The Beginning of the Iraq Withdrawal

I've been cooped up all day, but I did notice that Republicans basically stopped the war funding bill in the House. The ostensible reason is the added domestic spending, but the real reason is that they don't want to have anything to do with funding Iraq - it'll be poison for their electoral chances. So a bunch of them voted present.

Stoller has a good post on this:

Today, about 100 House Republicans refused to vote for more war funding, voting 'present'. They are trying to hand off the war to the Democrats, but even Democrats were able to increase their 'no' vote number on funding from 141 to 149; the bill failed. In a separate bill, Republicans also voted against timelines, for torture, and accountability for military contractors, including various elements of a Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. This bill passed with 227 votes; last year, it passed with only 218 votes, for a gain of 9.

Finally the GI bill passed with overwhelming margin of 256 votes in the House, including 32 Republicans. It included a war surtax of one half of one percent on people making over $500k a year to pay for the GI bill, at the behest of Blue Dogs. This might actually be the most remarkable piece of the votes today; conservative Democrats agreeing to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for educational benefits for veterans. Bill Foster and Don Cazayoux both voted well on the new GI Bill and on the Responsible Plan bill with timelines, but were 'yes' votes on war funding. So yes, they are conservative, and I expect Childers to be conservative as well. Still, the MS-01, the IL-14 special election result, and the LA-06 special election result - all red seats picked off by Democrats - are devastating Republican discipline in the House.

Republicans know that they're cooked, and it's every man for himself. Bush has lost his human shield, and Democrats ought to take advantage of this by making him veto every popular program they can think of, making him more and more hated and reflecting badly on McCain and the GOP. While war funding will probably return in the Senate (but doesn't it have to start in the House?), this is a moment of more leverage than I thought possible. The string of special election losses has demoralized House Republicans. There is now a path to ending this war if the leadership chooses to take it.

And those foolish Dems that voted for funding or against education benefits for veterans are going to be hammered over it. Here's Russ Warner already pouncing on David Dreier's vote:

David Dreier voted against a bill to increase educational opportunities for veterans today. The legislation expands the education benefits veterans receive under the GI bill to restore the promise of a full, four-year college education. It passed the House with broad bi-partisan support, 256 to 166.

"I would have voted differently on this bill," said Russ Warner, a successful small businessman and the Democratic candidate for Congress from California's 26th district. "It's important to make the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan part of an American economic recovery, just like the veterans of World War II were. They put their lives on the line for us, and deserve to be able to come home and go to school if they so choose. We need new leaders with new priorities in Washington, and that's why I'm running for Congress."

Warner added "I believe that fully equipping our soldiers, providing them with good medical care and paying them a fair wage should be considered costs of war, but David Dreier seems to believe that we don't owe our veterans anything."

The general election in the House started today, and badly for Republicans.

May Day Happenings

Tomorrow is May Day, and the combination of anniversaries - the traditional holiday for workers (that started in the United States, it is most certainly NOT a Communist holiday), a day of action in the Latino community, and the 5th anniversary of "Mission Accomplished" - means that there are goings-on all over the state tomorrow.

• Latino groups will stage a May Day rally for immigrant rights tomorrow in downtown Los Angeles. You may remember that last year's event in Macarthur Park ended in chaos with tear gas and brutality marring a peaceful protest. The cops have actually been practicing and preparing so that there are no such incidents this year. Organizers expect anywhere between 25,000-100,000.

• There's at least one budget cut/fee increase protest being planned at Cal-State Northridge, organized by students. It should start around 12:00 on the bookstore lawn. I believe this is part of a continuing action by students to raise awareness about the crime Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to commit on public education this fiscal year. There's more at The Alliance for the CSU.

• On the anniversary of "Mission Accomplished," True Majority and CREDO Mobile are teaming up to deliver the Responsible Plan to End The War in Iraq to incumbent House members, and urge them to sign on to the bills in the plan that have already been proposed. The House leadership is planning on cravenly offering more money in the war supplemental than even George Bush asked for, funding it through 2009 without any checks or conditions. This is dead wrong, and there are steps Congress can take right now to rein in military contractors, aid in the humanitarian crisis, and increase regional diplomatic efforts, instead of allowing Bush to muddle through and pass off the disaster to his successor. You can find one of the 210 events in your area by clicking this link.

• The west coast chapters of the International Longshoreman Worker's Union (ILWU) is planning on shutting down all west coast ports on May Day to protest the ongoing occupation of Iraq. Information on Bay Area events is here. There's also information at this blog. This is the biggest general strike I can remember, and coming from longshoremen it can hardly be considered the work of dirty hippies. This is a very important event.

• And in what may in the final analysis be the most revolutionary event, word has it that Tesla Motors will open their very first store tomorrow in West LA, on Santa Monica Boulevard just east of the 405 Freeway, which paradoxically is one of the most congested spots in the city. Tesla has created an electric vehicle that runs like a sports car, and in future years their sedan model will be relatively affordable while getting the equivalent of 135 miles per gallon. As this event is the closest to me, I might actually get to this one. :)

Darcy Burner: Progressive Leader

I was happy to co-host an event last night for Darcy Burner (WA-08), a future leader in the Democratic Party. My friend occams hatchet wrote up a great capsule summary of the event.

Darcy was the featured guest at the event; two other netroots congressional candidates, Ron Shepston of CA-42 and Mary Pallant of CA-24, also attended.

Darcy told the story of how she came to be involved in politics: In 2003, around the time her son was born, her brother was being shipped off to Iraq. Darcy thought about the state of the country and the state of the world, and realized that no matter what choices she might make for her son as he grew up, unless a dramatic change took place in the direction the nation was heading - well, she did not like her choices.

So, as she likes to say, she did what any responsible American parent would do: she decided to run for Congress.

She started with zero name recognition, but ran a textbook campaign and almost toppled Republican incumbent Reichert.

Although Darcy came up short in her 2006 bid - but only by a little; five voters per precinct, to be exact, as she will remind you - she put a very big scare into the Republican Party. So much of a scare, in fact, that George Bush and Karl Rove both have visited Darcy's district in an effort to raise money for Reichert. (She also will remind you, with a smile, that when an online counter-fundraiser was held last fall to offset the Bush $1,000-a-plate event for Reichert, 3200 donors contributed $123,000, outraising the president himself.)

This year Darcy show a lack of leadership in the Congress over the issue of the war. People kept asking her on the campaign trail how she would end the war, and she grew tired of waiting for the leadership to give her something she can use. So she took the matter on personally, joining with military and counterterrorism officials and creating The Responsible Plan To End The War In Iraq, which doesn't just call for a full withdrawal of all military forces and a diplomatic, economic and humanitarian surge to manage that withdrawal, but calls to end the failed structures that got us into the war in the first place, things like Constitutional reform, and green energy, and ending media consolidation, and restoring the balance of power between the executive and the legislative branch.

So far 54 Congressional challengers have signed on to this plan, giving it a value that is measurable. If dozens of freshman Congressmembers enter Washington with a mandate to end the war, that has a rare power. Which is amazing. But the real takeaway of the night is the fact that Darcy handmade the button that I was given as one of the co-hosts of the event. She told me that she needed a bunch of buttons for visibility during her initial campaign run and decided that it would be cheaper to buy what you need to make buttons instead of buying the buttons themselves. It's a little thing, but it shows initiative and a commitment to get things done. And it was charming. She's as far removed from an everyday politician as anyone I've ever come across. And maybe that's why she's such a natural leader; there's no artifice and no cringing fear about the consequences.

After a day where there was a lot of sturm und drang among the grassroots in California, particularly because of the Democratic campaigns purging delegate slates for upcoming elections, I was reminded of these two amazing events I got to participate in this week, both with Tim Goodrich and last night with Darcy Burner. The grassroots is strong when we are all working together for incredible candidates who can bring about progressive change. And that's what I saw last night.

The Blithering Idiocy Of The DC Establishment

The Village, via Cokie Roberts, gives their very serious assessment of Iraq on ABC's This Week:

STEPHANOPOLOUS: But this is going to be a split in the party. You all (at The Nation) are backing a plan that a lot of Congressional challengers are backing (The Responsible Plan) saying, immediate withdrawal, unconditional...

VANDEN HEUVEL: that's right...

(crosstalk)

VANDEN HEUVEL: There are 42 Congressional challengers...

ROBERTS: But no major Presidential candidates are saying that, because they're sitting there saying look, we've been there, we've seen it, we think it's an irresponsible thing to do.

VANDEN HEUVEL: It is not, but you know what, the responsible thing to do is withdraw.

(you hear Cokie odiously chuckling at this point)

VANDEN HEUVEL: If we withdraw responsibly, the region would be more stable in the long term, America will be restored as a responsible global leader, and there are 42 challengers, you are absolutely right Cokie, who have a responsible plan to withdraw.

ROBERTS: Convincing the electorate of that I think would be very difficult, and I also agree that the notion that Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham you heard this morning putting forward, that Americans would prefer to win, is--

VANDEN HEUVEL: But what is winning? This war is unwinnable, there are no military solutions. And Cokie, Americans are already behind this, 2/3 of Americans believe this war was a mistake to fight. And when Dick Cheney said to ABC's Martha Raddatz last week, "I don't care what Americans think." The contempt, the disdain for Americans and for what this war has done to the military, to our economy, and to our future as a nation. If you care about responsible...

Well, Katrina Vanden Heuvel handled that a bit better than I would have, because I don't think I would have been able to hold down the bile after hearing Duchess Cokie of Versailles blather on about what Americans would prefer. Not that she's likely to have talked to anyone who's had to serve in this war or felt the burdens of this war, of course, but she just feels it in her very sensible and responsible gut.

She doesn't have a clue what the hell she's talking about, and if she's being informed about Iraq by "Sunni, Shi'a, po-tay-to po-tah-to" McCain and his man-servant Huckleberry Graham it'd be a wonder if she could pick the country out on a map. We've got an important week coming up with A Man Called Petraeus and Ryan Crocker testifying before Congress, and if this is the sober analysis we can expect out of that, we're all doomed. Because in point of fact, Iraq is at a major crossroads right now. The Basra offensive was a complete failure and large swaths of the Iraqi Army essentially refused to fight. Now Maliki is basically forming his own militia from the pro-Iranian Badr Brigade, and the intra-Shiite warfare is continuing, with US troops dying inside the Green Zone and at forward operating bases in Baghdad. The political situation is stalemated, tensions are rising between practically all groups, and whatever gains have been made by the surge have vanished. We're going to hear a lot of crap in the next week out of the Administration and their spinners, and robots like Cokie are going to lap it up because "Americans would prefer to win." That's just an ignorant and dismissive remark, and it sadly represents the depth of understanding of the tragedy in Iraq. Of course, Cokie's just repeating what "real Americans" think; that it happens to line up with establishment opinion and helps provide cover for their epic mistake of going along with the initial invasion is just a nice perk.

In the environment of Iraq, leaving 80,000 troops to babysit the Iraqis will do about as much as having 160,000 troops do the same; in other words, nothing at all (Russ Feingold understands this). Until the fundamental question - whether a continued presence in Iraq is making us safer - is answered, we're doing nothing but spinning our wheels. Keeping troops in the region to try and put a lid on violence until George Bush is safely tucked away creates a huge moral hazard where the Iraqis have no responsibility for their actions.

Here, the overriding risk is all-out civil war – whether inter-or-intra ethnic group – or regional war, or both. Our presence mitigates these risks – at least in the short term. Thus, Maliki can take risky actions like raiding Basra or openly turning the army into a wing of Badr, knowing that he and his allies won’t be exposed to the full risk of those actions (civil war) because of the American presence. Similarly, other countries (like Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia) feel less urgency to engage diplomatically (which is itself a “risky” omission) because of the American presence.

If, however, America announced that it would leave Iraq in a year, then the parties involved (both inside and outside Iraq) would suddenly bear more of the consequences of their risky behavior. Accordingly, they would be more motivated to bear down and bang out political deals [...]

This explains why the Kagans’ “Iraq 4-Ever” strategy is actually worse than withdrawal. The Bush/Kagan strategy is simply to keep the maximum number of troops in Iraq as long as possible in the hopes a pony will appear. To maintain political support for the Pony Strategy, they need to peddle worse-case scenarios and paint pictures of genocide and all-out civil war.

I’ll fully concede that such events are possible – anyone who doesn’t is being dishonest. But my point is that our occupation makes them more likely, for the reasons explained above. Specifically, the longer and more indefinitely we stay, the greater the moral hazard we produce. As long as we stay indefinitely, parties will act more recklessly than they otherwise would. These actions, in turn, will have profound, unpredictable, and irreversible consequences.

The plan that Vanden Heuvel was referencing, the Responsible Plan, reflects a significant wing of the Democratic Party that simply is not willing to wait around anymore while the leadership tries to come up with a coherent endgame strategy. Darcy Burner, who was the driving force behind the plan, has actually improved her electoral position as a result. I don't know how that fits in with Duchess Cokie's pronouncements, other than the obvious fact that it doesn't. Well over 50 Congressional challengers have endorsed the plan, understanding that a comprehensive strategy to end the war and repair the broken institutions that enabled this disaster not only makes political sense but is absolutely vital to our national security. Ilan Goldenberg sums up the plan nicely.

For the past two years, Democrats have been offering plan after plan to end the war in Iraq. But this one is different. As opposed to the usual broad language, combined with a laundry list of policy proposals that make up traditional party platforms, the plan has a sharp focus, with a clear strategic logic focused around two fundamental principles. First, the United States must find a way to sensibly end its military mission in Iraq--and use the political, diplomatic, humanitarian, and economic tools at its disposal to mitigate the negative consequences of the war. Second, the Iraq War has done irreparable damage not just to Iraq but to our country, and the time has come to reform our institutions and put the checks and balances in place to ensure that these mistakes are not repeated [...]

Beyond just being good policy, though, the plan exhibits a unique understanding of the legislative branch's role in foreign policy. Too often, candidates running for Congress make very specific proposals about foreign policy that are far outside of their purview. The "Real Security" plan of 2006 was ultimately about the executive branch; it was backed by a 120-page smattering of documents and reports that criticized the Bush Administration and catalogued hundreds of pieces of legislation that would reshape American foreign policy, but were, on the whole, too unwieldy to act as an agenda vehicle.

"A Responsible Plan" would instead serve as the congressional corollary to a Democratic presidency. It doesn't include elements over which Congress has little control, but it does push for 15 pieces of existing legislation, which focus on issues such as improving healthcare for a new generation of veterans and phasing out our reliance on military contractors such as Blackwater. Only the president can end the war in Iraq, but Congress can do its share by focusing on institutional repair and funding the right programs.

This approach is apparent in the most creative part of the document, titled "Preventing Future Iraqs." These policies focus on checking presidential authority and ensuring that Congress can't easily give the president a free hand to go to war. It calls for incorporating war funding into the regular defense budget instead of using "emergency supplementals"; eliminating the president's use of signing statements to alter the substantive meaning of a law passed by Congress; repealing parts of the Military Commissions Act that suspended habeas corpus; and ending the use of wiretapping without a FISA warrant. These are good policies for both Republican and Democratic presidents to abide by.

Without a robust Congressional counterbalance to executive power, we will not be able to stop more Iraqs. Darcy Burner and the dozens of endorsers are not only running to enter Congress but to restore the institution itself.

This Wednesday I'm helping host a low-dollar fundraising event for Darcy, where she will be flanked by two California candidates who have endorsed the plan, Ron Shepston (CA-42) and Mary Pallant (CA-24). If you want to reward and recognize true leadership and courage, join me in Los Angeles on Wednesday night. All the information is at this ActBlue page, and you can donate at the link as well.

CA-50: Cheryl Ede Endorses The Responsible Plan

Cheryl Ede, a Congressional candidate in CA-50 (Bilbray), just informed me that she has signed on to endorse the Responsible Plan. This is the third Congressional candidate in California to endorse the plan, joining Ron Shepston (CA-42) and Debbie Cook (CA-46). By the end of the weekend I expect several more.

It's time for Nick Leibham to sign on as well. This is a intelligent and important set of policies that will create a legitimate mandate to end this war, not a vague nod toward a "new direction" in Iraq. Plus, it will seek to repair the broken institutions that led us into this disaster in the first place. The candidates that have signed on nationwide seek to represent some of the reddest districts in the country, some of the bluest, and everything in between. There is no reason for a candidate who wants to best represent the Democratic Party not to sign on.

End This War

The events of today in Baghdad and Basra and Hilla and Kut just reinforce the need to end this war immediately, responsibly, and without delay. The political situation is a shambles, all sides of the sectarian divide are at odds, and our troops are nothing but targets. The metrics by which "victory" can be reasonably counted, political reconciliation, reconstruction, etc., are not moving forward and haven't for years. There's simply nothing more our military can do and we need to get out.

The Congressional challengers that have stepped forward with the Responsible Plan to end the war have shown a great deal of courage. So far the only criticism I've seen of it falls along the predictable lines of "What if it doesn't work," which of course is a giveaway that the critic has no endgame strategy of their own. Today Chris Hayes had a great story in The Nation about the Responsible Plan.

In the face of this official indifference to public opinion, it is tempting to succumb to despair. The antiwar strategy, after all, has not been static. In the run-up to the war, organizers managed to pull together the largest simultaneous worldwide demonstrations in history. That didn't work. Then the antiwar movement channeled much of its energy into electoral politics, helping to elect Democratic majorities in both houses. That hasn't worked either. So we find ourselves in the situation of Beckett's protagonist in Worstward Ho: "Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better."

Although the electoral strategy has not yet borne fruit, it is still the most viable option, barring a draft or a radical turn in public opinion that would once again bring people en masse into the streets. (There are, of course, parallel strategies to be pursued. Passing a ban on mercenaries in Iraq would make the occupation untenable.) The question, then, becomes how to create the electoral conditions that maximize the power and representation of the majority who want the war ended. The antiwar caucus doesn't have enough votes to override a delusional President or enough members willing to bear the political risk of cutting off funding for the war. The solution to this impasse is, in the words of Congressional candidate Darcy Burner, to elect "more and better Democrats"--Democrats who have publicly committed to pursuing a legislative strategy to end the war.

So at Take Back America, Burner--a former Microsoft manager from the Seattle suburbs who narrowly missed unseating a GOP incumbent in 2006--with nine other Democratic Congressional challengers released A Responsible Plan to End the War. Developed in collaboration with retired military officers and national security professionals, the plan attracted the support of fifteen additional Democratic Senate and House challengers in the first week after it was unveiled (see ResponsiblePlan.com). Unlike the withdrawal plans offered by both Democratic presidential candidates, the Responsible Plan opposes any residual forces as well as permanent military bases. It flatly states, "We must stop counter-productive military operations by U.S. occupation forces, and end our military presence in Iraq." It looks toward restoring "Constitutional checks and balances and fix[ing] the ways in which our governmental, military, and civil institutions have failed us." It also addresses the need to take responsibility for a humanitarian crisis in which thousands of Iraqis who worked with US forces are in danger and millions are displaced across the region.

As an organizer working on the Responsible Plan stressed to me, it is an explicitly legislative road map, to be pursued by Congress with or without a President committed to withdrawal. Among other actions the plan calls for war funding to be brought into the normal budgetary process, as opposed to the ersatz emergency supplementals, which detach the cost of the war from the rest of the nation's discretionary spending. The plan also highlights more than a dozen bills that have already been introduced, like HR 2247, the Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act of 2007, which the signatories would support if elected.

The activism has simply worn itself down working from the outside in. We have to work from the inside out. And that means getting as many candidates as possible to endorse the Responsible Plan so we can deliver a mandate for its policies in the fall. The Washington Post had a nice piece on this as well today. In the wake of the tragic news out of Iraq, it's almost an act of criminal proportions NOT to do all you can as a lawmaker to end this war once and for all. This plan is a road map to end the war and to end the funnel effect which always seems to push us toward war. It's a strategy that forces the other side to react to us on a national security issue. It's just sensible policy in the final analysis. We need it more than ever.

One other thing, we need to be, as Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill put it, be players and not cheerleaders and use the leverage we have as a movement to force this plan up through the ranks. I'm tired of feeling helpless about this war so I choose not to. Naysayers are rampant throughout the blogosphere but activists are sometimes rare. Everyone has the ability to be an activist.

Disclosure

Ron Shepston is a friend, and I've just signed on to be the netroots coordinator for his Congressional campaign. He's an avionics engineer, a Vietnam-era veteran, and a Daily Kos diarist who stepped up to contest a seat in CA-42 that was unopposed in 2006. Rep. Gary Miller is a complete slimeball and it's great that he'll have some competition this year. And it's all the better that he's showed some leadership and become the first California Congressional candidate to endorse the Repsonsible Plan to end the war in Iraq.

George Bush or the next President must give the order to prepare a plan to leave. Generals implement orders. From General Franks to General Petraeus, they have all attempted to plan to wage a war and occupation they didn’t want to wage. As a veteran, I know that generals have few choices – they could do their best to execute their orders, or leave the service.

Generals don’t get far by being negative so they will always look for a way to succeed. It’s no surprise that General Petraeus can sound positive in the face of such a daunting occupation. It’s part of his job [...]

When Darcy Burner first asked if I wanted to be part of the effort to create the plan I immediately said “yes”. I was grateful for the opportunity to be involved in something this important to the future of America, Iraq and in fact, the world.

The Responsible Plan will not only end the war but change the conversation around national security. As Darcy Burner put it in her op-ed in the Seattle Times, it became endlessly frustrating waiting for the elites in Washington to come up with a plan to end this war. So she built it herself, and is assembling a group of leaders that will enter Congress with a mandate for change.

This plan presents a set of actions that Congress can take to convert our current military approach in Iraq to a more effective civilian one that addresses the root problems we face. It proposes using the full strength of our nation to achieve our goals and strengthen our country, and includes measures to rebuild the military, expand the capabilities of the State Department, and keep our promises to returning veterans.

We can do all of these things and save hundreds of billions of dollars that can then be used here at home addressing our growing list of urgent needs: economic stimulus, affordable health care, better schools, improvements to infrastructure. Ever wondered why there is so little federal money to replace the aging and dangerous Highway 520 Bridge? Taxpayers in my congressional district alone have sunk roughly $1.5 billion into funding the war so far — money that now can't be spent here at home.

The national media like to say that Iraq is off the table, but voters in the 8th Congressional District don't seem to have gotten that memo. The voters I talk to understand that this war is undermining our country. Five years is long enough, and $3 trillion is too much; as a nation, we simply cannot afford this misguided war any longer.

Ron Shepston is at the forefront of this effort, and I invite you to support him with a donation so he can keep this message going. He's in a contested primary against a carpetbagger from Montebello, and considering that the primary will have low turnout, he needs some help from his friends. Getting a solid progressive like this as the nominee has benefits even if he doesn't win - a nominee appoints members of the California Democratic Party and enhances efforts to change the party from within. We need more people like Ron Shepston in public life. I'm proud to be part of his campaign.

Why We Should Be Better Than This

I want to amplify clammyc's remarks from yesterday about the tension and over-the-top rhetoric that has characterized the online version of this primary race. It hasn't characterized the offline version of this race, by the way; in the election of 1800 Thomas Jefferson was called an "atheist," "rapist," and "infidel," and I don't think any Federalist was denounced, rejected or repudiated. But I want to take a look at why this race has become so hotly contested, practically to the exclusion of all else, and not just in the traditional media where that's expected, but pretty much everywhere. I have a somewhat novel interpretation.

This is George Bush's fault.

Under 7-plus years of Bush, we've seen Congress cowed and the courts made irrelevant. We've seen a President ignore the popular will on a whole host of issues, break the law with total impunity, protect his cronies from prosecution or harm, and run roughshod over international law and our Constitution at home. Since 2001 we've come to believe that electing a President is akin to electing a 4-year dictator, because that's been the practical effect of Bush policies.

So why wouldn't it get heated, even among friends, over this decision about which dictator to install for the next four years? That's why these petty concerns and personal features have been magnified as the struggle between candidates with similar platforms becomes literally a battle of life and death.

There's of course a lot of evidence to support the dictator theory of American politics, but in actuality this is fiction. We have a broken Constitution, a shattered Constitution, but not one that is beyond repair. And if we neglect that repair, it won't matter who is President, because the fundamentals of the system will inevitably lead to more Bushes and more Cheneys and more Condis and more Rumsfelds. Until we get under control the restoration of the balance of power among the three branches of government, this energy and anger over the Presidential race is little more than a distraction, and we'll sink further and further away from the government the Framers envisioned.

Today Lawrence Lessig is presenting his "Change Congress" initiative in Washington. Here are some of his thoughts from an editorial in the Huffington Post.

Though "change" is the dominant rhetoric of this presidential campaign, everyone realizes that fundamental reform can't come from a president alone. If there are problems in the way Congress now works, for example, no president can fix those problems alone. Any fix would require the cooperation of the very institution that needs changing -- Congress.

Not surprisingly, however, not everyone in Congress is eager for change. Whatever they say, and however strongly they may deny it, there are many who have grown used to a system they understand well. And many of those are not about to support radically reforming that system, at least until pushed.

But the 111th Congress will be the freshest that Washington has seen in more than a decade. There are more than 67 "open seats" in this years' election; the last time we were anywhere close to that number was 1996 (62). This fact has led some to think about strategies for getting Congress to take seriously the idea of remaking itself.

Lessig organizes his movement to change Congress around issues like public financing for elections, transparency in Congress and earmark reform. He aims to use a wiki to track reform-minded candidates all over the country and track them from the outside.

This is exactly the kind of initiative the progressive online community should be embracing. Rather than relentlessly focusing on the top dog, and reinforcing a theory that the President is a dictator who wields full control of the government, we should use the other institutions of power to build a reform movement from the bottom up. And we should also empower that movement with a mandate to repair the broken institutions that have failed us in the Bush era and would normally rein in executive power and overreach. And that means supporting initiatives like the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. At this point 22 Congressional challengers have signed on to the plan, which seeks not only to end the war, but to ensure we never make such a historic foreign policy mistake again, and really change the conversation around national security. The candidates come from places like Idaho and Maryland, Ohio and Maine, Montana and New Jersey, Florida and Colorado and Washington and Virginia. We have far more leverage and power to impact this debate and these candidates than we ever will in the Presidential race. And it actually is far more important at this stage.

We don't elect dictators. We elect Presidents, and we have a host of structures in place to hold them accountable. Unfortunately, the last seven years have seen a total breakdown of those structures. The reaction to that ought to be to repair those structures and build this movement, not bicker back and forth about who has what delegate in what state. I'm not saying the Presidency is irrelevant - that's obviously not true - but I'm saying that we shouldn't be lulled into thinking that the President equals the government. That's only true in the rampantly illegal era of Bush - and we need to roll that back if we want to keep some semblance of a democracy.

Responsible Plan Update

If a candidate running in Idaho and a candidate running statewide in Montana, can support this supposedly dirty fuckin' hippie plan to end the war, then really anyone can. This is a common-sense document that recognizes the fundamental transition we need to make in foreign policy and national security.

Larry Grant, Democratic candidate for Congress in Idaho's 1st District, today joined a dozen other congressional candidates in backing a plan to end the War in Iraq.

"Given my feelings on the war, I have decided to join these congressional candidates to support the plan," Grant said.

"The plan incorporates many of the recommendations made over a year ago by the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission. Most of those recommendations were never implemented.

"The plan may not be perfect but it's a good start to changing the current administration's disastrous policy on the war," Grant said. "It opens up discussion and provides a forum for debate. I applaud and support Darcy for her effort."

Ultimately, we should see hundreds of Democratic candidates supporting this view. So far, two Congressional candidates in New Jersey and both of Oregon's Senate challengers, Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick have endorsed as well. Goldy at Horse's Ass has a good roundup, but I want to circle back to Juan Melli's post to give an understanding of how courageous it was for Darcy Burner and her team to work on this:

This is not a press release that was cranked out in a few hours. It's a real plan that has been thoughtfully considered and developed over a period of months in consultation with respected military experts. It's the type of thing that eats into valuable fundraising time, which is why candidates are so strongly discouraged from doing it. Further, I can't speak for Darcy Burner specifically, but EMILY's list has a history of knee-capping female candidates on the issue of Iraq and military policy in general by insisting that they "talk tough." This counterproductive strategy sometimes leads candidates to end up fighting from weak defensive positions.

Darcy has sacrificed valuable fundraising time and probably overcome significant pressure to create this plan. She and the other 9 candidates who are endorsing the effort deserve our support to show that we value thoughtful, meaningful and substantive leadership. They are trying to build a caucus of challengers who will sweep into Congress with a mandate to change the course in Iraq.

Quite right. This is the definition of leadership, and I would hope my Democratic friends in California can see that endorsing this document will take a big step in that direction. There's no need to be timid about this.

Inside The Plan

At this hour, the website for the Responsible Plan to End The War In Iraq has just gone live. I urge you to check it out and read the plan. Alternatively, you can read the following summary.

The beauty of this plan is in its recognition that the decision to invade Iraq was a catastrophe not just on its own merits, but because of what it said about the failure of our democracy to ably consider and implement solutions to national security challenges. A failed media, an executive drunk with power, and an emasculated Congress were all culpable in the systemic failure that was Iraq. And so for the first time, we have a comprehensive plan that seeks to address THAT side of the national security debate, the broken institutions, as opposed to simply setting up a timeline for a phased withdrawal with various dates and numbers.

We know that the right has long posited Iraq with the demonstrably false choice of stay and win or cut and run. As our failed media suffers from what CAP fellow Brian Katulis has called a "national security deficit disorder," and as most of our national security elites are bestowed with "seriousness" based on their willingness to argue for continued war and intervention at every opportunity, it's become impossible to reach a positive solution while boxed in by that "heads I win, tails you lose" framework. But a progressive national security alternative is possible, and is described in this plan. On the question of Iraq, the plan acknowledges, rightly, that there remains no military solution to the problems we face in Iraq. Which of course we know. Over the last five years, Iraqis have seen near-constant bloodshed (today's bombing of Shiite pilgrims in Karbala on the way to the Imam Hussein shrine, by the way, could prove to be as destabilizing as the bombing of the Golden Done in Samarra in 2006), ethnic cleansing, the rise of dangerous militias, theocratic power-wielding zealots and warlords, a political stalemate verging on civil war, and no discernible improvement in basic services since the invasion. Dick Cheney and John McCain have to sneak into Iraq unannounced by night, while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is greeted as a liberator. Iraqis believe we are a destabilizing force in the nation and the region, and our military is not built to do any more than what they already have done. So the plan recognizes that our military presence must end, and that diplomatic, humanitarian and economic missions must supplant them.

End U.S. military action in Iraq:
There is no military solution in Iraq. Our current course unacceptably holds U.S. strategic fortunes hostage to events in Iraq that are beyond our control; we must change course. Using diplomatic, political, and economic power, we can responsibly end the war and removing all of our troops from Iraq.

Using U.S. diplomatic power:
Much of the remaining work to be completed in Iraq requires the effective use of diplomatic power. Many of Iraq’s neighbors are currently contributing to instability and need to be persuaded to assist instead in stabilization.

Addressing humanitarian concerns:
The humanitarian crisis caused by Iraq’s situation is destabilizing to the region and damaging to America’s moral credibility. We must both take responsibility for the Iraqis who are now endangered because of their assistance to the U.S. and begin to address the regional problems of displaced Iraqis.

The particular strategies with respect to Iraq are solid and necessary, and lean heavily on the more noble and more ignored aspects of the Iraq Study Group report. This includes renouncing permanent bases in Iraq and control of Iraqi oil, in addition to a diplomatic surge reaching out to the entire region, including Iran and Syria, aid from the international community for nation-building, fixing the horrible refugee crisis which is a human rights abomination, and giving an expanded role to economic reconstruction, where the Iraqis are reaping the benefits, not private military contractors.

The strategies with respect to changing the national security conversation and repairing broken institutions, ensuring that we never enter into such a misguided foreign policy blunder again, are transformative. The plan calls for an independent war crimes commission to gather testimonies and hold perpetrators accountable. It calls for incorporating all war funding into the normal budget process, so that war funding cannot be made separate from the fiscal realities of the nation and used as a club with which to beat political opponents. It calls for ending the practices of torture and rendition and warrantless spying and signing statements and the denial of habeas corpus, practices which have shredded our civil liberties, diminished our authority to lead, and expanded executive authority at the expense of the Congress. It calls for full funding of veterans care and the GI bill so we actually support the troops and factor in the basic dignity of soldiers who we send off to fight into that decision-making process. It calls for relentless oversight of waste and fraud and abuse in the contracting process, and no more outsourcing our security to private companies like Blackwater. Crucially, it calls for an end to media consolidation, so the public airwaves and a free press are no longer controlled by the unaccountable few. And it calls for a clean energy economy, so we need not consider foreign oil into our war calculus and so we can regain the capacity to control our economic future.

Fifteen of these proposals already exist in the form of legislation introduced in the House and Senate; current legislators ought to sign on to them. But they have not been combined and expanded in such a way to offer a comprehensive view of how to end the war and repair the broken institutions that got us there. While this plan is redolent of a kind of Contract With America, there is a crucial difference. Newt Gingrich supplied the Contract With America from the top-down, giving it to Congressional candidates as a tool to use in their campaigns (also, he didn't do it until 6 weeks before the election and used it mostly as a media tool). This is a candidate-written, candidate-implemented, candidate-structured proposal from a group of progressive challengers who hold no current power in the Congress or the leadership of the party, culling from the ideas and concerns of the rank and file to put forth a full set of policy options to end the war and radically change how we view national security.

All of the co-signers of the Responsible Plan can be found at this Act Blue. Donate, be it your time or your money or just by telling your friend about them. And tell the Democrat running in your neck of the woods that they can only earn your support by signing on to this plan.

UPDATE: Another one in: Darius Shahinfar in NY-21. I'd like to see 50 candidates behind this by the end of the month.

Open Letter to Every Congressional Candidate

The Responsible Plan to end the war in Iraq is the first tangible and conprehensive strategy to not only end the war, but to reform the structures that caused this disaster in the first place. It accords with the first principles of all Democrats, to responsibly protect our citizens while restoring our moral and political authority at home and abroad, renewing our capacity to self-determination in our national economy, and return the rights and protections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to the American people. I urge you to watch the presentation and read the Responsible Plan, as I have done. And then please understand that, speaking just for myself, the only way you can earn my support in your electoral battles in 2008 is by endorsing it.

When I say "support" I do not mean voting; I would happily vote for any Democrat over any Republican in a head-to-head matchup. I mean my SUPPORT. That means my time, my energy, my effort, my enthusiasm, and my dollars. For five years, progressives have stood by helpless as they watched their country taken to war based on deception, and kept in an occupation based on fecklessness. While this plan, which encompasses not just the military, humanitarian and diplomatic solutions for Iraq, but stopping torture, restoring habeas corpus, starting a new green energy economy, media consolidation reform, ending the use of signing statements, and all of the other structures that have brought us to this point, parallels in its comprehensiveness the Contract With America, there is one crucial difference. Newt Gingrich supplied the Contract With America from the top-down, giving it to Congressional candidates as a tool to use in their campaigns (also, he didn't do it until 6 weeks before the election and it was used mostly as a media tool). This is a candidate-written, candidate-implemented, candidate-structured proposal from a group of progressive challengers who hold no current power in the Congress or the leadership of the party, culling from the ideas and concerns of the rank and file to put forth a full set of policy options to end the war and radically change how we view national security. This is the FIRST plan that citizens can use to do something real and tangible to truly revolutionize the debate in Washington. This is coming from the bottom up, and as a Congressional candidate you can catch the wave and join the commitment of the people, or sit at home.

As a Congressional candidate, you have a unique role to play in this debate. You can support this plan and avow that you are committed to this nation's security, and earn my support, or you can choose not to support it, and earn nothing. This is non-negotiable. There are 10 candidates signed on to this plan, and plenty of others that I'm sure will welcome the support from myself and millions of others like me who are desperate to end this war and change our failed national security strategy. We are the people who stuff envelopes and walk precincts and write about candidates and generate buzz and enthusiasm. And we will work like hell for the candidates behind the Responsible Plan. And they will win, and receive a mandate to implement these policies and change the conversation on national security in this country.

Incidentally, as a Congressmember, you have the ability to co-sponsor a number of these initiatives, as they have been introduced in the House already. Please do so immediately. Thank you.

Responsible Plan

Second, I'm going to be trickling this out as the day progresses, and we have to wait until 5:30pm ET for the official release of the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. But I've collected a bunch of video from the Congressional candidates who have currently signed on and the military leaders who were instrumental in its creation.

Brigadier Gneeral John Johns:



Major General Paul Eaton:



Eric Massa, NY-29:



A compendium of all the candidates who have signed on thus far.



In addition, here's an excerpt from Chellie Pingree, from ME-01, writing about the plan at the Huffington Post:

Let me be clear: we have to stop the war and end our occupation of Iraq. More "surges" or "pauses" won't solve anything. But we need a plan -- a responsible plan to not just end military operations in Iraq but to also start putting our efforts into using non-military means to address the political, economic and humanitarian problems in the region. At home we have to rebuild a broken military and repair our institutions of government. The checks and balances built into our Constitution must be restored and we must restore our commitment to an independent media.

The problems that the Iraq War has created are complex and reach into every corner of our society. The solutions are complex, too, but within our reach. Working with Darcy Burner (candidate in WA-08) and Donna Edwards (candidate in MD-04) we have developed a package of policy proposals that, if elected, we will work to pass in Congress. The Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq goes well beyond ending military activity in Iraq -- it includes proposals that not only get us out of Iraq, but begin to repair the damage the war has done to our economy, our society and our standing in the world. We have also focused on what went wrong in the run up to the invasion, with the goal of preventing a future Administration and Congress from getting us into another unjustified, indefensible, misguided war.

I heard from Darcy Burner yesterday at a conference held by the New Organizing Institute, and I'm reading over the plan in more detail now. As I said, I'll have more later, but let me just say that, speaking for me only, the amount of support a candidate for Congress or the White House will get from me, in terms of dollars, volunteer time, online organizing, precinct walking, etc., is largely predicated on whether or not they support this plan. This is non-negotiable.

Again, more on this in a bit.

Great, Where's Lindsay Graham Going To Buy His Rugs Now?

"Sorry folks, park's closed. Moose out front shoulda told ya."

On April 1, 2007, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) strolled through the open-air Shorja market in Baghdad in an effort to prove that Americans are “not getting the full picture” of what’s going on in Iraq. In a press conference after his Baghdad tour, McCain told a reporter that his visit to the market was proof that people could “walk freely” in parts of Baghdad.

What McCain failed to mention was that he was accompanied by “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.” He also appeared to be wearing a bulletproof vest during his visit.

Since that trip, McCain has claimed that the situation in Iraq has improved even more. A few months ago, McCain claimed that “we’ve succeeded militarily” in Iraq. Things, of course, are going so well, that he wants to keep U.S. troops there for at least 100 years.

McCain is now back in Iraq for a “surprise visit with Iraqi and American diplomatic and military leaders.” He is joined by fellow Iraq war defenders Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). But it’s unlikely they will be visiting the Shorja market again. Today, CNN reported that they tried to visit the Shorja market, but it was too unsafe and they were unable to go.

(via)

This is a major blow to the Iraqi rug industry.

I'm going to have a lot more about the "Responsible Plan" being offered by progressive candidates today. This is a major development, the first tangible one toward ending the war since the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006. That ended up having no material effect, but this might. I also will have a lot from a panel I sat in on with Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress, perhaps one of the most knowledgeable foreign policy experts we have on our side of the aisle. There's a moment we're coming to where progressives can finally get together and do something to end this catastrophic occupation.