Upperdownvote

What's good for the House is good for the Senate:

Senate Democratic leaders abruptly switched course in the Iraq war debate today, shelving a complicated non-binding resolution that has run into procedural hurdles, in favor of a House version that simply states Congress's objections to President Bush's troop escalation plan.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) this afternoon announced that the Senate would take a rare Saturday vote on whether to consider the House resolution, which is expected to pass that chamber Friday, with some Republican support [...]

"We are determined to give our troops and the American people the debate they deserve," Reid said.

In particular, Democrats are calling the bluff of a group of Republican senators who oppose the escalation, but who joined with their GOP leadership to block the earlier Democratic-led resolution from coming to a vote, in an effort to force Democrats to allow a pro-administration measure to be offered.

Kitchen sink strategy, baby. The Republicans that blocked debate in the Senate the first time, then wrote a whiny letter claiming they wanted debate, have nowhere to run to now. And if this clears the first legislative hurdle (the motion to debate), Reid's going to CANCEL a weeklong recess to give full debate and finish the vote.

Meanwhile, Jack Murtha has another spigot of the kitchen sink ready to launch.

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.

The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable [...]

Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That's a standard Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet.

In addition, Murtha, acting with the backing of the House Democratic leadership, will seek to limit the time and number of deployments by soldiers, Marines and National Guard units to Iraq, making it tougher for Pentagon officials to find the troops to replace units that are scheduled to rotate out of the country. Additional funding restrictions are also being considered by Murtha, such as prohibiting the creation of U.S. military bases inside Iraq, dismantling the notorious Abu Ghraib prison and closing the American detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"There's a D-Day coming in here, and it's going to start with the supplemental and finish with the '08 [defense] budget," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, who chairs the Air and Land Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee.

(thanks for the shout-out, Rep. Abercrombie.)

So on the one side you've got resolutions where every member of Congress has to take a stand on the escalation. Then Rep. Murtha craftily uses the defense budget to make sure only fully trained and equipped troops are sent out into the field (which means none of them will be going) and that this forced indentured servitude of multiple deployments stopped. Then you have street actions and public pressure and veterans speaking out (including getting tossed out of Idaho Sen. Craig's office) and Presidential candidates forced to clarify their war position or risk being swept off the stage. All these things are happening and it's very fluid.

It's crucial because this war has ceased to be the main focus in the Administration's mind, and is now just the bridge to the next war:

So the administration has always had it in for the Iranian regime. Now, let’s do an O. J. Simpson: if you were determined to start a war with Iran, how would you do it?

First, you’d set up a special intelligence unit to cook up rationales for war. A good model would be the Pentagon’s now-infamous Office of Special Plans, led by Abram Shulsky, that helped sell the Iraq war with false claims about links to Al Qaeda....

Next, you’d go for a repeat of the highly successful strategy by which scare stories about the Iraqi threat were disseminated to the public.

This time, however, the assertions wouldn’t be about W.M.D.; they’d be that Iranian actions are endangering U.S. forces in Iraq. Why? Because there’s no way Congress will approve another war resolution. But if you can claim that Iran is doing evil in Iraq, you can assert that you don’t need authorization to attack — that Congress has already empowered the administration to do whatever is necessary to stabilize Iraq. And by the time the lawyers are finished arguing — well, the war would be in full swing.

That's why we need as many votes as possible, and as much pressure as possible, and as much budgetary riders as possible. This war will only stop, and by association the next war will never start, without everyone contributing to the effort.