Sen. Salazar's Iraq Push in National Spotlight

Salazar's Shell Game

What some of you need to ask yourself, very carefully, is this--what will you do if Salazar's plan actually works? What if it passes with a bipartisan veto-proof majority? What if the defection of a sufficient number of Republicans to this plan really does force the Bush administration's to change course in Iraq?

The proposal has no timeline and no enforcement mechanism. Hence, talk about it "working" makes no sense. Once again, Salazar is playing concern troll: making serious-minded noises but not delivering any tangeable results. Meanwhile, spare us the Liebermanesque lectures on "responsible dissent."

---

by: Stagarite @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 15:46:12 PM UTC

Right, just like

"the spotlight was on Salazar" during the Gang of 14 BS where they "saved" Senate procedure by precluding the use of the filibuster.  The Republican majority really worked with the other side better after that one.

Yeah, Salazar's a fracking genius.

"But every Republican in the world is a lobbyist…" -- Bill O'Reilly

---

by: OscarTheCouch @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 16:11:13 PM UTC

If they can tweak

some teeth into this thing, Dems should carefully consider this:  Why is congress even less popular than the President?  Because they are getting NOTHING done but posturing on the war.

A compromise bill that has SOMETHING of real value in it and that can get enough R votes to over-ride a veto would change the momentum and it doesn't have to be the final word before January 2009.  It could serve as the camel's nose under the tent.  If Rs help pass it by a veto proof number and find their constituents polling in favor, more will be open to stronger action going forward.

Anything that gets anymore troops closer to being out of harm's way and the situation closer to an orderly draw-down coupled with a diplomatic "surge" is better than what we have now.

---

by: f.sage @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 16:12:14 PM UTC

Tooth implant unlikely.

Giving it teeth would simply strip away support from Republicans and from Salazar and Lieberman for it.  I'm with Harry Reid:

"There's not a single tooth in that proposal."

"But every Republican in the world is a lobbyist…" -- Bill O'Reilly

---

by: OscarTheCouch @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 16:20:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It was a big "if"

but who knows?  Maybe the implant of a tooth or two is now a possibility. As for Lieberman there are more than a few Rs more likely to come over than he is so there's no need to even consider him.  He'll vote for "teeth" right after Bush calls for it. Notice he chairs the committee looking into the failures of the Dept. of Homeland Security.  What a joke THAT will be.

---

by: f.sage @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 17:11:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do we have 10?

If we don't have 10 GOP defectors willing to vote for something with at least a pair of canines (molars, incisors and others TBD), then "a few" Rs isn't going to matter.  And they have to be willing to vote for cloture this time...

"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 17:16:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If there is no possibility

of getting that ten, I wouldn't think Reid would let it go forward anyway. Why bother to lose with something weaker instead of making a statement with something stronger?  It would have to have a very good chance of passing to accomplish anything besides making Dems look even  more ineffectual than they do to the public already

---

by: f.sage @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 17:41:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

From that same quotation,

Reid said he'd allow it to come up for a vote, despite his criticisms.  At least a month and a half ago that was his plan.

"But every Republican in the world is a lobbyist…" -- Bill O'Reilly

---

by: OscarTheCouch @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 18:20:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can't imagine what good that would do!

If we have to lose, why lose looking like we're begging for crumbs? As usual!

---

by: f.sage @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 18:51:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You expressed this opinion the other day...

And you received lots of responses on why we the "irate liberal blogosphere" didn't like the plan - the biggest being IT WOULDN'T DO ANYTHING.

You apparently never read the comments, never bothered to reply as to why you thought we were wrong, and never absorbed any info from it.  Instead, you write today's follow-up post declaring the imminent death of the left-blogosphere should we continue to insist on, you know, actual progress instead of a smoke screen.

If Salazar can put teeth into the measure, I say we go for it.  But if the measure gets any teeth, its going to lose the Republicans.  It's already lost Bush - he doesn't want it even if it only makes suggestions.

"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 17:15:05 PM UTC

Dems should have been doing this from the beginning

For all the comments about Salazar's bill doing nothing, I ask, what have the Dems done for you lately?

They're weaker than they were a year ago.

Their approval ratings are lower than a year ago.

They have offered no solutions for getting us out of Iraq other than cut off the funding (and we saw how well that went over).

The reason Salazar is getting attention on this is because he is trying to do something different and now Dem leadership is taking notice.  I hope he is able to put some teeth in it and make it an even better bill that both sides can sign on to.  If not, pass as is, get the moderate Republicans' vote on record and you're one step closer to ending the war.

Legislatures all over the country pass bills like this every day. Pass this bill today so the next bill - the stronger bill - has a better chance of winning.

I guess the partisans don't see it that way.

---

by: Car 31 @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 18:36:14 PM UTC

And we saw how well that went over...

Well, it passed, didn't it?  I'd say it went over Just Fine, Thank You.  It's the follow-up on the veto that didn't work out so well.

Pass the weak version of the bill and all you get is kicking the bucket down the road for another year.

"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 19:11:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm confused...

All of the things you cite are indicators that the population feels the Democrats in Congress aren't doing enough.  Is it your feeling that a do-nothing, consensus-building bill will (a) increase Democratic popularity, or (b) actually get something done?  I'm not sure it will do either.

Also, do you believe that Salazar can find a veto-proof majority?

"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 19:13:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Another view.

If not, pass as is, get the moderate Republicans' vote on record and you're one step closer to ending the war.

Well, we can take the "if not" out of that sentence, because it passed by a narrow margin today with no significant dental additions.

I think this makes us one step farther away from ending the war.  It gives moderate Republicans and Salazar something to reference now when accused of not trying to end our involvement in Iraq, which makes it much easier for them to reject a subsequent bill that would actually do something.

It's political cover for moderate Republicans and Liebercrats, and it's something Senator Salazar excels at.  I'd love to agree and say it's a step in the right direction, but it isn't.

Paraphrasing John Edwards today on the same bill: "That's the way they do it in the Beltway, but it's not the American Way."

"But every Republican in the world is a lobbyist…" -- Bill O'Reilly

---

by: OscarTheCouch @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 19:40:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you and I will always disagree...

on this...

Beltway vs American way = Political rhetoric from a Presidential candidate, and, IMHO, a pandering to the liberal base of the Democratic party.

We're not farther away from the end. The discussion has moved, the bill passed, we have recorded votes to show and, most importantly, we have individuals like yourself who will constantly remind the moderates that this war must end.

That's the American way.

---

by: Car 31 @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 20:08:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's definitely a sound bite.

And yes, a snappy line.  But the truth behind it is that most Americans want to end the war soon, and don't see Congress doing much.  That's "American way" versus "Beltway" to my mind.

Stepping back, I'd be soooooo glad to be wrong on this.  Really I would.  I just want us to stop destroying America by being in Iraq.  I will come back here and eat crow with a smile on my face, taking the best "I told ya so's" that you can deliver, if the Salazar/Alexander amendment turns out to be the catalyst for finally getting us out of Iraq.  I just don't think it even helps in that direction.  But again, let's hope I'm wrong.

"But every Republican in the world is a lobbyist…" -- Bill O'Reilly

---

by: OscarTheCouch @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 23:05:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Crow's pretty good

I've eaten it many times.

---

by: Car 31 @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:50:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Another general reply

The purpose of a declarative bill like this is to inform national policy. To guide future appropriations. That is not an easy process on a contentious issue like the Iraq war, but unless a veto-proof majority can be assembled behind any piece of legislation that moves in a direction other than the President's, that bill is going nowhere. This is the point where too many strident war critics fall out of step with reality.

We are particularly surprised by this disingenuous statement posted in another diary today:

Anyone who has read the U.S. Constitution knows [claims that the war can't be ended immediately are] a fabrication. Congress has the power of the purse, meaning it has the ultimate veto over the war. Democrats control both chambers of Congress, meaning they have the ultimate veto over the war. If they chose not to schedule a vote to give Bush a blank check, the war would end.

We expect to hear this kind of stuff from Dennis Kucinich or Cindy Sheehan, not persons with truly national recognition and credibility. It's ridiculous -- there are many ways the President could invoke emergency powers to continue the war. Military operations do not "shut down" with non-essential government agencies when the Congress can't get a budget passed. The author knows that, and we are forced to view this position as intentionally ignorant.

On the ISG report: we do not believe these to be invalid or out-of-date recommendations. The ISG is the most comprehensive study of the Iraq war that has ever been performed, fully recognizant of the futility of the Presidents' aspirations in Iraq, and the deteriorating situation in the country. Can anyone really say how Iraq has changed so much in less than a year as to make the ISG recommendations so completely obsolete? We view that claim skeptically.

Furthermore, the ISG is built around a plan to remove American combat troops--a plan to end the war. Having taken this position in support of the report and Sen. Salazar, we sympathize now with all of the good Democrats out there who opposed this war from the beginning, sincerely want it to end and are trying to make that happen within a realistic framework--and are rewarded for their efforts with primary threats or belligerent protesters squatting their offices.

Lastly, we did not predict "the imminent death of the left-blogosphere." We say only that those who use the power of blogging to behave irrationally, demand the impossible, and threaten their elected allies when they don't get their unworkable way are likely to lose credibility. Frankly, we experience the same disconnect from reality trying to explain to Tancredo's supporters that you can't "solve" the immigration issue by deporting millions of people.

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 21:35:20 PM UTC

So...

What happens when Bush ignores it now?  What exactly was accomplished today?

And some advice: one reason your screeds in this vein may not be gaining traction here is that you seem to delight in sneering at anyone who actually protests or engages in civil disobedience to oppose the war.  I don't think most of your readership is quite so eager to "beat on hippies" or whatever it is that excites you about that.

"But every Republican in the world is a lobbyist…" -- Bill O'Reilly

---

by: OscarTheCouch @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 23:11:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nothing was accomplished yesterday.

We don't know where this rumor that the ISG plan was voted on yesterday got started. We've been in touch with Salazar's office, and there was no vote on Salazar/Alexander yesterday--it should be coming up next week.

We're told that work on strengthening and updating the bill continues in advance of introduction next week, but that doesn't seem to matter since you've already made up your mind. For our part, we prefer to be correct, not necessarily popular.

We're not going to dignify your silly "beat on hippies" non sequitur with a response. We've never said anything of the kind.

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 21:06:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where to start (again)

The ISG is indeed formed around withdrawal of troops by March 2008, but Salazar's bill does not set that kind of deadline - in fact, is specifically avoids a deadline in order to be "bipartisan". (Read: written for the GOP, because the GOP isn't willing to discuss a compromise.)

The ISG was written based around the presumption of an ascendant Iraqi civilian government; that government is in decline now, and no credible replacement appears to be in the wings.

Many of the ISG's recommendations revolve around diplomatic efforts - the one area over which the Bush Administration has almost sole control, and the one area that the Bush Administration doesn't seem to understand.  It is ridiculous to think that Congress can influence Bush after all this time on this particular course by simply passing a recommendation.  Recommendation 10 of the ISG report, for example, insists that the U.S. leave all efforts regarding Iranian nuclear ambitions to the U.N.; that view is unpopular in the extreme in the White House.

The goals set forth in the ISG call for Iraqi control of provincial security by this month, and for complete Iraqi self-reliance w/rt to security by the end of the year.  This is patently not going to happen.

Similarly, conditions since the original study have shown that Iraqi forces are not significantly improving as the report assumes.  While the ISG does say that these forces are inadequate, they do not appear to recognize the depths of the shortcomings that we have witnessed in the past couple of years.

The insistence of the U.S. to pass the currently-proposed Iraq oil law, which is in principle supported by the ISG report (though it also calls on the President to make a statement that we do not intend to control Iraqi oil...) is a major reason for the deterioration of the Iraqi government's unity; the ISG's oil recommendations show a distinct corporate bias which are easily counter-exampled by other countries in the region.  While the bias has not changed, the results of attempting to pass the oil agreement through the Iraqi Parliament are new data that must be considered in order to successfully complete any transition.

These are a few of the things that have changed significantly since the original report, or have been proven to be flawed assumptions within it.

"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 19:22:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clarification and correction

The House voted 355-69 in June to appropriate $1 million to the U.S. Institute of Peace for the purpose of "evaluating conditions in Iraq one year later, comparing its findings to those of a year ago, and reviewing and updating its recommendations."

http://www.house.gov...

We'll see what happens to this amendment in reconciliation, the related Senate appropriations bill passed yesterday without this provision. However, Salazar is working on updating his proposal before it's introduced next week (contrary to unfounded rumors on this blog, the revised amendment has not yet been introduced). Watch for a provision of this kind to be a key part of that update.

The original ISG report was not based on the "presumption" of an "ascendant Iraqi government" -- I don't know where you got that. The ISG report is quite candid about the state of the Iraqi government (which was not any better off in December of 2006 than it is today). From the report:

Prime Minister Maliki outlined a commendable program of national reconciliation soon after he entered office. However, the Iraqi government has not taken action on the key elements of national reconciliation...

The Shia, the majority of Iraq's population, have gained power for the first time in more than 1,300 years. Above all, many Shia are interested in preserving that power. However, fissures have emerged within the broad Shia coalition, known as the United Iraqi Alliance. Shia factions are struggling for power-over regions, ministries, and Iraq as a whole...

Sunni Arabs have not made the strategic decision to abandon violent insurgency in favor of the political process. Sunni politicians within the government have a limited level of support and influence among their own population, and questionable influence over the insurgency. Insurgents wage a campaign of intimidation against Sunni  leaders-assassinating the family members of those who do participate in the government.

The Iraqi government is not effectively providing its people with basic services: electricity, drinking water, sewage, health care, and education. In many sectors, production is below or hovers around prewar levels. In Baghdad and other unstable areas, the situation is much worse...

Current U.S. policy is not working, as the level of violence in Iraq is rising and the government is not advancing national reconciliation. Making no changes in policy would simply delay the day of reckoning at a high cost. Nearly 100 Americans are dying every month. The United States is spending $2 billion a week. Our ability to respond to other international crises is constrained. A majority of the American people are soured on the war...

Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, "all the troops in the world will not provide security." Meanwhile, America's military capacity is stretched thin...

Does that sound like an unrealistic assessment, or one that events on the ground have truly rendered obsolete?

As to the recommendations you disparage, here's a sampling of those--

The United States must build a new international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region. In order to foster such consensus, the United States should embark on a robust diplomatic effort to establish an international support structure intended to stabilize Iraq and ease tensions in other countries in the region. This support structure should include every country that has an interest in averting a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq's neighbors-Iran and Syria among them.

Iraq cannot be addressed effectively in isolation from other major regional issues, interests, and unresolved conflicts. To put it simply, all key issues in the Middle East-the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq, Iran, the need for political and economic reforms, and extremism and terrorism-are inextricably linked. In addition to supporting stability in Iraq, a comprehensive diplomatic offensive-the New Diplomatic Offensive-should address these key regional issues. By doing so, it would help marginalize extremists and terrorists, promote U.S. values and interests, and improve America's global image.

If the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government.

The President should state that the United States does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq...

The President should restate that the United States does not seek to control Iraq's oil.

The question of the future U.S. force presence must be on the table for discussion as the national reconciliation dialogue takes place. Its inclusion will increase the likelihood of participation by insurgents and militia leaders, and thereby increase the possibilities for success. Violence cannot end unless dialogue begins, and the dialogue must involve those who wield power, not simply those who hold political office.

http://www.usip.org/...

I encourage everyone here to download and read the report if they haven't already done so!

It seems that the current layman's debate over this proposal is overrun by emotion and dubious assumptions about the sponsors' motives, mixed in with ignorance of what the Iraq Study Group report actually says. It's our job to explain this in digestable terms, so I don't fault the good people participating in this debate. Give us a chance, both Republicans and Democrats, to heed the people's will and bring this terrible war to a responsible end.

---

by: Staffer @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 21:54:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"It's our job..."

And who might you non-layman be?

---

by: Canines @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:46:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Or "non-laymen."

---

by: Canines @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:50:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ascendant - still getting going...

Maliki's government was not in a state of near-collapse when the ISG made its assessments.  Now it is.  His government was, in fact, just getting its feet underneath it as the ISG was preparing its report.  It had already seen some failures, yes, but it wasn't so far along as it is now.

BTW, I read the report - or at least skimmed it extensively; I know a lot of the positive recommendations in it.  I also stated - I thought clearly - that the most positive of those recommendations involved the diplomatic efforts of the United States, which are almost exclusively under the control of the President.  Bush will not alter his course diplomatically because of the passage of this bill - he's already indicated as much.  He also will not issue the statement that we have no intentions on permanent military bases; the Bush Administration most certainly does intend to be in Iraq permanently, and they don't feel the need to lie about it.

"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 16:13:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

About those "emergency powers"

The President only has emergency powers inasmuch as they relate directly to the security of the United States, or are granted by Congress.  As Iraq and the partisans in it do not directly threaten the United States, the President's ability to use "emergency powers' is limited to Congressional tolerance of his malappropriation of funds.

If the President indeed can invoke his authority to conduct war using funds not appropriated by Congress, then we can just dismiss the Congress right now - it's superfluous and the President is correct in asserting his Unitary Executive privilege.

"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 19:29:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Read the AUMF in Iraq

The war in Iraq is specifically related the security of the United States in legislation passed by Congress, certainly enough that the President would invoke it in this situation.

You may not like that but it's true, and resorting to hyperbolic "if that's true then just dismiss the Congress right now" nonsense does not exactly advance your argument. The Congress approved that verbage and the President signed it. Want to change that? Alter or rescind the AUMF with a veto-proof majority, like Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer and everyone else keeps telling the protesters in their offices.

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 20:52:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not a veto-proof majority...

The AUMF, assuming you think the conditions in it were met in the case to go to war, and assuming that you think that it's a valid declaration of said war, can be recinded with a filibuster-proof majority - a resolution ending the war.  But that's still 60 votes in the Senate...

Just because the President invokes it doesn't mean it's a valid invocation - at least I hope we've learned that in the past 6.5 years.

"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 21:52:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Assuming that the Congress specifically denies funds

Assume that the Democrats manage to pass a budget calling for withdrawal from Iraq - i.e. a draw-down of funds and re-direction of the money toward a withdrawal - you think that the AUMF is going to provide some kind of legal or Congressional cover?

"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 21:55:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wrong on politics, wrong on policy

Pols you say,
  "But the key point expressed by these stories is that Americans are increasingly frustrated with a Democrat hard line on Iraq which has so far failed to produce any results, and want something done now." 

  In fact what the people who elected the Dems are pissed about is that every time it comes to a crunch, the Dems cave and do nothing rather than hold the hard line and force a change in the Iraq war policy.

  The best way for the Dems to show leadership is to articulate a clear plan for change of mission and a feasible timetable for re-deployment, in contrast to the Repub refusal to do either, then fight it to a standstill.  They may lose the short term battle but they clearly demonstrate an alternate vision and some backbone.  And the political reality is that Bush Admin is never ever going to change course without continuous and overwhelming opposition.  They have no interest whatever in any kind of "bipartisan compromise."  What the Dems have to do is show the Repubs (and the voters) that they are not giving in and force the Repubs to deal from a position of supporting a failed war.

  Regarding policy, the fatal flaw at the heart of ISG proposal is that it states the priority is political reconciliation, but proposes to achieve that by military suppression of the insurgency, which is fundamentally a movement of ethnic (Sunni) self-determination.  You cannot achieve reconciliation by violent suppression.  All we are doing with military occupation is taking sides in an ethnic civil war. Institutionalizing ISG as policy traps us as participants in that conflict. 

  What to do?  Re-write the Authorization for Use of Military Force to reflect current strategic objectives, then write the funding appropriation to follow the revised mission:  (i)  timed re-deployment of troops and equipment across the border into established bases in Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, etc--to protect Iraqi sovereignty against external intervention, as a bulwark against ethnic genocide, and to curb Iran.  (ii) leave a small residual force in Kurdistan for their protection--we owe them bigtime.  (iii) Commit US to a policy of eventual removal of all military and special ops forces and bases from Iraq (this is in ISG) (iv) continue anti-Qaeda activities, although our withdrawal may largely undercut the motive for continued Qaeda recruitment. 

  There's more, but I've gone on too long.  The Salazar-Lamar proposal in its present form is purely cosmetic, lacks real understanding of US strategic interests, and will be exploited by Bush and Repubs to prevent any alteration in US military involvement in Iraq.

---

by: RavenDawg @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:10:10 AM UTC

The truth is. . .

. . . Congress doesn't even make good sausage any more.  Ain't even as good as Jimmy Dean sausage.  No matter what your political affiliation is you should find Congress's performance on the issue of Iraq an absolute, abysmal failure.  Tell me this -- we read year in and year out about pork barrel legislation that gets passed with sumthin' in it for everyone, AND with things in the legislation that almost no Congressman even "knew" was there!  If they can get that kind of legislation passed almost routinely, why are they so impotent on the issue of Iraq? 

If you haven't yet seen the film, "No End in Sight," find it and watch it.  It provides a crystal clear summary of how we got into Iraq and how the Bush administration has made such a disaster out of it.  If the Democrat-led Congress can't or won't create a solution to the Iraq disaster, then they are part of the problem.  Very sad.

---

by: The realist @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:01:41 AM UTC

Pumpernickel and Ringling Brothers...

The conflict is just going to continue, if not expand. My opinion.

---

by: Canines @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:52:26 AM UTC