Iraq Deadline: An Extraordinary Political Moment

Take a deep breath. The nation has arrived at an extraordinary political moment. The Congress is about to instruct the President he should withdraw from the ongoing war. Yes, I know the fine print in the House and Senate versions has lots of wiggle room. But the congressional action is still breathtaking when you think about it, possibly without historic precedent.

I assumed it would take many months and numerous failed efforts for the new Democratic majority to reach this juncture. When House leaders kept softening their terms, I even thought it might be a good thing for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to lose the first time around. She would then be assailed by outraged Americans and get the message: stiffen up, this is not business as usual. I was mistaken. Many of the final details are disappointing, but the message has been delivered and received--get out of Iraq. It will rule politics until the American exit actually occurs.

Democrats did not create this new dynamic--it arose volcano-like from the American people--but Democrats have had the wisdom to embrace it. I remember the torturous struggle in the Sixties waged by congressional opponents--Republicans and Democrats--trying to end the war in Vietnam. Their first resolutions were mild and deferential, politely urging Lyndon Johnson to start negotiating for peace. They were rejected. Subsequent measures raised the ante, but it took years of frustrating failure to get Congress to speak clearly. By comparison, the shift in politics this time moved like lightning.

Democrats now have the Republicans in a political vise and will keep squeezing them. Let Bush veto whatever anti-war measure House and Senate finally produce. Let the president's GOP troops uphold his veto. Democrats will then rally for another legislative assault on the willfully blind chief executive. Each new roll call will stick it again to the Republicans. Do they want to stand with the public's common-sense grasp of reality? Or are they going to keep voting with the crackpot commander-in-chief and his delusional search for victory?

The guy in the bunker, unfortunately, may never get the message. That deepens the tragedy, both for America and Iraq. Each new needless death will deepen the hurt and anger. But it looks like George W. Bush will stick with denial, even as Congress keeps toughening its attempts to force withdrawal. I hope I am wrong about that, but a wise friend explained the logic of Bush's desperation politics.

Bush and Cheney, he said, are trying to run out the clock--keep this war going until they leave office and can dump the mess on the next president, very likely a Democrat. In retirement, the Bush crowd will then begin to sow the "if only" revisionism that blames Democrats or the media or the American people for a "loss of will." Sounds absurd now, but that is roughly what happened after the lost war in Vietnam. We could have won, "if only." Sad to say, many Americans came to believe it, especially resentful veterans seeking explanation for why they fought and lost.

Given all he has done to this country, Bush could do something truly valuable for history by accepting the blame in a stand-up way. Admit his great errors. Acknowledge the failure. This might ensure him a tragic but noble legacy. I am afraid there is nothing noble in the man.

Comments (138)

1. we now know that pelosi, murtha, et al, were right in crafting legislation that had a chance of passing both houses. now the pressure is on bush to either:

   a) veto it, and look ridiculously out of step with the majority of americans, and earthlings; or

   b) sign it, and look truly noble.

   Posted by darladoon at 03/28/2007 @ 12:04pm

2. it turns out that zero has been precisely wrong about everything in this regard. his desires would have been resolutely rejected a landslide.....

   Posted by darladoon at 03/28/2007 @ 12:05pm

3. "we now know that pelosi, murtha, et al, were right in crafting legislation that had a chance of passing both houses. now the pressure is on bush to either:

   a) veto it, and look ridiculously out of step with the majority of americans, and earthlings; or

   b) sign it, and look truly noble."

   Posted by DARLADOON 03/28/2007 @ 12:04pm

   Or,

   c) Sign both the legislation and one of those nifty signing statements.

   Posted by drhammer at 03/28/2007 @ 12:10pm

4. c) Sign both the legislation and one of those nifty signing statements.

   Posted by DRHAMMER 03/28/2007 @ 12:10pm | ignore this person

   I don't think he would dare, now that the people are watching.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 03/28/2007 @ 12:12pm

5. Bush vetoes it, then it goes back to Congress....

   they can't over-ride the veto and to "support the troops" an "emergency" "temporary" spending bill, with NO time-frames or dates, is slapped together (virtually identical to this one, plus all the pork spending) that Pelosi and Reid will say is "just temporary to help the troops until we get to a permanent spending bill that WILL include the dates and timelines".

   Then the "temporary" bill continues for into summer, gets "re-authorized" in the fall, we go into winter. A new bill comes up in March 2008 with Bush promising to pull out the "Surged troops" (from Jan. 2007) as part of a deal to start a pull-out before the new President takes office...so that the new Democratic President isn't "blamed" for pulling the troops out.

   Posted by Mask at 03/28/2007 @ 12:24pm

6. none of that matters, mask. what does matter is that finally (and it didn't take long, as greider points out) the congress has put something out there.

   anti-war folks like zero seem to forget that we do need to remain positive. this is the first big step in the right direction for us, and i think we now need to remain patient, and see how this plays out. my confidence is high, now. bush is cornered.

   Posted by darladoon at 03/28/2007 @ 12:34pm

7. John McCain, appearing on NBC's "Today" show Wednesday from Orlando, Fla., said the war "was badly mismanaged. But there are signs of progress everywhere. ... I am confident that given the opportunity, we can have success. The consequences of failure are catastrophic because if we come home, bin Laden and Zarqawi, they are going to follow us."

   McCain, what a fucking dope. Zarqawi is dead and bin Laden is in Pakistan, and yet, if we leave Iraq, they'll follow us home. This is the guy LVLIBERTY1 wants for our next president? What a fucking dope.

   Posted by nathanhale at 03/28/2007 @ 12:34pm

8. Posted by MASK 03/28/2007 @ 12:24pm

   Assuming for a moment a veto, you assume too much that an override cannot happen. Congress may not have the votes NOW to override the veto, but they may depending on how the public reacts to Bush's veto.

   Posted by Hman23 at 03/28/2007 @ 12:35pm

9. meanwhile, the opposition is painting a picture of iraq that simply doesn't exist. and not only that, but lieberman actually said yesterday that "now is not the time to withdraw." has anyone, anywhere, and at anytime, said that this bill will withdraw the troops now? that just goes to show you how completely out of touch with reality the opposition is (mccain included).

   Posted by darladoon at 03/28/2007 @ 12:36pm

10. All the democrats have to do after passing this bill is not allow any different bill for this purpose to be passed. Just keep offering this bill. A bill can't pass the Senate without some Democrats voting for it, and one that the Republicans want sure as hell won't pass the House. They have to play chicken with him, and run him off the road. He's blinked every time that he's been forced to do so. STARE HIM DOWN.

    Posted by brantl at 03/28/2007 @ 12:39pm

11. My money is on Bush feigning victory in the spring or summer of 2008. He'll start to pull out some but not many troops. He'll claim that things are improving and Rove will spin like he's never spun before. Just as they convinced a majority of Americans that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 they'll attempt the greatest of all snow jobs by trying to convince America that Iraq was on the path to peace. You heard it here first folks.

    Posted by kvetch at 03/28/2007 @ 12:41pm

12. Nathan,

    Perhaps McCain should check with King George before he goes spouting off as George "doesn't think about Bin Laden".

    But then again I suppose it's a progression....George wasn't going to rest until he got Bin Laden, but then got bored with that and stopped playing the game. I guess McCain is still in the "not gonna rest" mode, until he too demotes the importance of Bin Laden to virtually nothing and forgets that Bin Laden really does need to be brought to justice BEFORE he dies of natural causes!

    But seriously....the weak part of McCain's election chances are NOT his war stance....the weak part is his marbles at his age. Most voters recall "I don't recall" Reagan and voting in an even older McCain....is a definite liability.

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/28/2007 @ 12:46pm

13. Theres too much pork in this bill...which of course is not really discussed..this bill will be vetoed..and Bush should hold a cerimony on the White House Lawn and ask America if they are for the pork additions..1 by 1, who sponsored and wrote the pork, and ask why was it on a military bill...then he should tell America what the effects of this bill will be on the soldier on the ground...

    AQ has to be rejoycing today...this is a sad day for anyone who is in Iraq..it is a surrender bill as far as I can see. Shame on the dems and they will pay a price for this,,,I can only hope......their concern about the troops are horseshit..it is about getting a long term majority and it will not happen for them..for if the dems cared about the pull out and the troops, they would make the bill about the pull out only and pull out now, not around election time..patheic polictical crapp as usual...and they would also have a cerimony handing the bill to the president for signing...then he could veto it in the drive way and send them back...

    But Bush has no style and the dems have the same old style.

    Posted by john maasch at 03/28/2007 @ 12:47pm

14. and the reason I mention that is....by his statement yesterday, it's pretty clear that McCain ain't playing with a full deck anymore.

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/28/2007 @ 12:48pm

15. Posted by HMAN23 03/28/2007 @ 12:35pm

    I am assuming there will be a veto and the votes are not there to override.

    If the Frat Boy doesn't doesn't want the money with strings attached, he doesn't want it bad enough. If he believes in this war so much, let him finance it with his private fortune using mercenaries supplied by Blackwater. The rest of us have better things to do with our blood and money than expropriate Iraq's natural resources for the benefit of artificial persons.

    Let him veto and be damned.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/28/2007 @ 12:50pm

16. Sigh. Time for Negotiation 101.

    You never open with your bottom line. You never accept the first offer.

    Mask is correct: The Democratic leadership, assuming they're not completely stupid (yes, I know, not the strongest assumption), know this too and are prepared to concede more.

    This is the bill that Bush would have loved to have had after a couple of months of very tough negotiating: It gives him more than a year to expand the war (cough Iran) and invalidate any "artificial" timetable.

    The Democratic party might be shopping for a spine, but they haven't yet picked one out.

    Posted by lrhamelin at 03/28/2007 @ 1:01pm

17. The Dems need a spine; the Repubs need a brain.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/28/2007 @ 1:03pm

18. McCain vs. Reality

    Please click here [youtube.com].

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/28/2007 @ 1:08pm

19. Posted by HMAN23 03/28/2007 @ 12:35pm

    What does the "public reaction" to him vetoing....have to do with it, HMAN?

    The public is for getting out ASAP...but that's not what the Dem plan is, and they're not turning on the Dems, are they?

    Plus, Bush's popularity is ALREADY at rock-bottem (30-35%)...and he ALREADY threatened veto. So what happens? He loses the RIO, LVLIB, CPT, BARRY guys if he SIGNS the bill....but loses no more if he vetos.

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2007 @ 1:17pm

20. Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/28/2007 @ 12:50pm

    Maybe a safe bet, but we'll see what happens. Although an override seems like a long shot right now, things are starting to turn. Now that they have, things could move fast. It all depends on the public reaction to a veto. If most Republicans still choose to stand by Bush, some may pay come 2008.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/28/2007 @ 1:17pm

21. What does the "public reaction" to him vetoing....have to do with it, HMAN?

    The public is for getting out ASAP.

    Posted by MASK 03/28/2007 @ 1:17pm

    Most are NOT for getting out ASAP. I am, but acknowledge that most want it on a timetable like the Dems suggested.

    As for public reaction, Congress will follow the their lead, even if they are a step behind. If the public is ambivalent about a Bush veto, no chance of an override. However, if there is a strong public opposition, Congress will have something to think about.

    I make no predictions one way or the other - just that it is short-sighted to assume an override is impossible. It is too difficult to predict what the country will be feeling in the months ahead.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/28/2007 @ 1:23pm

22. Posted by LRHAMELIN 03/28/2007 @ 1:01pm

    How about this?

    Bush negotiates with Pelosi and Reid and gets to push the "Out by" "August 31st, 2008" date to something like "December 1st, 2008". And maybe gets a "Start to Pull-out" date of...May 2008.

    Then he signs the bill...STARTS to pull out the "Surged" troops by May 2008...that takes months and months of foot-dragging...then by the time the Election comes, we're back down to the Fall 200-SIX figure for troops, and Bush stalls the pull-out for the "Transition" and says that "Due to the shift at the White House and DoD, we're going to need to halt troop transfers until President ***** takes office in mid-January".

    Full pull-out is then left on the door of the new President....Bush claims in his 2011/2012 memoirs that "We were on the verge of stabilizing Iraq, before the Dem Congress and President ***** precipitiously forced us to cut & run" and Limbaugh, Hannity, and the Gang toe the line and the debate for the next 40 years is "Who REALLY lost Iraq in the early 2000s?"

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2007 @ 1:24pm

23. On the assumption (remote) that the Bill gets past the Senate and goes over to Bush's desk for his veto, the Democratic leadership will turn the Admin / Tony Snow rhetoric on the Admin.

    Just as the Admin made its take it or leave it "best offer" of "informal chats without transcripts with no sworn testimony. The democrats will similarly say....veto it if you want, but don't expect anything better and the offer's off the table when you reject it.

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/28/2007 @ 1:25pm

24. However, if there is a strong public opposition, Congress will have something to think about.

    I make no predictions one way or the other - just that it is short-sighted to assume an override is impossible. It is too difficult to predict what the country will be feeling in the months ahead.

    Posted by HMAN23 03/28/2007 @ 1:23pm

    Let me say...I'd HOPE so....but not optimistic.

    Frankly, I see the veto getting "folded into the next news cycle" and Tony Snow (already a figure of sympathy) going out and saying "The President didn't feel that setting a time-table for surrender AND $100 Million for spinach farmers was something worth signing" and then we're off to "Why is Barack Obama fading?" and "German animal rights group still wants to kill the baby polar bear!"

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2007 @ 1:28pm

25. Posted by LRHAMELIN 03/28/2007 @ 1:01pm

    Not sure how much else they can really concede. The bill is not an "offer;" it was the result of a negotitation before it was passed.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/28/2007 @ 1:31pm

26. How many Republicans in the House and Senate will stand beside Bush if he vetoes the "pullout bill"? Reminder: 21 Republican Senators are up for re-election in 2008. Their re-election efforts would be best-served by having a pull-out underway when voters decide who will be better at putting this country on the right track.

    Posted by nathanhale at 03/28/2007 @ 1:38pm

27. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/28/2007 @ 12:47pm

    Likewise, the Dems could have a ceremony asking the President why the funds for his adventure aren't included in his annual budget and are still categorized as "emergency."

    Posted by BlueTexan at 03/28/2007 @ 1:44pm

28. Posted by NATHANHALE 03/28/2007 @ 1:38pm

    hmmm . . . does that include Collins, Warner, Coleman and Snowe? Guess that is why they are positioning themselves where they are . . . for now.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/28/2007 @ 1:44pm

29. Posted by BLUETEXAN 03/28/2007 @ 1:44pm

    And I am sure Maasch is so in favor of investigating the pork surrounding Cheney's office upgrades referenced in Corn's blog.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/28/2007 @ 1:45pm

30. How bout this:

    Assuming a Bush veto, send him a bill that moves the date for withdrawl back by 15 days. When he vetos that, same bill, now lopping off another 15 days and so on until he realizes that he should've swallowed his pride at taken the first bill.

    That might slap that silly smirk off his arrogant phiz.

    Posted by skeletonman at 03/28/2007 @ 1:53pm

31. Posted by NATHANHALE 03/28/2007 @ 1:38pm

    Unfortunately, NATHAN, you forget one thing....guys like Chuck Hagel, big talk on ending the war, but then turn around and vote against the non-binding resolution. 4 "Hagels" out of the 21 you noted....and no over-ride.

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2007 @ 1:54pm

32. Still assuming it passes the Senate lets hope Bush DOES veto it. And let's hope Congress can't OVERIDE the veto.

    That way, the Pentagon runs out of money in a month and the troops come home....who cares which party gets blamed the troops will be home!

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/28/2007 @ 1:59pm

33. Despite our righteous desperation to end this war I think the interesting part of Mr. Greider's article is in his analysis of the Long Term strategy of the Bushites and the right: "In retirement, the Bush crowd will then begin to sow the "if only" revisionism that blames Democrats or the media or the American people for a 'loss of will" .... [as after]Vietnam .... many Americans came to believe it, especially resentful veterans seeking explanation for why they fought and lost."

    There are many factors which make this more dangerous now:

    1) The professionization of the Army. The Vietnam army was made up largely of conscripts. It had a much wider range of political & cultural allegiences than the present army. The present army is much more likely to play out its resentments in an ideological and authoritarian way. Professional armies have historically been the enemies of democratic/republican government.

    2) The mercenaries. The Bushites have not only created a new special interest, that stands to profit in the long & short terms from continued imperialist adventure. They have created a special interest commited to an authoritarian ideology - that has guns. Read Jeremy Scahill's articles in the Nation & pick up his Blackwater book. The German veterans of WWI had resentments. Some of them joined mercenary/paramilitaty organizations (the "freicorps") which played no small part in the fall of Weimar.

    3) The compromise of the electoral process. The elections of 2000 & 2004 have undermined faith in the fairness of the electoral system. Ongoing efforts by the Bushites have succeeded in making this much worse.

    Posted by Retiarius at 03/28/2007 @ 2:18pm

34. Posted by MASK 03/28/2007 @ 1:54pm Now that a bill has been passed by both the House and Senate, the public has been shown that ending the war is possible; the only thing standing in the way is old Mr. 30% Approval Rating. As spring becomes summer, how many Republicans are going to stand up and say, "Bush is right, we need to take out the withdrawal dates and give Chimpy a bill the public opposes!"?

    Posted by nathanhale at 03/28/2007 @ 2:48pm

35. Nathan,

    Where are you seeing that is has passed the Senate?

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/28/2007 @ 2:56pm

36. Posted by NATHANHALE 03/28/2007 @ 2:48pm

    Nate, all it takes is seventeen (or eighteen if Tim Johnson is back....somebody check my Constitutional math, if needed) Republicans to stick with Bush...and no over-ride. 67, already including 49 Democrats, less Lieberman...equals 17 Republicans needed to carry the over-ride.

    Sounds low, but as you noted ONLY 21 of them are up for re-election. So, again check the math, that means that if more than 3 decide to "risk it" for 2008....no over-ride.

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2007 @ 3:07pm

37. Professional armies have historically been the enemies of democratic/republican government.

    Posted by RETIARIUS 03/28/2007 @ 2:18pm

    Of course, I'll get charged by the Usual Suspects with "putting words in RETIARIUS's mouth"....but...

    doesn't this essentially translate as him saying that the US Military, a professional army, is POTENTIALLY an enemy of our democracy???

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2007 @ 3:09pm

38. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/28/2007 @ 2:56pm

    do you mean this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17811336/

    Posted by MASK 03/28/2007 @ 3:07pm

    It doesn't take super-majorities in Congress to send the same bill back to Chimpy's desk.

    Posted by nathanhale at 03/28/2007 @ 3:12pm

39. It doesn't take super-majorities in Congress to send the same bill back to Chimpy's desk.

    Posted by NATHANHALE 03/28/2007 @ 3:12pm

    To what end? He vetoes it again and we start over again?

    Believe me, I WISH it was different....but it isn't. Bush vetoes the bill and in the BEST possible scenario, he loses 1 maybe 2% off his approval ratings (down to 33-29%).

    The Congress can't override (the Constitution makes it damn near impossible...plus the original bill got 49 Senators, which means you'd have to "peel off" 17 of that 49 or OVER 1/3 of them.

    2008 is a long way off (politically), and I doubt that seventeen of them would think "I can't survive in Idaho, South Carolina, Alambama, Arizona, if I don't override Bush's veto".

    And again, the NIGHTMARE scenario of the Bush/White House spin of "Dems want to cut spending for the troops" or "Dems loaded a troop funding bill with pork to help their special interest groups"....actually WORKING and hurting the Dems. Not impossible, unlikely, but within the realm of possible. And politicians are nothing but good gamblers.

    I frankly don't see anything on the horizon that doesn't keep this debacle in Iraq going until January 20th, 2009.

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2007 @ 3:27pm

40. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/28/2007 @ 3:10pm

    The "funding of the troops" falls squarely at the feet of Bush. If he wanted guaranteed funds, he should have put it in his annual budget. You know, with everything else. A war that is four years old isn't an emergency.

    He knew there would be Democratic majorities to contend with. If he wanted to avoid it, he could have put it in his budget. Bush is just playing political theater. (Bush is such a thespian.)

    You know, in life, when you don't budget for things and you have to borrow for emergencies, sometimes it comes with high interest, or strings attached. No different for Bush. But as we know, Bush has never had to worry about a personal emergency in his life.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 03/28/2007 @ 3:36pm

41. LVLIBERTY1 wrote: "America still has at least one leader who prefers to lead against evil instead of surrendering."

    I agree with your above-quoted statement except for one, itsy bitsy word: change the word "against" to the word "the." My, my, what a difference one little word makes.

    Posted by KLG at 03/28/2007 @ 3:44pm

42. LvLiberty-your view of bush as a lone man fighting evil is hysterical in it's imagery.I can see bush in his flight suit with a big "S" on the front,standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier,cape flowing the wind,missiles bouncing off his chest,looking like the offspring of Howdy Doody and Tarzans chimp Cheeta.Then he opens his mouth and proves he's the offspring of Howdy Doody and Cheeta.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/28/2007 @ 3:49pm

43. Posted by MASK 03/28/2007 @ 12:24pm | ignore this person

    Posted by MASK 03/28/2007 @ 1:17pm | ignore this person

    Well hold on there Mask, aren't you fogetting a few things.

    Not long ago, you were questioning whether Lee and Woolsey and Waters would ever even get a chance to support Pelosi's bill.

    Then, when Pelosi's bill passed, you made a big deal about how the whole thing still had to get through the Senate and you were predicting that either it would fail or they'd take out the deadline.

    So, before we move on to your new prognostications regarding this bill, let's just take a moment and acknowledge the fact that, so far...

    ...you basically have gotten everything wrong.

    There, now that's out of the way...what happens next?

    Bush uses the veto, just like he said he would. Then, it unfolds just as STWRILEY described...

    So what then? No override of the veto, of course, but that's not the aim of this, I think. Instead, Pelosi and the Democrats force him to put Iraq spending into the regular defense appropriations bill, or ask for another "emergency" bill (and I'm with you Crabwalk, on the disbelief that this is still handled that way.) Either way, we'll see another conditioned bill, different enough from this one to be new, but essentially the same in content (deadlines, training provisions, rest and refit provisions and all) which will be vetoed. Well and good, and a fine political gesture.

    But there is one more trap waiting here. The more BushCo vetoes the more difficult his position becomes. He'll run out of money and there's nothing he can do about that. The vast majority of the current military funding for Iraq is channeled to the Army, but by Constitutional limitation this cannot be appropriated for more than two years, and we are well down that timeline for all current appropriations. So what, you say? Just this. Once the current cash is gone BushCo cannot Constitutionally spend more. To do so violates the seventh clause of Section I, article 9 of the Constitution:

    "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

    This means that BushCo won't have any funding for the war and he can't divert money from elsewhere (since that would not be pursuant to the "Appropriations made by Law".) If he tries to do so, he'll be in clear and public breach of the Constitution and if he doesn't he'll have no choice but to withdraw the troops before the money runs out. If he tries to hold out, Congress can simply appropriate money to fund the withdrawal and the same trap is still in place. Any Constitutional violation (because this is not a point that is debatable in a Constitutional sense) would be patent grounds for impeachment, one that even Republicans in Congress would have a hard time opposing. Even if they don't have a chance to act on it, the threat of or beginning of impeachment proceedings (we're not even talking about trial and removal here) would be so useful politically in 2008 as to be almost invaluable. What Republican could escape if he didn't back impeachment under those circumstances?

    Posted by Lillian at 03/28/2007 @ 3:50pm

44. And again, the NIGHTMARE scenario of the Bush/White House spin of "Dems want to cut spending for the troops" or "Dems loaded a troop funding bill with pork to help their special interest groups"....Posted by MASK 03/28/2007 @ 3:27pm

    "There you go again, Mr. President. You have a funding bill on your desk that represents the will of the nation. You signed other war-funding bills with pork. To give the troops the funds they need, you will have to give the American people what they want."

    Posted by nathanhale at 03/28/2007 @ 3:51pm

45. Say what you will about the Democrats, they know how to count, which the White House does not.

    There will be no staredown. There's no need for it. Bush and friends will hang from the rope they lassoed the public with: the idea that Iraq will soon become a lovely democracy, just like us. That absolutely is not going to happen, at least not any time soon.

    No matter what "good news" comes out of Iraq, the American people will never see it as a success.

    All the Democrats have to do is stall while one Republican after another gets too close to campaign time to keep up the facade. The numbers for Bush will only get worse. If he's got any brains at all, he'll make a huge fuss and then sign this thing and get it over with, moaning over how Congress has the power of the purse, his hands are tied, what a terrible time for America, blah blah blah.

    Maybe he's too principled to do that. After all, he is FIGHTING EVIL. cue Mighty Mouse theme

    Posted by MyParadigm at 03/28/2007 @ 4:07pm

46. Posted by LILLIAN 03/28/2007 @ 3:50pm

    You're right, LIL.

    I thought Lee, Woolsey, and Waters would...stick to their guns and vote against the Pelosi Compromise of 1850, but they didn't.

    I also thought the Senate would see the veto coming, strip the deadline, and pass the bill...mostly based on the fact that DEMOCRATS like Jim Webb, Ben Nelson, and Evan Bayh were (as late as two weeks ago) saying that they opposed deadlines and Webb in fact during his campaign said they were "impossible in war time".

    I was wrong...Reid pulled them over to support it.

    The question becomes....How?

    My idea (no prediction)...he told them that they could support the bill this time, Bush would veto it, taking the heat on himself, and STILL not imposing a deadline they all three said they didn't support in the past.

    Thus, Bush is faulted...while Webb, Nelson, and Bayh still get what they originally want and get to say "I actually opposed setting a deadline, before I supported it" later.

    STW is right about the Constitutional element...but forgets the POLITICAL element. He forgets...the 1995 Budget Fight/Government shutdown. Constitutionally, Newt and the boys well within their purview to do it...politically? It blew up in their faces.

    But hey, if you're willing to be optimistic and think that Bush and the Admin. will collapse on this, lose the PR war, and we'll get the start of a pull-out in March of 2008....I'd be happy if YOUR prediction is proven right!

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2007 @ 4:08pm

47. ...politically? It blew up in their faces. Posted by MASK 03/28/2007 @ 4:08pm

    Tough to see this blowing up in their faces: after the first Bush veto, his approval ratings will be about 20 points lower than Clinton's in '95.

    Posted by nathanhale at 03/28/2007 @ 4:28pm

48. his approval ratings will be about 20 points lower than Clinton's in '95.

    Posted by NATHANHALE 03/28/2007 @ 4:28pm

    And what happened to Clinton, Nate?...and what happened after that?

    Politics is a fluid world.

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2007 @ 4:34pm

49. STW is right about the Constitutional element...but forgets the POLITICAL element. He forgets...the 1995 Budget Fight/Government shutdown. Constitutionally, Newt and the boys well within their purview to do it...politically? It blew up in their faces.

    Posted by MASK 03/28/2007 @ 4:08pm | ignore this person

    I don't think STWIRELY fogets the 'political' element at all...just sees it way more clearly than you appear to see it.

    Consider, why did Newt's 'showdown' with Clinton blow back on he and his congressional allies? Seems reasonable to say that it was because Clinton was extremely popular and had the majority of the country on his side in that fight.

    Bush isn't in that position...by a long shot. He's Mr. 30% and the country is opposed to the war and favors withdrawl. Remember that, 'politically' a good many of those R's are facing re-election...and the party knows they face the VERY real prospect of loosing even more seats. The pressure is on them NOT to side with the Pres'nit...who's going to be struggling big time to explain why he vetoed a bill that had so much in it to 'support of the troops.'

    Posted by Lillian at 03/28/2007 @ 4:36pm

50. his approval ratings will be about 20 points lower than Clinton's in '95.

    Posted by NATHANHALE 03/28/2007 @ 4:28pm

    And what happened to Clinton, Nate?...and what happened after that?

    Politics is a fluid world.

    Posted by MASK 03/28/2007 @ 4:34pm | ignore this person

    Well what did happen, Mask? Clinton's approval went UP. Even after impeachment proceedings started, he could have won re-election if given the chance.

    Posted by Lillian at 03/28/2007 @ 4:39pm

51. Posted by MASK 03/28/2007 @ 4:34pm

    What's this? Are you going to posit that Chimpy is going to be a political Lazarus? Even Maasch wouldn't take that bet.

    Posted by nathanhale at 03/28/2007 @ 4:39pm

52. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/28/2007 @ 3:10pm

    What is it that makes these Pharisees --er, I mean, Bushies, stand up and applaud The Chimpy who couldn't defeat Iraq?

    Posted by nathanhale at 03/28/2007 @ 5:05pm

53. Politics is a fluid world.

    Posted by MASK

    Yeah it is. When this mess in Iraq turns around and everything begins to go as planned--Iraq becomes a democracy, a beacon of hope and inspiration for all the Middle East and beyond--I'm sure Georgie Jr will enjoy outstanding poll numbers. As soon as that happens (and right after monkeys begin flying out of my butt), everything will change.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/28/2007 @ 5:06pm

54. The huge difference at this point is that the president really needs the appropriation. He needs a bill he can sign.

    If he vetoes - and I think he will veto - then he just creates a standoff, one where he isn't the one with the power.

    Now, we could see an accomodation between the dems and the white house, and come up with a compromise bill that he would agree to sign. I think that's a somewhat likely outcome, but it may not be quick and I doubt very much it will lack a timetable, as that would be a severe political problem for the dems.

    Posted by ericgu at 03/28/2007 @ 5:06pm

55. Where is the downside? I do not see any downside. If Bush does not veto then our troops come home. If Bush does veto then our troops come home sooner.

    Posted by tucanofulano at 03/28/2007 @ 5:19pm

56. 1. Bush vetoes Bill

    2. Congress looks like its playing politics and American people suspect that they have become clones of the French wanting to snatch defeat out of the hands of victory as reports continue to improve from Iraq.

    3. Bush's polls go up as Congress is seen as denying money to our troops and Bush as their protector.

    4. The Pelosi/Murtha/Reid gambit dies a quick death and a compromise bill is signed with no pull out guidelines.

    5. How long did it take the Democrat Congress to go too far---three months----Next story

    Posted by Len Mosse at 03/28/2007 @ 5:57pm

57. Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/28/2007 @ 5:57pm

    The problem, little Lenny Mosse, is that with the exception of the nipplehead vote, currently around 30% of the population, no one thinks that Boy George is doing a good job or on the right track.

    A 67 year old granny put the smack down on him today, for cryin' out loud, for being the petulant child that he is. Not looking good for Chimpy.

    Posted by skeletonman at 03/28/2007 @ 6:20pm

58. LvLiberty-I fought in a war I didn't believe in while your brave,manly leader hid in the nearest bar.When your brave,manly leader was told America was being attacked he froze and then read My Pet Goat.You have posted nothing showing any ability to lead so I'm not sure what your point there was.A leader does not divide his nation,as bush has.A leader unites his nation.A leader does not allow those who attacked us to regroup,retrain,and make new plans, as bush has.You simply define "good leader"as someone who agrees with you and not based on their accomplishments.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/28/2007 @ 6:40pm

59. Bush doesn't need to veto the bill or issue a signing statement. He just needs to take full advantage of the loopholes for leaving troops in Iraq after 18 months for counterterrorism, training the Iraqi army, etc.

    Posted by green2006 at 03/28/2007 @ 6:48pm

60. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/28/2007 @ 6:28pm

    What you fail to understand is the difference between an exemplary leader and a poor leader.

    An exemplary leader MAKES sacrifices on behalf of those s/he leads.

    A poor leader COMPELS sacrifice on behalf of those s/he leads.

    Therein lies the fallacy (among numerous others) of the comparison Chimpy tried to make between his presidency and his war, and that of another presidency and war of a man named George (and no, we aren't talking about Poppy).

    Posted by skeletonman at 03/28/2007 @ 6:48pm

61. The democrates are so determined to try to destroy Bush that they will sacrifice anything, and that means ANYTHING, to achieve that purpose. A pullout will weakend us for decades in the eyes of the world, but the destruction of Bush is more important. After all, let's not lose sight of the real goal.. What a pathetic group!

    Posted by gaguy7 at 03/28/2007 @ 6:51pm

62. If the democrats are so concerned about the loss of American lives, why don't they stop illegal immigrants who take more American lives per day than we lose per week in Iraq? Is saving lives the real agenda, or trying to upstage the President. Polls clearly show the American people want a victory in Iraq. Only the democrats prefer defeat.

    Posted by gaguy7 at 03/28/2007 @ 6:53pm

63. We are a divided nation because we are polarized by differing values between conservatives and liberals. That polarization will not change with the next president, Democrat or Republican. I cannot see it changing within my lifetime.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/28/2007 @ 7:35pm | ignore this person

    Thought we were promised this "Iraq thing" was going to be short and sweet. Just how many years do you want to give it? How about you contribute your military pension to reduce the federal deficit since you support CIC so much. Your pious flag waving is contributing nothing to support our troops. BTW...Cheney is the puppet master....not George. He thought the Taliban was a rock group...remember...great leader huh?

    Posted by OneVote at 03/28/2007 @ 7:57pm

64. "SMACK DOWN" "Chimpy" ===Who again is the petulant child Skeletor? When you raise your level of intelect from the Seventh grade name calling stage to one of an adult maybe someone could have an engaging discussion with you---until then--Let's see how can I say this so that you could understand---I'm rubber and you are glue anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 03/28/2007 @ 8:04pm

65. LvLiberty-Here are facts-We were quite united after 9/11,but now we're not.This country hasn't been this divided since Nam.Bush caused this division.Bush believed in the war in Nam,but used his wealthy parents to get him a coveted position in the Air National guard in order to avoid fighting in that war.Here is another fact-During Nam your kind put down those who joined the national guard(you may deny that,but do remember that I was around back then)and your kind called them cowards.Your claim that I must not care that communism enslaved millions is another of your lame attempts at a put down.No communist country has ever existed.Only the most naive would believe that these "communist" countries could have been defeated through military action.It would have been a blood bath that made World War Two look like a picnic.Viet Nam had absolutely nothing to do with fighting communism,anyway.That was just the mating call for you "love the war" volunteers.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/28/2007 @ 8:09pm

66. Mask,

    Yes, I did say that a professional military is a potential threat to democratic/republican/representative government.

    As did the Romans who saw Caius Marius' "reform" of the Roman army into an all professional force lead over the course of a generation and a half into the fall of the Roman republic.

    As did Machiavelli in his Discourses.

    As did the parliamentry party in its struggles against King Charles attempts to raise and fund such an army in the 17th century.

    As did the writers of the US Constitution who were well aware of and clearly warned of the dangers of a standing (professional) army.

    As did the liberals in 19th century Germany, who struggled FOR conscription as they felt an all volunteer professional army was a tool the Prussian King could & would use against parliamentry government.

    Not a new, nor an original idea, but one that bears consideration now. The politics of military resentment of the people and their elected representatives is already in play. The "stab in the back" has a proven track record as a political strategem.

    Mr. Greider's warning is an important one.

    Posted by Retiarius at 03/28/2007 @ 8:14pm

67. Bush never said it would be short and sweet. In fact he said just the opposite about the war on terror. He said it would last generations.

    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED????????????????

    I think the GWOT baloney came after Mission Accomplished was proved to be false don't you?

    So you don't feel any obligation to pay for the war? You like the war and tax cuts simultaneously?

    Bush didn't include alot of stuff in his reduction of budget deficit, and as I recall, the budget projections didn't include emergency supplementals for the year. GAO paints a different story LIV. I can't believe you sincerely believe this PR tripe from Mr. Tax Cut and Spend.

    We need to get the hell out of Iraq so we can actually focus on security of this Country....don't you see that?

    Posted by OneVote at 03/28/2007 @ 8:16pm

68. Seems reasonable to say that it was because Clinton was extremely popular and had the majority of the country on his side in that fight.

    Posted by LILLIAN 03/28/2007 @ 4:36pm

    LIL...what were Clinton's approval ratings in 1995 BEFORE the budget fight?

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2007 @ 8:17pm

69. Yes, I did say that a professional military is a potential threat to democratic/republican/representative government.

    Posted by RETIARIUS 03/28/2007 @ 8:14pm

    Do you think that the American professional military IS a threat to our democracy? Or just has the potential to be...and if so, how much so?

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2007 @ 8:20pm

70. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/28/2007 @ 8:07pm | ignore this person

    BTW...Liv...could you please define for me in specific terms what your idea of VICTORY is, and how we will recognize it when we achieve it, and in the alternative, fail to achieve it. I have been confused about this all along?????

    Posted by OneVote at 03/28/2007 @ 8:21pm

71. Do we have the same spirit of our forefathers who fought a six year long war in which we lost almost every battle until finally achieving victory and independence?

    Do we have the same toughness of those who withstood a terrible civil war that brought death and ruin but finally freedom and unification?

    Do we have the same courage of those who lived and survived through the Great Depression and then fought and won a World War? Do we have the same forsight and stamina of those who fought a Cold War against Communism that was finally won by staying strong and vigilant?

    Unfortunately, I am slowly coming to the conclusion that the answer to all of the above questions is no. I have been reading posts on this board for four years now and I am sure that this has jaded my opinion. But, somewhere as a people, we have lost the spirit that once led us through tough and troubled times. I am sure that someone on here will say that we only need a great leader and a change of direction--and maybe they're right---but the problem is that I think the last great leader we had was Ronald Reagan while others feel it was Bill Clinton. I fear the divide will never be bridged.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 03/28/2007 @ 8:26pm

72. I think the last great leader we had was Ronald Reagan while others feel it was Bill Clinton.

    Reagan/Bush (Mr. Trickle Down Economics & Mr. No New Taxes) left us with a $5.7 trillion dollar deficit legacy, Clinton left with a surplus. If managing the federal budget is the measure, I think Clinton is the clear winner here.

    Posted by OneVote at 03/28/2007 @ 8:41pm

73. As I continue to think about the problem that I addressed in the above post I have come to the conclusion that we as a people no longer believe in anything anymore. We have become synical and short sighted--looking for the quick fix and immediate success. If immediate succes is not available we punt. In dealing with past problems we had certain things that unified us as a people. A belief in God and family; a belief in the American dream; and a belief in individual responsibility. We seem to be moving further and further away from those beliefs and closer and closer to believing in a secular state that attempts to take care of us from cradle to grave. Not everything we did in the past was good. In fact much of it was terrible, but because of our common values we were able to work through our problems and come out better on the other end. Today I believe that when push comes to shove, when the going gets really tough---we the American people will fold. Hope I'm wrong

    Posted by Len Mosse at 03/28/2007 @ 8:53pm

74. If managing the federal budget is the measure, I think Clinton is the clear winner here.

    I don't think managing the budget is the only measure--in fact you could argue that any President and Congress that would budget a surplus in times of economic distress would be incompetent. Bush faced an economic turn down as he came into office. Spending by the government and by the people as they spent their tax cuts weakened and shortened the recession. Later 9/11 --Afghanistan and Iraq have caused unexpected expenses. If Clinton would have remained President 9/11 and probably the invasion of Afghanistan would have also probably taken place---Iraq probably not, but we will never know for sure. Remember FDR managed a larger defecit in relationship to the GNP than Bush---Was he not a great President?

    Posted by Len Mosse at 03/28/2007 @ 9:00pm

75. Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/28/2007 @ 8:53pm | ignore this person

    God grant us the serenity to accept the things we can not change, the courage to change the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

    The majority of the American people have the wisdom to know the difference and have spoken. It is time to end this madness.

    Posted by OneVote at 03/28/2007 @ 9:01pm

76. Bush faced an economic turn down as he came into office. Spending by the government and by the people as they spent their tax cuts weakened and shortened the recession. Later 9/11 --Afghanistan and Iraq have caused unexpected expenses. If Clinton would have remained President 9/11 and probably the invasion of Afghanistan would have also probably taken place---Iraq probably not, but we will never know for sure. Remember FDR managed a larger defecit in relationship to the GNP than Bush---Was he not a great President?

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/28/2007 @ 9:00pm | ignore this person

    I thought Bush was claiming that the economy was doing great?

    So you believe that military spending is the only way to fiscally stimulate the economy, along with tax cuts? How about fiscal spending in the social sector such as building roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, education, health care, etc. Wouldn't those provide fiscal stimulus to the economy? And the tax cuts...weren't those going to the wealthy who were supposed to invest them rather than spend them? Remember, middle class has not received the tax cuts that the wealthy have. Investment in real estate and stocks and bonds have created paper wealth for the wealthy, but haven't created jobs the way Bush has claimed.

    We don't need to start a war every time there is an economic downturn. The MIC believes differently of course. We need to start investing in our infrastructure and future...NOW!

    As to 9/11...hard to say what Clinton would have done. I don't think he would have sat on intelligence the way Bush did. Seems to me he ignored warning signs. As to Iraq....I think Clinton would not have invaded but may have continued economic sanctions and possible limited strike retaliation on military hardware and installations. I don't think he ever would have been so stupid as to take Saddam out because he knew of the ensuing power vacuum that would be created. George Bush senior knew this as well. Too bad George Jr. doesn't have the intelligence of his dad.

    Posted by OneVote at 03/28/2007 @ 9:18pm

77. The GOP can offer up all the revisionism that if we had only kept our nerve we could have won but the American people see how hopeless the cause is looking in the past few days with Tal Afar taking Bagdad's place. Of course we don't have enougth troops and the surge will make no difference. In any event we don't have the troops to sustain a surge. The only way we could sustain a surge large enough to make a difference would be a draft. And of course if there were a draft the troops would start coming home tomarrow. And Bush could veto till the cows came home.

    Posted by darby1936 at 03/28/2007 @ 9:58pm

78. there is nothing noble in the man, the republican party at large and the evil crew that keeps this war machine geared up.

    Posted by parulis at 03/28/2007 @ 10:09pm

79. Expect to see "Stonewall" Bush veto this bill....If for no reason than to prove he;'s still a force to be reckoned with, and to also prove to Nancy Pelosi who has the dick and who doesn't (heh, heh)

    Posted by davebarlett at 03/28/2007 @ 10:22pm

80. Setting a date for withdrawal might be what's needed.

    If this isn't a "civil war" as the Administration claims then with a set deadline it might also mean that the "insurgents" won't need to blow up American soldiers because they will be leaving anyway by such and such date.

    If it is a civil war that Americans are forced to "clean up" then whatever day Americans think they will leave won't make a difference, it'll still go on anyway no matter what delusional picture the Administration might paint.

    Posted by bohdan yuri at 03/28/2007 @ 11:29pm

81. It's a done deal. Bush wins, Pelosi et al. loses. I can't believe the folks who are living in Guyana posting here. Let the troops continue, according to the latest Pew 67% of folks believe the troops are winning and should stay. The Dems are now cheering for an American loss to win in 2008. What has happened to my party?

    Posted by tpaine at 03/28/2007 @ 11:53pm

82. Setting a date for withdrawal might be what's needed.

    If this isn't a "civil war" as the Administration claims then with a set deadline it might also mean that the "insurgents" won't need to blow up American soldiers because they will be leaving anyway by such and such date.

    If it is a civil war that Americans are forced to "clean up" then whatever day Americans think they will leave won't make a difference, it'll still go on anyway no matter what delusional picture the Administration might paint.

    Posted by bohdan yuri at 03/29/2007 @ 12:01am

83. Posted by MASK 03/28/2007 @ 8:20pm

    Is there a difference in the level of potential threat to our national security, between national reliance on a professional "citizen" army and national reliance on a private mercenary army? The question doesn't presuppose the identit(ies) of the parties responsible for creating any resultant threat.

    Does the creation of a volunteer "professional" army and the tandem exclusion of a societal expectation that the citizenry at large must shoulder an obligation to come to the aid of the country through compulsory service create a stronger America?

    Although I expect virulent diagreement from "the usual suspects," and reasoned disagreement from a number of others, I assert that the U.S. of the Viet Nam era was a stronger country than the frightened 1950's vision of the GWOT nation that we are today due in large part from the more egalitarian impact on the citizenry from foreign policy decisions and from executive abuses of the Constitution during the Viet Nam adventurism.

    Posted by canaar at 03/29/2007 @ 12:02am

84. I agree, by various accounts Dubya is a good guy, but he'd surrounded himself with bad guys and that made him a wrong guy for the office.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 03/29/2007 @ 06:14am

85. I agree, by various accounts Dubya is a good guy, but he'd surrounded himself with bad guys and that made him a wrong guy for the office.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 03/29/2007 @ 06:14am

86. Posted by CANAAR 03/29/2007 @ 12:02am

    My problem is RETIARIUS automatic assumption that a voluntary military should be suspect. And a suspicion on my part that he would find ANY military suspicious.

    A secondary problem is that the same type of people who were screaming for the end of the draft in the early 70s, as a means of ending the Vietnam...are the same ones who want to BRING BACK the draft to end the war in Iraq. When evidently NEITHER would have ended EITHER war. In fact, under a draft, Vietnam went on for nearly 10 years (Tonkin resolution-Paris peace treaty--1964-1973) and under the volunteer army, Iraq will hopefully (at the worst) be over in 2009, six years later.

    Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 07:17am

87. "Let the troops continue, according to the latest Pew 67% of folks believe the troops are winning and should stay."

    Posted by TPAINE 03/28/2007 @ 11:53pm

    From the Pew website:

    "Fully two-thirds of Americans (67%) say things are not going well with the U.S. military effort in Iraq, and solid majorities say the U.S. is losing ground in preventing a civil war (68%), reducing civilian casualties (66%), and defeating the insurgents militarily (55%)."

    http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=304

    Nice try.

    Posted by drhammer at 03/29/2007 @ 07:32am

88. Posted by MASK 03/29/2007 @ 07:17am

    I have heard it said that the initial birth is generally more difficult than those that follow.

    Posted by canaar at 03/29/2007 @ 09:07am

89. Democrats are in a position to make the dictator blink: if he follows through on his threat to veto the spending bill on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he won't get any new money for them at all. He'll be left with no other option, since he insists on staying the wrong-headed course, to illegally divert funds. And with Congress investigating numerous scandals (all of which lead back to the White House), there is no way even a raving, egomaniacal boy who thinks he's some sort of king can seriously believe impeachment won't result from it.

    The war in Iraq has created more terrorism worldwide, squandered American credibility, looted the American treasury, and murdered hundreds of thousands of people -- all in the name if greed. This war is Bush's mess, but he'll never clean it up. That is being left to Democrats, and that being the case there is no reason to let Bush and Cheney "wait out the clock" before ending their war and cleaning up the mess they created.

    Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 03/29/2007 @ 09:37am

90. I have heard it said that the initial birth is generally more difficult than those that follow.

    Posted by CANAAR 03/29/2007 @ 09:07am

    Yes, CAN...that's a truism. But what does it have to do with volunteer versus drafted armies?

    Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 10:03am

91. Posted by ARCHANGEL_M 03/29/2007 @ 09:37am

    I know it's an exercise in folly, but...

    ARCH could you explain how a "dictator" has EVER been made to "blink" by a legislature? Use exact terms and historical precedents.

    Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 10:05am

92. LL It seems General McCafferty believes that the timetables will be withdrawn; that they are unconstitutional, and the president is not legally bound by them.

    They are nothing of the sort. They are restrictions put on the appropriation of funds, which Congress is well within its rights to do, just as it did during Vietnam.

    America still has at least one leader who prefers to lead against evil instead of surrendering.

    Unthinking muleheadedness in continuing to pursue a failed policy in Iraq isn't leadership at all.

    Bush never said it would be short and sweet. In fact he said just the opposite about the war on terror. He said it would last generations.

    You've not responded to his actual assertion. He said "Thought we were promised this 'Iraq thing' was going to be short and sweet." That's exactly what the neo-cons promised.

    Either the victory is worth achieving or we should just ask what terms of surrender the enemy requires prior to even entering battle and then surrender.

    Withdrawal is hardly surrender. Iraq is a failed state in a civil war. Any Iraqis fighting us will either go about their business or will start killing each other. The Iraqi insurgents will hardly be moving in New York.

    JM AQ has to be rejoycing today...this is a sad day for anyone who is in Iraq..it is a surrender bill as far as I can see.

    Not likely, AQ wants us in Iraq. It has proven to be a recruiting and propaganda boon for them and has diverted resources that could've gone into creating an Afghanistan where we wouldn't have had to cede so much power to the warlords and where we didn't let the Taliban off the mat.

    LM 2. Congress looks like its playing politics and American people suspect that they have become clones of the French wanting to snatch defeat out of the hands of victory as reports continue to improve from Iraq.

    Excuse me? I'll just refer you to the Brookings Institution's take [brookingsinstitution.org] on this. Michael O'Hanlon stated that "In broad terms over the last 15 months, the number one story is the violence keeps getting worse and there is a civil war--I think by any reasonable definition of the term--the amount of violence and the amount of sectarian violence." The most he can offer is--"There is a real glimmer of hope, but no proof of progress, from the surge so far." Hardly the jaws of victory.

    Do we have the same spirit of our forefathers who fought a six year long war in which we lost almost every battle until finally achieving victory and independence?

    Do we have the same toughness of those who withstood a terrible civil war that brought death and ruin but finally freedom and unification?

    Do we have the same courage of those who lived and survived through the Great Depression and then fought and won a World War? Do we have the same forsight and stamina of those who fought a Cold War against Communism that was finally won by staying strong and vigilant?

    Our independence and the preservation of the Union were worthy causes. Defeating the Axis powers and outlasting the USSr were also worthy causes. Indulging neo-con geopolitical and economic fantasies regarding Iraq doesn't even merit being mentioned in the same breath. That's the difference, not the fibre of the American people.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/29/2007 @ 10:10am

93. LvLiberty:

    You endorse Mr. Bush's statement:

    "Members of Congress need to stop making political statements ...."

    Surely you don't believe that amongst the myriad of extra-constitutional powers claimed by the president is the power to restrain political statements?

    If he feels that self-restraint of political speech is appropriate perhaps he should go first.

    Posted by Retiarius at 03/29/2007 @ 10:21am

94. Your BS about Bush being some coward... Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/28/2007 @ 7:35pm

    LVLIBERTY1, please tell me about leadership. Please tell me what leadership skills are displayed when a president, told by his chief of staff "A second plane hit the other tower, and America's under attack", sits on his duff in a second-grade classroom for another six minutes?

    from Juan Cole's blog [http://www.juancole.com/2007/03/mccain-checks-into-cloud-cuckooland-116 .html]: McCain is typical of the hawks of his generation, which lost the Vietnam War. For many of them, a war on Iraq promised vindication and restoration of pride. It had all the delights of a Rambo movie, but the advantage of being real. The problem is that in both cases, Vietnam and Iraq, the US fought local nationalisms dressed up in universal ideologies (Communism, Islamism & Baathism). It is a losing proposition, for the most part. Local nationalisms mostly win out these days.

    Replace "McCain" with "LVLIBERTY1"

    Posted by nathanhale at 03/29/2007 @ 10:25am

95. "Members of Congress need to stop making political statements ...."

    I guess that does not include the requirement that every time Bush makes a public statement on the war, he uses troops and their families as backdrops.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/29/2007 @ 10:28am

96. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/28/2007 @ 12:47pm

    Ifni John, are you still on that tired old "AQ loves this" song? After all the discussion that's gone around here about our nation's real strategic interests you still can't seem to grasp that our involvement in Iraq was the only thing making al-Qaeda laugh in the first place. It was their primary goal in organizing the 9/11 attacks, to get us to commit to a Middle Eastern war and get bogged down there. We know that from every piece of info we've obtained on their planning and methodology. The fact that we not only followed their strategic plan but even chose as our target a nation they hated (Iraq) must have seemed like the answer to their most fervent prayers. We have played into their hands from the moment BushCo decided not to focus on Afghanistan and strong-arming Pakistan to get the al-Qaeda leadership, but to attack Iraq instead.

    Yet here you are, after all this and the disaster for our entire strategic and diplomatic system that resulted, still trotting out this old nag of an argument as though it has any validity left. For goodness sake man, you're smarter than that. Every day, nay, every hour that we stay in Iraq we further the strategic goals of real international terrorists and undermine our own strategic position. I've said this from the first, and it remains true today; since 2001 we have chosen the wrong methods, applied them in the wrong way, and have reaped the inevitable results in the loss of our international position and our domestic tranquility and rights, all to feed the political and pecuniary interests of a small set of would-be oligarchs standing behind our puppet President. To think otherwise at this point is to engage in little more than self-delusion or willful ignorance.

    By the way, I was going to pass over it, but now that I'm all riled up I'll add that I have that heaping helping of crow pie ready anytime you'd like it. Both House and Senate have passed what you insisted would never be passed, so tie on the napkin and belly up to the table. Crow doesn't taste too bitter, I promise.

    Posted by Stwriley at 03/29/2007 @ 10:39am

97. Not sure, but can Bush pick what he wants and redline the rest?

    Posted by Leefeller at 03/29/2007 @ 10:51am

98. Not sure, but can Bush pick what he wants and redline the rest?

    No, he has no line-item veto.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/29/2007 @ 10:56am

99. What does al-Qaeda think? Let's go to the tape, circa 2005, with analysis from our experts:

    ... bin Laden's genius, according to this analysis, is in cornering the enemy into being unable to respond either way to the tape. Indeed, the threat of an attack, bin Mahmud insists, has already achieved its purpose. It keeps the Americans "living in fear, exhausting themselves and expending resources on [contingency] planning, divided their ranks and damaged their economy." Yet, according to this argument, the Americans cannot afford to ignore the new threat, "which will have the same effect on them!"

    ...

    "The secret of the tape," bin Mahmud insists, is as a confirmation of God's words on infidels spending their wealth to impede the jihad: "They will spend it, then it will become an anguish for them, then they will be conquered." (Qur'an VIII, 36). The "anguish," he explains, is that the millions spent by the enemy have been overturned by a "cheaply made, technologically rough tape." In other words, it is an epoch-making demonstration of triumphant asymmetric warfare.

    Want to fight terrorism? Stop playing al-Qaeda's game!

    Posted by MyParadigm at 03/29/2007 @ 11:03am

100. Posted by MASK 03/29/2007 @ 10:03am

     It refers to your inference that because it took 8-9 years for the country to disentangle itself from Viet Nam with a conscripted army versus 6 probable years to leave Iraq with an all volunteer army that either, all volunteer or conscripted army has no influence on foreign policy decisions (I believe this has been a recurrent theme with you) or that the all volunteer force facilitates a decision to leave.

     Here's an Aristotelian maxim for ya. "One swallow doesn't make a summer."

     Posted by canaar at 03/29/2007 @ 11:26am

101. Now the Senate has done its job. The bill goes to chimpy. He'll talk about not supporting the troops. The Dems need to start hitting the airwaves and countering with the fact the president is out of step with the majority of Americans. We want out.

     Posted by BlueTexan at 03/29/2007 @ 12:26pm

102. Posted by CANAAR 03/29/2007 @ 11:26am

     Ahhh...gotcha.

     Well, problem is...the situations are totally different anyway. There was mass demonstrations over Vietnam, MUCH more than the "once every six months" (if that) ones that PETER ROTHBERG notes, no Limbaugh, no Fox News, and only maybe 5 channels on the TV.

     It's not the draft or not having a draft that would stop stupid wars.

     RETIARIUS, if pressed, would push, after getting a drafted army, for a SMALLER army and the old "Pentagon turned into public housing" canard from that same 60s era.

     The military is made up of American citizens. Being FORCED to join it wouldn't make them LESS likely to "overthrow our democracy"...any more than being volunteers makes them "potentially" desirous of doing that.

     He was just in this Hard Left "anti-militarism" mode.

     Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 12:58pm

103. Now the Senate has done its job. The bill goes to chimpy.

     Posted by BLUETEXAN 03/29/2007 @ 12:26pm

     Doesn't it go to the Conference Committee of the House and Senate first?

     Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 12:59pm

104. Mea Culpa.

     Yesterday I doubted whether the Senate would ever move to vote on this legislation and they have. I'm delighted to be wrong.

     Regardless of the political party implications of how this plays out....it is fantastic for getting the troops out. To wit, best case scenario is that Bush does veto and the money does run out....and the troops HAVE to come home.

     Posted by freedomplease at 03/29/2007 @ 1:04pm

105. Interesting note from one of our troops:

     How can you even think of pushing forward legislation to set a withdrawal date for US forces from Iraq? Do you know how much you embolden the insurgency here in Iraq? YOU ARE JEAPARDIZING THE LIVES OF US SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN WITH YOUR ACTIONS. You and your fellow Democrats are causing the Al Qaeda supported insurgency to use more catastrophic attacks against us and Iraqi forces. You will see more SVBIED's with chlorine gas, more VBIED's against civilians and security forces every time you and other Democrats open your mouths. You will have to live with yourself and try to sleep at night knowing all the defeatist propaganda you have spewed forth is nothing more than ammunition for Islamic extremist groups around the world and more US deaths. The unsuspecting people who support you know nothing of what goes on over here; you fill their heads with nonsense and talk of pullout to appease them. The only thing that will happen is the establishment of an extremist Islamic state where sharia law is the law of the land and no one is safe.

     Sunni Moslems here are coming to our side and joining forces with the government to defeat Al Qaeda(AQI) here in Iraq, but they need our help and they need us to stay. I have spent the last 7 months(3rd tour) in Iraq. I have watched Iraqi citizens pick up weapons and form militias in areas to join forces with Iraqi police/Army. Common citizens who fight and die because we are standing next to them. Not cutting and running or talking of withdrawal. This started after the surge forces the President sent here arrived. We have lost Marines also and it hurts more than you will ever know but we have made a commitment to these people. And I for one will not abandon them and I have of a platoon of Marines who feel the same. I have no control over what happened in 2003 and why we invaded Iraq. That is another discussion, but we are here and they need our help to rid their country of these terrorists. Yes eventually we will leave but we need to do a phased withdrawal without a timeline. At least without a timeline that is published for the world to know. The citizens of Iraq need to see some solidarity in our government, Democrats and Republicans coming together and supporting our President in this war. There is a middle ground here for both parties, you all need to come together and work towards a solution. What we don't need is more theatrics and clashes between the parties. AQI loves to see that it causes them to do more attacks and continue with the murder and intimidation campaign against Iraqi citizens.

     Someone needs to step forward and bring the two parties together. Meet and talk about what you all can do and come to an agreement on the war. Like I said before we need a unified front to present to the world on the Iraq war. The Iraqi people need a morale boost, they need to see we are behind them and we will support them and not cut and run. The insurgency needs to see our resolve is strong and we will endure and defeat them. Extremist Islamist terror groups use our perceived weakness against us. They misunderstand our kindness for weakness. Weakness shown to the world brings more recruits to their cause; it causes more civilian deaths and violence.

     Please I implore you to not push this agenda. I have watched you on television and you seem to be using this as a steppingstone to further your political career. STOP!!! More is at stake here. Our countries word is on the line, my word to many Iraqi citizens is on the line. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines lives are at stake. We know the risks and we face them daily. Don't make our mission more difficult.

     Gunnery Sgt. Stephen F. Krueger Platoon Sgt 3rd Recon Bn

     Posted by pontificus at 03/29/2007 @ 1:25pm

106. I really don't think that cut and run is a winning platform for the Democrats or the left. But I have faith that you folks will try it anyway, it's what you do best.

     Posted by pontificus at 03/29/2007 @ 1:26pm

107. Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/29/2007 @ 1:26pm

     We now it doesn't work for Bush. Cutting and running from Afgahnistan sure hasn't helped matters.

     Posted by BlueTexan at 03/29/2007 @ 1:30pm

108. Theres too much pork in this bill...which of course is not really discussed..this bill will be vetoed..and Bush should hold a cerimony on the White House Lawn and ask America if they are for the pork additions..1 by 1, who sponsored and wrote the pork, and ask why was it on a military bill...then he should tell America what the effects of this bill will be on the soldier on the ground...

     but the last 6 years of pork? nevermind those, let's just focus on the peanuts and spinach pork subsidies---and forget the war.

     is maasch completely.....nuts?

     Posted by darladoon at 03/29/2007 @ 1:52pm

109. I really don't think that cut and run is a winning platform for the Democrats or the left

     it worked for reagan (your hero). and hagel. and just about every retired general who served in iraq.

     Posted by darladoon at 03/29/2007 @ 1:54pm

110. Cut and run...

     "Yellow dog" Democrat used to mean a Democrat who would vote for a 'yellow dog' if it was a Democrat - now it just means yellow dogs who vote Democratic.

     Posted by pontificus at 03/29/2007 @ 1:59pm

111. No comment on the letter from one of our troops in the field?

     Well, I don't blame you lefties. I wouldn't comment either.

     Posted by pontificus at 03/29/2007 @ 2:01pm

112. To wit, best case scenario is that Bush does veto and the money does run out....and the troops HAVE to come home.

     Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/29/2007 @ 1:04pm

     Sadly, I think you're being naive.

     Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 2:08pm

113. Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/29/2007 @ 2:01pm

     I'll comment, PONTI......who cares?

     See, like Pat Tillman (from YOUR perspective), the opinion of ONE soldier in the field in Iraq, doesn't mean that EVERYBODY over there has that opinion.

     Nor does it mean that this debacle is worth it or that "the Surge" is working.

     How about this "one soldier's story"?....the story of General Petraeus who still has a hard time leaving the "Green Zone" to go around Baghdad?

     Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 2:10pm

114. What's there to comment on Pontificus? You found a letter from a Sgt. who thinks we should stay.

     Do you find the opinions of former generals who think Iraq has been an umitigated disaster to be just as "interesting?"

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/29/2007 @ 2:22pm

115. unmitigated

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/29/2007 @ 2:23pm

116. or, gee, how about this pontificus:

     over 80% of iraqis want us out. there's all this talk in pundit-land about 'not turning our backs on the iraqis', but nobody seems to care that the iraqis themselves want us out.

     you, pontificus, are in a seriously dwindling minority, and a bloodthirsty, ignorant and delusional minority, at that.

     Posted by darladoon at 03/29/2007 @ 2:23pm

117. there are numerous republicans in congress, and across the country, who want "cut and run" pontificus. care to address this is just a "democratic" problem?

     Posted by darladoon at 03/29/2007 @ 2:26pm

118. well, it's very clear from the letter that this solider has no idea what he's talking about. he's saying the very same things that, say, lieberman is saying. kindness as weakness? give me a break.

     or the "iraqis need a morale boost"? are you f*cking kidding me? they want us out. period.

     Posted by darladoon at 03/29/2007 @ 2:27pm

119. do you know that one of the safest cities in baghdad is sadr city, run by our Great and Powerful Enemy, Moqtada Al Sadr. he's feeding the poor, providing protection, schools, hospitals, etc.

     does this not bother, or confuse, conservatives?

     Posted by darladoon at 03/29/2007 @ 2:28pm

120. Pontificus,

     Are you suggesting that US Foreign policy should be dictated by the will of the troops (who are a small subset of the electorate) and not by the will of the electorate as a whole?

     Posted by freedomplease at 03/29/2007 @ 2:31pm

121. Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/29/2007 @ 1:25pm

     Sorry, pal, but when I try Googling "Gunnery Sgt. 'Stephen F. Frueger'", I get no hits.

     Posted by nathanhale at 03/29/2007 @ 2:37pm

122. it's so clear at this point that an aggressive, neoconservative foreign policy has wrought widespread and irrevocable disaster across a vast swath of the near, middle and far east (and even further when we consider just our influence). this doesn't even address the serious problems occurring at home, what with the mounting evidence pointing to the widespread and ILLEGAL curtailment of civil liberties.

     neoconservatism is the worst thing that has ever happened to this country. probably worse than the civil war.

     Posted by darladoon at 03/29/2007 @ 2:38pm

123. Posted by NATHANHALE 03/29/2007 @ 2:37pm Ach! I didn't preview carefully enough; make that "Gunnery Sgt. 'Stephen F. Krueger'"

     Posted by nathanhale at 03/29/2007 @ 2:39pm

124. NATHANHALE

     Bill Bennett does have the letter on his page.

     Even if genuine, it is still a big "So What?"

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/29/2007 @ 2:44pm

125. http://www.bennettmornings.com

     under "Quotes of the Week"

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/29/2007 @ 2:45pm

126. Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/29/2007 @ 1:25pm

     You better pony up and tell us where you got this letter. My initial response, if it does come from a soldier, is that it's an extreme minority opinion, simply because most soldiers do not concern themselves with politics in this manner. It's a distraction from the job at hand.

     If it is genuine, Sgt. Krueger has forgotten what country he's from, and who he's working for.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 03/29/2007 @ 3:01pm

127. Apologies to HMAN23, did not see your sourcing. I assume the letter is genuine and my criticism stands.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 03/29/2007 @ 3:05pm

128. Ponti-Obviously,your gunnery sgt isn't very informed.Tell him to read the Iraqi constitution.Sharia law is already the law of the land and he and his fellow marines are fighting for sharia law to stay being the law of the land.Quite sad how this troop doesn't know what he is fighting for.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 03/29/2007 @ 3:07pm

129. here is neoconservativism naked for all to see, perfectly encapsulated in one sentence:

     Brunowe attempts the unthinkable to redefine withdrawal as something other than retreat

     you see it isn't the actual mechanics or rationality of 'retreat' which bothers them; it's the mere concept of retreat which does so. 'retreat' equals something very symbolic in the neo-con's worldview, nevermind whether doing so salvages all that has been lost these last 4 years. nevermind that a majority of people accept it.

     and this doesn't even address the very accurate point that there is nobody from whom to retreat. there is no Enemy. al qaeda is not a (serious) enemy, people. and besides, we know that al qaeda had no presence in iraq prior to our arrival.

     so what does this say, liberty? you crack head!

     Posted by darladoon at 03/29/2007 @ 3:10pm

130. Even if genuine, it is still a big "So What?"

     Posted by HMAN23 03/29/2007 @ 2:44pm

     Yeah, it's got a real different tone from the letters in this week's "Voices of the Fallen" issue of Newsweek.

     Posted by nathanhale at 03/29/2007 @ 3:14pm

131. Posted by DARLADOON 03/29/2007 @ 3:10pm

     Withdrawal isn't retreat: it's attacking in a different direction.

     Posted by nathanhale at 03/29/2007 @ 3:20pm

132. LL

     Brunowe attempts the unthinkable to redefine withdrawal as something other than retreat.

     I certainly did not. What I said was--

     "Withdrawal is hardly surrender. Iraq is a failed state in a civil war. Any Iraqis fighting us will either go about their business or will start killing each other."

     I never said it wasn't retreat. In this particular case, it IS not continuing with a disastrous mistake.

     Posted by brunowe at 03/29/2007 @ 4:50pm

133. That's OK Brunowe, Liberty sometimes has difficulty quoting himself accurately.

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/29/2007 @ 5:09pm

134. The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq

     Expel, my ass. There was never any way, politically or financially, that we could stay in Iraq forever. At the point when we leave, we call it "victory", Iraqis call it "restoration of sovereignty", and al Qaeda calls it "Expel the Americans".

     The big mistake - other than invading in the first place when subtler methods would have done the job a lot better - was not starting the withdrawal back at the point when the situation still looked something like victory.

     I'll repeat what I said before: Bush needs to stop playing al Qaeda's game.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 03/30/2007 @ 08:24am

135. LVLiberty-Did you notice that their goal was to establish an islamic state ruled by sharia law? Shortly after this was supposedly written they got their wish thanks to bush and people like you.You folks need to stop aiding terrorists and start helping America.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 03/30/2007 @ 09:12am

136. Top resignations would send the right message President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney say the Democrats don't have an alternative for cleaning up the horrible mess they have created in Iraq. If the Democrats don't have one, I certainly do. Bush and Cheney should do the right thing and resign! They need to take personal responsibility for the catastrophe they created. In their resignation speech, they hold the American people harmless and tell the world that the American people were only following their failed leadership. By leaving office in disgrace, by taking full responsibility for their horrendous leadership, they absolve the American people of this tragic moment in history. They have been asking our young people to die for our country; why can't they simply sacrifice their reputations for our country? If they are not honorable enough to resign, they should be removed from office. Only through their removal will the world see that the U.S. can still be a great country. Either we hold these two men responsible or the world will hold all of us responsible. Chip Hanauer Seattle PI January 19, 2007

     Posted by Paul Marion at 03/30/2007 @ 6:09pm

137. So who will get the oil you ask? Whoever can afford Blackwater

     Posted by tucanofulano at 03/30/2007 @ 7:27pm

138. Where is the problem? I do not see one at all. Plan A=Bush signs off and the troops come home October 2008; in the meantime Bush can Put Up or Shut Up, Plan B=Bush vetos and the troops start home before May 2007 as Bush cut off funds to keep them there. Plan C=Bush somehow gets the Bill back to Congress who of course re-authorize the same Bill and so back to Plan A, Plan D=Bush vetos and cuts off the funding and sends the Bill back to Congress WHO DO NOTHING AT ALL WITH IT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE TO and the troops come home before May 2007. I do not see any downside to this unless Bush refuses to deploy our troops where they are actually needed to save the USA which is along our southern border with orders to kill as many illegal aliens as possible 24/7.

     Posted by tucanofulano at 03/30/2007 @ 7:49pm