NO ONE THOUGHT IRAQ WOULD BE EASY TO SOLVE BUT IT ISN'T IMPOSSIBLE.

I've long felt that, for the Bush Regime, Iraq was, first and foremost, a honeypot for the creation of immense generational wealth for the vultures who have seized control of our government. Historically, the Bush Family went from the respectable upper middle class to what they consider "the aristocracy" through war profiteering and trading with the enemy decades ago. George W. has been true to form. Billions and billions of taxpayer dollars have "vanished" into Iraq's very thin air in the fog of his manufactured war in Iraq.

And foggy it is... very, very foggy. Last week one of my best friends told me his cousin, stationed northwest of Baghdad, had called and told him that 80 men were killed the week before-- in a church. That's impossible... isn't it? We'd all know, right? Could they cover something like that up? I mean, that would create an awful lot of widows and bereaved parents in one or two American counties all at once.

This morning I got some even more disturbing news from the front. Aside from the regular stuff about how things are getting worse and worse, which one always hears from guys stationed in Iraq, something new and very ominous. The soldiers are being told that the Democrats are cutting off funding. That has started manifesting itself in reduced meals, reduced perks, signing for ammo on a per-round basis...

If this is true, it's insane! Are they actually trying to make it look like the Democrats are screwing the troops, something not even the most gung-ho anti-war Democrat would ever allow? Or are they trying to save money to make up for what they've already stolen? Or stretch their resources so they can keep the fighting going longer? Reducing meals immediately makes me thing of Halliburton profiteering. But they could also be reallocating money for covert operations or even an attack against Iran.

Logan Murphy over at Crooks and Liars has a clip up I want you to take a look at. The speaker is Major General (Ret) Paul Eaton, who was the original commander in charge of training troops in Iraq. He's smart enough to have noticed something very, very dangerous to America. "the Republican party, the Republican dominated Congress has absolutely been the worst thing that's happened to the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps."


No one in their right mind thinks the Bush Regime's most recent strategies are working any more than any of his failed policies and initiatives (other than stealing everything he could from all sources). Even sources within the heart of the Regime admit the escalation isn't working, not to mention sharp outside observers like Tim Dickinson at Rolling Stone.

The war in Iraq isn't over yet, but-- surge or no surge-- the United States has already lost. That's the grim consensus of a panel of experts assembled by Rolling Stone to assess the future of Iraq. "Even if we had a million men to go in, it's too late now," says retired four-star Gen. Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War. "Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again."
Those on the panel-- including diplomats, counterterror analysts and a former top military commander-- agree that President Bush's attempt to secure Baghdad will only succeed in dragging out the conflict, creating something far beyond any Vietnam-style "quagmire." The surge won't bring an end to the sectarian cleansing that has ravaged Iraq, as the newly empowered Shiite majority seeks to settle scores built up during centuries of oppressive rule by the Sunni minority. It will do nothing to defuse the powder keg that an independence-minded Kurdistan, in Iraq's northern provinces, poses to the governments of Turkey, Syria and Iran, which have long brutalized their own Kurdish separatists. And it will only worsen the global war on terror.

Over the course of the last week there has been an intense debate within the Democratic caucus over the different approaches being suggested regarding Iraq. They span the gamut from immediate withdrawal to stay the course. And all the action is, predictably somewhere in the middle. I spoke with several freshmen we helped elect last year about the debate. The feeling was generally that our side-- progressives and the anti-war grassroots majority-- don't have the kind of majority inside the caucus to give Murtha and Pelosi the support they need to end the war as fast as we (and they) would like to see happen. All the ones I spoke with sounded anguished and all have realized that they have to compromise with some colleagues with vastly different constituencies and vastly different agendas.

Bush will continue the war, regardless of supplemental funding bills, until Congress passes a veto-proof law to stop it. That's not in the cards, although that is still what Pelosi is aiming to do, with the help of Murtha if not war-supporters like Emanuel and Hoyer. This morning Chris Van Hollen sent out an explanation of what the Democrats are trying to do. It's worth reading.

On Thursday, the House Democratic Majority unveiled a new plan to end the war in Iraq, strengthen our security and provide our troops with the support they deserve. Our proposal establishes clear benchmarks in order to hold the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government accountable, and sets a firm timetable for bringing our combat troops home. President Bush has already threatened to veto this plan. We need your help to overcome his opposition and change direction in Iraq.

The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act gives the American people a real alternative to the failed approach of the Bush Administration. We've seen the terrible consequences of President Bush's failed policy in Iraq. It has made us less, not more, secure. Moreover, our troops have not had adequate equipment to protect them in Iraq, nor the proper health care to treat the wounded who return home. That's why we ask you to stand with us today and become a citizen co-sponsor of the House Democrats' plan to end the war in Iraq and treat our troops with the dignity and respect they deserve.

Let me tell you how our plan works.

• It establishes a timetable to bring our combat troops home within the next 18 months and is consistent with the unanimous recommendations of the independent bipartisan Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton Commission). Depending on circumstances, all combat troops could be home as early as December 2007 but no later than August 2008.


• We impose real benchmarks to hold the Iraqi government accountable. If the Iraqi government fails to meet its obligations, the redeployment of our combat troops would begin immediately.


• Our plan refocuses our military on defeating the Al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan who were responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001.


• The House Democratic plan requires that our troops be adequately equipped and trained before they are sent into battle.


• Finally, we insist upon top-notch medical care and first-class benefits for our military personnel and the new generation of veterans. Our wounded soldiers need to be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.

This is a plan that truly supports our troops. It is a smart, strategic policy that strengthens our national security and ensures that our soldiers get the training, equipment and support they deserve.

However, our success is far from certain. You know the Bush Administration and its Republican Rubber Stamp allies in Congress will continue to stand in the way of change in Iraq. In fact, President Bush has already threatened to veto this plan.

Speak Pelosi addressed the threatened Bush veto today on her own blog.

President Bush's Iraq policies weaken our military's readiness, dishonor our nation's promises to our veterans, and fail to hold the Iraqi government accountable for overdue reforms.
By threatening to veto the House's military funding bill, the President is walking away from his promise to the American people. The President has vowed to veto a bill that contains his own reform benchmarks for performance by the Iraqi government, our Defense Department's own standards for troop readiness, and America's promise to our veterans.
With his veto threat, the President offers only an open-ended commitment to a war without end that dangerously ignores the repeated warnings of military leaders, including the commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, who declared in Baghdad this week that the conflict cannot be resolved militarily.
The House of Representatives will soon have a chance to choose a new direction for the American people. The bill the President dismisses out of hand will measure the Iraqi government's actions by the standards Mr. Bush himself set, conforms deployment of our troops to existing military standards for readiness, and provides badly needed help to an overburdened military and veterans' medical system wracked by scandal.