The Iraq 4-Evah Fallout

I didn't watch the President's address but it appears from the reviews in the media that he used the word "success" charitably. As in "Return on Success"! Look, he can declare victory and get out all day long. I won't even notice that there is no victory, as long as the "get out" part happens. But he's trying to snooker the American people into thinking the end of the surge represented some kind of progress rather than... the end of the surge, forced by troop rotations and a desire not to completely destroy the military.

Jack Reed was pretty combative in his response, challenging the President on that point and highlighting the real news in the speech, that the President would keep a permanent force in Iraq well beyond his presidency similar to the US presence in Korea, despite how flawed that parallel is to Iraq. He said that "an endless and unlimited military presence in Iraq is not an option," and also:

"Do we continue to heed the president's call that all Iraq needs is more time, more money and the indefinite presence of 130,000 American troops - the same number as nine months ago?" the senator asked. "Or do we follow what is in our nation's best interest and redefine our mission in Iraq?"

Reed criticized the president for spending $10 billion a month in Iraq while saying that there isn't enough funding for veterans and children's health care.

Democrats were said by Reed to have a quick and responsible strategy to bring troops home, fight terrorism and train the Iraqi army with an emphasis on diplomacy. He said the focus should be on fighting al-Qaeda and other terrorists, not on Iraq.

And John Edwards bought two minutes of airtime to offer a strong rebuke.

Unfortunately, the president is pressing on with the only strategy he has ever had - more time, more troops, and more war.

In January, after years of evidence that military actions cannot force a political solution, the president announced a military surge to force a political solution. In May, he vetoed a plan to end the war, demanded more time to show the surge could work, and Congress gave it to him. Now, after General Petraeus reports the surge has produced no progress toward a political solution, what does the president want? More time for the surge to work, when we know it won't.

Our troops are stuck between a president without a plan to succeed and a Congress without the courage to bring them home.

But Congress must answer to the American people. Tell Congress you know the truth - they have the power to end this war and you expect them to use it. When the president asks for more money and more time, Congress needs to tell him he only gets one choice: a firm timeline for withdrawal.

No timeline, no funding. No excuses.

It is time to end this war.

All of the Presidentials made strong statements of opposition. Idiots like Fred Hiatt are endorsing Bush's stay the course policy, which is a sure sign to know it's a disastrous idea. In fact the White House's own report on progress shows even less than there was in July.

A new White House report on Iraq shows slim progress, moving just one more political and security goal into the satisfactory column: efforts to let former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party to rejoin the political process, a senior administration official told The Associated Press.

The latest conclusions, to be released Friday, largely track a comparable poor assessment in July on 18 benchmarks. The earlier White House report said the Iraqi government had made satisfactory gains toward eight benchmarks, unsatisfactory marks on eight and mixed results on two.

It's beyond time to call for an end to this war. The country is a political, security, and even economic mess. As for what the Democrats are doing, it appears they're trying to pass something, anything, that will get them supermajority support. I'm not sure that's even possible, regardless of the gains they claim to be making (although they should continue to claim them). Jim Webb's "readiness strategy" bill got 56 votes last time. Can it crest to 60? The President will veto it. Can it get 290 in the House? Highly unlikely. And the President already said that he'd call up more reserves and National Guard units in that event. I agree with Michael Cohen to an extent:

Here's the rub: No matter what the Congress passes, the President will veto it. So 60 is not the magic number - 67 is; and there is no way the Dems are going to achieve that goal. So my question is why not keep applying the political pressure? Why not make the GOP defend a policy that has about 30-35% support in public opinion polls?

I understand that Democrats love to pass legislation as a sign that they are getting something done. But if it has no chance of getting past the President's veto pen what exactly is the point? Believe me, if I thought this approach would have any success in changing course in Iraq I'd be all over it, but there doesn't seem to be any real evidence that Bush will acquiesce to legislation that changes our Iraq strategy. The only possibility of change is if Republicans grow some political courage and turn against their President. Letting them off the hook is not the way to accomplish that goal.

At the very least, applying maximum political pressure on some of the Senators up for re-election might actually clear some of these jokers out of the Senate - not only increasing the Democratic majority, but teaching these folks about the nature of representative democracy.

But the right course of action, of course, is nothing. The magic number is 41, the number required to filibuster any bill that doesn't have a timeline. No other bill should get to the President. It's as simple as John Edwards makes it. Stop funding endless war.