Why Does Bush Hate The Troops?

Last year Jim Webb and others offered the dwell time amendment to the defense appropriations bill and the emergency supplemental, calling for the Defense Department to allow a soldier as much time at home as he has in the field. The Administration called it craven, Republicans termed it a "slow-bleed" strategy and everybody questioned everybody's patriotism.

Bush just agreed to it today.

President Bush plans to announce today that he will cut Army combat tours in Iraq from 15 months to 12 months, returning rotations to where they were before last year's troop buildup in an effort to alleviate the tremendous stress on the military, administration officials said.

The move is in response to intense pressure from service commanders who have expressed anxiety about the toll of long deployments on their soldiers and, more broadly, about the U.S. military's ability to confront unanticipated threats. Bush will announce the decision during a national speech, in which aides said he will also embrace Army Gen. David H. Petraeus's plan to indefinitely suspend a drawdown of forces.

They can suspend the drawdown, or pause, as per the current parlance, but without the 15-month tours they cannot draw back up if needed. And so the President is basically acknowledging the endgame in Iraq. And don't let him tell you that troop decisions will be made based on conditions on the ground. He just consigned the US to a smaller force in Iraq regardless of the conditions.

Now, John McCain's refusal to rule out pre-emptive war means that he would have to increase tours of duty back to 15 months and/or dramatically increase the size of the Army, and the only way to do that is through a draft. The logical outcome of McCain's foreign policy is the end of the all-volunteer Army. So, let the buyer beware.

With respect to Iraq, this really does spell the end and I think Bush must have been given the message that it's basically over. When you see someone like Kenneth Pollack basically admit that a responsible withdrawal is demanded, you know that there's actually this sea change that very few people are noticing out in the field. The frustration on the faces of Congressmembers during the Petraeus/Crocker hearings showed that they've basically had it. Every step forward is accompanied by two steps back, and in the process we are losing lives and diverting resources from the real national security challenges. You're going to see this manifest itself first in the pullback of money from the war. Here's some more of the Post article.

Democrats moved to press Bush on another front, linking the sagging U.S. economy to escalating war costs. On a day when oil hit $112 a barrel for the first time, lawmakers said that energy-rich Iraq should be footing more of its own bills. "We've put about $45 billion into Iraq's reconstruction . . . and they have not spent their own resources," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.). "They have got to have some skin in the game."

Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) met yesterday to craft a bipartisan bill to make Iraq take on a greater share of the financial burden. Under their plan, any future U.S. money for reconstruction would take the form of a loan to be repaid, and Baghdad would have to pay for fuel used by U.S. troops and for the training of its own security forces, and make payments to the predominantly Sunni fighters in the Awakening movement taking on al-Qaeda.

"It's time, in fact long past time, the Iraqis start bearing a larger portion of the costs for this war," Collins said. Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) echoed the sentiment. "Doesn't it just make sense that record-high gas prices pay for the reconstruction of Iraq, rather than the American taxpayer?" he asked.

This issue is resonant and I think it will click with voters. So money will come out, the troops will remain for another year because nobody in the Congress has the balls to fully fund withdrawal and nothing else. However, dwell time will return to balance (albeit with a waiting period just long enough to keep up the pace of deployments until Bush leaves office), the money burden will shift more and more to the Iraqis, and there will absolutely be an accountability moment on the war in November, with responsible withdrawal on the table. And the people are on the side of getting out. If Republicans want to bet on the electorate's resolve to stay inside Iraq with no endgame strategy and no plan for even defining success, go ahead. We're see you at the Inaugural ball - before we go inside.

Antiwar Caucus United; Actual Filibusters To Come?

It's hard to separate the good legislation from the good words when it comes to Iraq, but the news that the Out Of Iraq Caucus is on board with the latest bill helps me make my decision.

Three leading House anti-war Democrats said they now back a $50 billion bill that funds the war but calls for most troops to come home by December 2008. Their support paves the way for the bill's passage Wednesday.

The trio, California Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters, represent a liberal anti-war caucus that last week expressed opposition to the measure on the grounds it was too soft and did not demand an end to combat.

The bill requires that President Bush initiate troop withdrawals within 30 days of its passage with the goal of bringing home most soldiers and Marines by Dec. 15, 2008 [...]

A provision added to the bill, to satisfy liberal caucus members, states that the primary purpose of the $50 billion included in the bill "should be to transition the mission" and redeploy troops in Iraq, "not to extend or prolong the war."

The measure is largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who has already begun withdrawing some troops but fiercely rejects the notion of setting a timetable for the war.

"While this bill is not perfect, it is the strongest Iraq bill to date," the Democratic trio wrote in a joint statement. "This is the first time that this Congress has put forth a bill that ties funding to the responsible redeployment of our troops, and it also includes language mandating a start date for the president to begin the redeployment of our brave men and women."

Versions of this legislation have passed over and over again, only to falter in the Senate. Again, Harry Reid is SOUNDING tough, saying that "the president won't get his $50 billion" if he rejects the bill, but the proof is in the action. And forcing a real-deal filibuster would be a good place to start.

Senate Democrats might force Republicans to wage a filibuster if the GOP wants to block the latest Iraq withdrawal bill, aides and senators said Tuesday.

That could set the stage for a dramatic end-of-the-year partisan showdown, which Democrats hope will help them turn voter frustration with Congress and the stalemate over Iraq into anger with the Republican Party.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), the number two Democrat in the chamber, said a forced filibuster is “possible” and would “generate attention.”

“We want to go to the bill, and [Republicans] have to decide initially whether they want us to go to the bill,” Durbin said. “I wouldn’t call it theatrics.”

Everyone needs to know exactly who is holding up the end of this occupation and an overall shift in strategy. Huckleberry Graham can start reading the dictionary and Mitch McConnell can sing a capella, for all I care.

Not One Dollar, Not One Dime

We're now up to 87 Congresscritters that will not vote for any funding for the Iraq occupation other than for a fully funded redeployment, including deep South members like Artur Davis (D-AL) and Bennie Thompson (D-MS). That's only 25% of the House, but out in the country, the numbers for de-funding are much higher.

Asked what Congress should do with President Bush's pending Iraq supplemental request, the poll found that 70 percent of respondents want Congress to either vote against the President's request or require that funds can only be used for my plan to protect troops and bring them home. And by a two to one margin, respondents favored requiring that funds be spent on redeployment instead of providing the administration funds without conditions.

The polling memo is at Rep. Barbara Lee's One Voice PAC site.

We know that no supplemental will be coming out of the House until next year, so this is an opportunity for the Out Of Iraq caucus to get from 87 to 218 and force the hand of the leadership. The purse strings are really the only way to truly end this war, and it's going to be a long road which will not end with the election of the next President, as we know. So electing more and better Democrats to the House, and growing this movement over the next weeks and months, is crucial.

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.

Levin Asks More Soldiers To Die For A Mistake

I have no words for this. Carl Levin reacts to universal anger at Democrats for capitulating on Iraq by... buying the same BS frame about de-funding the troops.

I voted against going to war in Iraq; I have consistently challenged the administration's conduct of the war; and I have long fought to change our policy there. But I cannot vote to stop funding the troops while they are in harm's way, conducting dangerous missions such as those recently begun north of Baghdad. I agree with Lincoln, who decided "that the Administration had done wrong in getting us into the war, but that the Officers and soldiers who went to the field must be supplied and sustained at all events." As long as our nation's policies put them there, our troops should hear an unequivocal message from Congress that we support them.

Idiot, we're not talking about de-funding the troops, we're talking about de-funding the WAR. The troops aren't going to be panhandling for bullets and armor and trying to hitch a ride to Jordan. What is wrong with you?

Here's Russ Feingold, who lately I've thought is the last sensible man in Washington.

In the opinion piece, Levin mischaracterized the effort led by Feingold and Majority Leader Harry Reid as somehow cutting off funding for U.S. troops. In fact, the Feingold-Reid bill would not end funding for the ongoing military mission in Iraq until U.S. troops had been safely redeployed out of harm’s way.

"I’m pleased that Senator Levin and Senator Jack Reed have finally come to the conclusion that a timetable for redeployment with a hard deadline is what we need to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq," Feingold said. "But I’m disappointed that Senator Levin chose to announce his shift by disingenuously suggesting that the Feingold-Reid plan would somehow cut funding for troops in harm’s way. Senator Levin knows full well that the plan I introduced with Majority Leader Harry Reid, and which was supported by a majority of Senate Democrats, would end funding for the war in Iraq only after our brave troops have been safely redeployed out of Iraq. It is time for Senator Levin and Senator Jack Reed to drop their opposition to the Feingold-Reid plan to safely redeploy our troops by March 31, 2008, and then end funding for the mistake in Iraq."

Senator Levin and Senator Jack Reed previously had been critical of timetables culminating in a firm end date as a way to bring our military involvement in Iraq to an end. Despite Levin's current criticism of efforts to use Congress's power of the purse to end the war, Levin voted for a similar effort with regard to Somalia in 1993. In October 1993, Levin joined 75 other Senators in voting for an amendment to require redeployment of U.S. troops from Somalia by setting a deadline after which funding for the military mission there was terminated. The amendment was passed into law and U.S. troops were redeployed from Somalia by the deadline.

Anyone that doesn't understand the fundamental difference between de-funding troops and de-funding war is enabling the further death and destruction of American men and women in an intractable occupation. On this issue, Carl Levin is completely worthless. And the end of his op-ed, where he essentially says "my bill is doing better than your bill," demonstrates exactly the kind of runaway egos that have crippled our ability to govern in the 21st century.

UPDATE: What we have is a fundamental problem. Republicans don't want to talk about Iraq at all; Democrats can't help but talking about it the wrong way. And kids keep dying.

171

That's a huge number for withdrawing from Iraq, and it includes two Presidential candidates (Kucinich and Paul), the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader (!), my Congressman (thank you Rep. Waxman), and 169 Democrats in total. The Out of Iraq Caucus just got their biggest vote yet, and we just have to keep trying.

I would like to know why Rep. McNerney voted against the amendment. I expected some defections, but not that one.

AP story here. The important vote is coming up, when the Republicans make a motion to recommit and try to hand over yet another blank check to the President.

UPDATE: The motion to recommit failed, and David Obey's "short leash" bill passed 221-205 (and it would have been 223 if Brady and Fattah weren't campaigning to be the mayor of Philly). So that would give Bush money to continue the war for two months, then he would have to return to the Congress to prove progress to get the balance. It hs an uncertain future in the Senate and Bush has vowed to veto.

Two Votes on Iraq

It looks like the Progressive Caucus is going to get a vote on the fully funded withdrawal of troops and contractors from Iraq without delay. At the conclusion of that vote, if it doesn't pass, David Obey's "short-leash" bill will get a vote, giving the President a set amount of money but requiring a report on progress in Iraq within 60 days to release half of that money. The President has announced that he would veto the short-leash bill; I would assume he would also veto a fully funded withdrawal.

So, that's where we're at. The President wants a "compromise" defined as "giving absolutely everything I want." The Congress is trying to serve their constituents. There is a complete impasse there.

I am happy to see a vote come up for a fully funded withdrawal. It's important to get everyone on the record. I don't know how many votes it'll get, but I would hope that my Congressman supports it.

The Democrats, for the moment, appear to be standing strong.

UPDATE: Just called my Congressman, Henry Waxman. I asked if he would support the McGovern amendment for a fully funded withdrawal. The aide said that Rep. Waxman has been in committee and he doesn't know. He said he "supports withdrawal," but the answer was noncommital. I encouraged him to support the McGovern amendment.

The Senate Steps Up

Another bombshell:

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid unveiled a proposal to begin withdrawing soldiers from Iraq within four months and it sets a goal of pulling all combat troops out by March 31, 2008.

Reid moved to start a debate on that measure next week but was thwarted, at least for now, by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, who said more time was needed to look at the Democrats' ideas.

"The president's strategy in Iraq is not working and Congress must decide whether to follow his failed policies or whether to change course," Reid told reporters.

This move by the Senate, which is a unified position shared by the whole delegation sans Holy Joe Lieberman, makes the House proposal calling for withdrawal by fall 2008 the go-slow approach.

Things don't move that fast in our democracy. The ship of state is designed to move slowly and deliberately. So while I was concerned that the Democrats had given up on forcing debate on Iraq, I knew that eventually they would come around. Now they've essentially embraced Kerry-Feingold, which was put forth a year ago. It took that long to make it politically comfortable for them. I wish that wasn't true, it led to an unecessary loss of life, but now that the Democrats are where the public is on the war, we need to all pitch in to make this a reality.

3 cheers for this from Kos.

In any case, this is the sort of threat from the White House that has cracked Democratic resolve in the past, promoting them to try and find "common ground" with an administration that has no interest whatsoever in introducing accountability in its war conduct.

Hopefully this marks the end of those games. Let Bush veto it. The Democrats won the Senate and House on a platform of putting the brakes on this war. It's what a vast majority of the American people want. In fact, Congress is the last place in this country that still thinks there's a "debate" on Iraq. Outside of the bubble and pockets of dead-enders in the wingnutosphere, the debate over Iraq is over. Everyone wants out.

If Bush wants to veto legislation that the vast majority of Americans want, and if Republicans want to aid and abet that move, then let them. It'll provide the sort of stark contrast between the two parties voters need to make their ballot box choices.

One party wants to save our troops and reunite them with their families, the other party wants to keep them in harm's way.

Every Republican in the House and Senate has a choice to make. They'll have to pick a side. And choosing the President's side will have disastrous consequences for the next decade.

As for the veto, if it's attached to a supplemental appropriation, Bush will be denying himself the funds to continue the war. He'll be de-funding the troops in the field. If he signs the bill he'll try and find a way to continue the war past the withdrawal, whether through signing statement or simply refusing to withdraw. If he vetoes he'll try and find a way to keep funding the troops, probably through some off-the-books illegal budgeting. Either way, it'll provoke a Constitutional showdown.

Bring it on.

Fully Funded Withdrawal

This is the new buzzword of the Out of Iraq caucus in the House. The leadership has claimed that they are constrained by the 44 Blue Dog Democrts, but the truth is that there are more members in the Progressive Caucus, the largest caucus in the House. The leadership is constrained because the want to be constrained, particularly people like Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel. Maybe they don't particularly want to see the war end. But Barbara Lee does:

By framing their discussion of the war in terms of winning and losing, the Bush administration seeks to portray critics of their policies as opposed to victory, or supportive of defeat.

The fact is that you cannot "win" an occupation, just as there is no way for the United States to "win" an Iraqi civil war.

The Bush administration understands this, just as they understand that there are no pretty or clean options for bringing a responsible end to our policy there. They are content to mouth the words of victory while they try to run out the clock, playing a cynical game of political "chicken," where whoever acts to bring a responsible end to their failed policy will be accused of having lost Iraq.

We are spending $8 billion a month occupying Iraq, with an average of 67 U.S. troops being killed and 500 being wounded. The cost to our security of having our military bogged down in Iraq indefinitely is unsustainable, and is not only sapping vital funds from efforts to fight global terrorism, but is strengthening jihadist recruitment efforts internationally. The longer we allow the administration to delay meaningful movement, and the longer we fail to extract ourselves from this quagmire, the more dangerous this failed foreign policy becomes to America and the rest of the world [...]

Fully funding withdrawal is not micromanagement, it is macromanagement - the Bush administration has so badly managed this effort that they have forced Congress to intervene.

Fully funding withdrawal is not cutting off funding - we are going to fully fund a rational alternative to the administration's attempt to run out the clock on their failed policy.

There is ample precedent of both Republican and Democratic Congresses acting to restrict or direct funds during wartime and the time has come to consider such action again.

We have a responsibility to challenge the administration's efforts to run out the clock, and by proposing to intervene by fully funding a policy that actually fulfills our nation's long term strategic security objectives, we force them to defend their track record on the war, which is a debate that Democrats win every time.

I excerpted a lot of that letter because it really sums it up. This is an occupation, and furthermore it's an occupation during a civil war in which the US military has no role other than policeman. The surge is woefully undermanned, to the extent that the Defense Department now wants to surge the surge with another 2,200 troops. That will not be the end, and it's already being revealed that the money and troop strength was lowballed by the President. This counterinsurency strategy will take 10 years and only has a small chance at success by the admission of the general carrying it out.

It looks like Progressive Caucus pressure has brought around the leadership to earmark all new money for Iraq in terms of a phased withdrawal.

In a direct challenge to President Bush, House Democrats are advancing legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the fall of next year.

Democratic officials who described the measure said the timetable would be accelerated — to the end of 2007 — if the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki does not meet goals for providing Iraq's security.

The conditions, described as tentative until presented to the Democratic rank and file Thursday, would be added to legislation providing nearly $100 billion the Bush administration has requested for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the White House vetoes this, they don't get their $100 billion in funding. It's that simple. And it's that simple in the Senate as well, and Democrats should use the same tactics of "you don't support the troops in the field" if the Republicans act to block the funding. I don't realy know why it took so long to settle on this, but I'm gald it has. Now it's time to call every member of Congress and ask them where they stand.

I'm cautiously optimistic about where the Democrats are going with this debate.