., about 60 miles north of Miami. He also said it was a myth that "one can support the troops without giving them the tools and reinforcements they need to carry out their mission."

(I would remind one and all that the Republicans in congress were singing from a different page of the hymnal when President Clinton intervened in Kosovo to stop a genocide.)

But since he brought up supporting the troops, what the hell? I'll play.

• How freakin’ supportive of them was it to start a war with lies?

• How supportive was it to send troops into battle with inadequate armor, both body and vehicle?

• How supportive of them is it to send wounded troops back to battle who have not healed?

• How supportive was it to dismiss the Generals who spoke up early with opinions that ran counter to what the architects of this clusterfuck wanted to hear?

• How supportive was it when Rumsfeld was using a signature machine to sign the letters to the families of the fallen?

• How supportive was it to half-ass the job and cause half of the casualties because the ammo dumps weren’t secured?

You want I should go on? I mean, I could do this all day and not deplete my reservoir of examples of mendacity on the part of the Bush war machine. So are you hip yet to the fact you've been had, or are you still ridin' the short bus?

No, Dick. Mr. five-deferments, other priorities chickenhawk, do not presume to tell us how we don’t support the troops, you fetid, cowardly piece of human offal. Fucking resign for health reasons already.

Making the way for Vice President Powell?