Every Republican Running For President, Except Ron Paul, Opposes Ending The Occupation Of Iraq

Even if President Obama wasted a million dollars on a flight jacket, a codpiece, props and elaborate staging-- like, say, an aircraft carrier-- I doubt any Republicans would have celebrated the real Mission Accomplished moment (video above) on Friday morning. Unable to reach an agreement with the ineffectual, grotesquely corrupt Iraqi regime on immunity for American troops training Iraq's army, the last of the U.S. military personnel left in the country-- nearly 40,000 men and women-- will, as the president put it, "be home for the holidays." Apparently their jobs will be filled by private contractors/mercenaries.

"The President kept his pledge to the nation to end the war in Iraq in a responsible way, he has promoted our security in Afghanistan and eliminated key Al Qaeda leaders while strengthening American leadership around the world. Mitt Romney didn't lay out a plan to end the war in Iraq in his foreign policy agenda-- he barely even mentioned Iraq-- but he is apparently willing to leave American troops there without identifying a new mission. Mitt Romney's foreign policy experience is limited to his work as a finance executive shipping American jobs overseas."

That came from Ben LaBolt, press secretary for an Obama reelection outfit. I guess he doesn't count Romney's years as a Mormon missionary in France as "foreign policy experience." Romney was only one of the Republicans tripping all over himself to, essentially, call for another invasion and occupation of Iraq. As with all things Willard, there's no way to know what he actually thinks about any issue from day to day-- other than whatever President Obama does is bad-- even if it's pretty much doing exactly what the bipartisan foreign policy apparatus of the country set in stone long ago-- and even if it's exactly what Willard himself would likely be doing in the same circumstances. The Mormon bishop who would do anything to grab the White House:

"President Obama's astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women. The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government. The American people deserve to hear the recommendations that were made by our military commanders in Iraq."

Yes, he wants to keep the troops in Iraq. Or is saying he does as a political ploy. It was, after all, the Bush Regime that proposed and signed the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement dictating almost exactly what Obama did. So what exactly are Romney and the other 7 dwarves yammering about other than "Vote for me; I'm as dumb as a brick?"

Barbara Lee (D-CA), the only Member of Congress with the foresight to oppose Bush's attack on Afghanistan, had a more coherent response to the news than Romney.

Our U.S. military forces in Iraq will be home for the holidays. We applaud President Obama for holding to our nation’s agreement with the government of Iraq to bring our troops home by the end of this calendar year and for ending this costly and unnecessary war.

This move will save billions of dollars, improve our reputation around the world, and it is the right thing to do.  It also fulfills the object of legislation I introduced, The Iraq Withdrawal Accountability Act of 2011 (H.R. 2757), which would prohibit funding for any extension of the December 31, 2011 deadline, and fulfills the request I, along with 92 members of Congress, made in our letter to the President back in July. 
  
Let us celebrate this overdue and great victory for the progressive movement who have worked to first prevent and then end this unnecessary and unjustified war. And let us work to ensure our veterans receive everything they have earned.

Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) have been stalwart critics of both Bush's and Obama's occupation of Iraq (and Afghanistan). They released a statement congratulating the president on behalf of the Progressive Caucus which they chair, calling the announcement "a victory for America and another monumental step toward the end of the disastrous foreign policy of the Bush era."

We thank the president for fulfilling his promise to the American people to end this misguided war quickly and responsibly. For nearly a decade, Americans across the country spoke out against this war, and now we can turn the page on a troubled period in American history. This is a long overdue victory for not just the people of Iraq, but the progressive movement that consistently opposed this costly and unjustified war.
 
As the president honors his commitment to America’s voters, we must also honor our commitment to our veterans by ensuring that they and their families receive the full benefits they have earned. We owe them nothing less.

Romney and the rest of the GOP don't just want to keep the country at war, they adamantly oppose honoring the benefits to American vets who their party uses as pawns in it's foreign adventures on behalf of Big Business. Many of the Republicans were whining that Obama-- the elected president of the United States (and the commander-in-chief)-- should let the military officers decide when to end the occupation. That's the GOP foreign policy. Something tells me weird Bishop Romney would be uninterested in what Major General Paul Eaton, USA (Ret.), who served in Iraq as Commanding General of the Coalition Military Assistance Training Team (CMATT), had to say about it after the president's announcement:

The President made the right choice today in announcing a complete drawdown from Iraq by the end of the year. His decision honors the commitments of the United States: to a sovereign Iraqi nation, to the brave American troops and diplomats who have served for almost a decade and to the American people. The United States has provided opportunities for Iraqis to ask for an American troop presence beyond the date agreed to by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in 2008. They have not asked for that. It would be inappropriate to keep troops without Iraqi legal immunity for our servicemembers. Hundreds of thousands of dedicated Americans have served our country in Iraq, and nearly four thousand five hundred people have given their lives to support Iraq's transition to a sovereign democratic nation. Today we thank and honor these men and women and mark a promise kept to Iraqis, to Americans and to the values they serve.

UPDATE: OOPS!

There are a bunch of minor candidates running who actually do support President Obama's decision to end the Iraq occupation-- Buddy Roemer, Fred Karger, Gary Johnson... there may be some others. None of them are permitted by the GOP Establishment to get anywhere near the televised debates. Last January, for example, Karger told New Hampshire media "I think the only surge we should do is to surge out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We have lost so many American lives and there are so many wounded warriors returning home.” And on Gary Johnson's website, he is also pretty clear that he doesn't go for the Military Industrial Complex line being automatically parroted by the Likes of Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Cain, et al. "Given trillion-dollar deficits, America simply cannot afford to be engaged in foreign policy programs that are not clearly protecting U.S. interests. There is nation-building and rebuilding to be done right here at home... With Osama bin Laden now killed and after 10 years of fighting, U.S. forces should leave Afghanistan's challenges to the Afghan people. Saddam Hussein has been out of power in Iraq for nearly eight years. America must leave so Iraq can have a chance to grow into a responsible member of the world community."

Thomas Ricks says, "The events for which the Iraq war will be remembered probably haven't even happened yet"

"I don't think the Iraq war is over, and I worry that there is more to come than any of us suspect."

-- Washington Post military correspondent Thomas Ricks, in a piece in yesterday's paper adapted from his new book

by Ken

Thomas Ricks is one of the journalists who didn't screw up in his coverage of the Iraq war. I'm guessing that his last book, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, was one of the less popular books among the people who planned and ran that war in the Bush-Cheney White House and Pentagon. I believe it was Jon Stewart he told -- on the tour for his new book, The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006-2008 -- that Fiasco got him access to people who probably wouldn't have talked to him before.

Which is all by way of saying that when Thomas Ricks talks about Iraq, I'm inclined to listen. I'd rather not. One of the saving graces of the economic meltdown, after all, has been that it stopped us from having to think about Iraq.

Or did it?

"It struck me that the more we talk about getting out of the Middle East," Ricks writes, "the more deeply we seem to become engaged in it."

President Obama campaigned on withdrawing from Iraq, but even he has talked about a post-occupation force. The widespread expectation inside the U.S. military is that we will have tens of thousands of troops there for years to come. Indeed, in his last interview with me last November, Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told me that he would like to see about 30,000 troops still there in 2014 or 2015.

Yet many Americans seem to think that the war, or at least our part in it, is close to being wrapped up. When I hear that, I worry. I think of a phrase that Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz often used in the winter of 2003, before the invasion: "Hard to imagine." It was hard to imagine, he would tell members of Congress, the media and other skeptics, that the war would last as long as they feared, or that it could cost as much as all that, or that it might require so many troops. I worry now that we are once again failing to imagine what we have gotten ourselves into and how much more we will have to pay in blood, treasure, prestige and credibility.

I don't think the Iraq war is over, and I worry that there is more to come than any of us suspect.

A smaller but long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq is probably the best we can hope for. The thought of having small numbers of U.S. troops dying for years to come in the country's deserts and palm groves isn't appealing, but it appears to be better than either being ejected or pulling out -- and letting the genocidal chips fall where they may.

Almost every American official I interviewed in Iraq over the past three years agreed. "This is not a campaign that can be won in one or two years," said Col. Peter Mansoor, who was Gen. David H. Petraeus's executive officer during much of the latter's tour in Iraq. "The United States has got to be willing to underwrite this effort for many, many years to come. I can't put it in any brighter colors than that."

Of course the question hanging over us is, what happens when we leave?

Many worried that as the United States withdraws and its influence wanes, the Iraqi tendency toward violent solutions will increase. In September 2008, John McCreary, a veteran analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency, predicted that the arrangement imposed by the U.S. government on Iraqi factions should worry us for several reasons. First, it produces what looks like peace -- but isn't. Second, one of the factions in such situations will invariably seek to break out of the arrangement. "Power sharing is always a prelude to violence," usually after the force imposing it withdraws, he maintained.

Many of those closest to the situation in Iraq expect a full-blown civil war to break out there in the coming years. "I don't think the Iraqi civil war has been fought yet," one colonel told me. Others were concerned that Iraq was drifting toward a military takeover. Counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen worried that the classic conditions for a military coup were developing -- a venal political elite divorced from the population lives inside the Green Zone, while the Iraqi military outside the zone's walls grows both more capable and closer to the people, working with them and trying to address their concerns.

In addition, the American embrace of former insurgents has created many new local power centers in Iraq, but many of the faces of those who run them remain obscure. "We've made a lot of deals with shady guys," Col. Michael Galloucis, the Military Police commander in Baghdad, said in 2007, at the end of his tour. "It's working. But the key is, is it sustainable?"

Ricks goes on to discuss the likely crucial but unpredictable role to be played by the infamous Moqtada al-Sadr. ("If he can stay alive, more power is likely to flow to him." But, says "Oxford-educated expert on Iraqi Shiites" Reidar Visser, "It should not be forgotten that the Sadrists are Tehran's historical main enemy among the Shiites of Iraq.") And the complex role of Iran. And the readiness and disposition of Iraq's own military -- and the frequent pessimism expressed by former American ground troops, and by Iraqi commanders he has spoken to, as against the more hopeful view expressed by American generals like Raymond Odierno. ("He believes that Iraqi commanders have improved and that they will no longer automatically revert to Saddam-era viciousness.")

So, to address the perceptive question that [Gen. David] Petraeus posed during the invasion: How does this end?

Probably the best answer came from Charlie Miller, who did the first draft of policy development and presidential reporting for Petraeus. "I don't think it does end," he replied. "There will be some U.S. presence, and some relationship with the Iraqis, for decades. . . . We're thinking in terms of Reconstruction after the Civil War."

The quiet consensus emerging among many who have served in Iraq is that U.S. soldiers will probably be engaged in combat there until at least 2015 -- which would put us at about the midpoint of the conflict now.

"What the world ultimately thinks about us and what we think about ourselves," U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said to me last year, "is going to be determined much more by what happens from now on than what's happened up to now."

In other words, the events for which the Iraq war will be remembered probably haven't even happened yet.

Now there's a cheery thought.

#

Happy Presidents Day! Would you rather hear me bitch about the subways -- or talk about Iraq? (Or even, gasp, Afghanistan?)

Tsar Boris Godunov (Samuel Ramey here, in San Francisco) ascends to the throne of Russia announcing, "My soul is troubled." Believe me, I know the feeling.

by Ken

Believe me, I don't want to write about Iraq any more than you want to read about it. But look at it this way, would you rather read about Afghanistan?

Not me, for sure. I've taken to deleting en masse posts to the Afghanistan thread on my political listserv. It's not that I don't think it's a big problem. It's just that if you put together what the smart people are saying (and there are smart people, people I respect, on all sides of this issue)

* We can't in the name of decency stand by and do nothing.

* Yet there's nothing we can do that isn't all but guaranteed to actually make the situation even worse -- and that at a tremendous cost in bloodshed, destruction, and dollars.

Sheesh! I'd almost rather talk about Iraq, and I'm afraid we kind of have to. I mean, what are we going to talk about? What fun it is to work on a holiday? Well, okay, bu just for a bit. We've really got to get to Iraq.

You know, I figured there would be this one consolation: an easier subway commute. For one thing, with the much-reduced ridership, even with the reduced holiday schedule, there's going to be a lot less crowding on the trains, and there's even some consolation in knowing that all one's fellow riders are in the same fix: having the privilege of working on Presidents Day. (I know now, from the expeience of Martin Luther King Day, that when I get to my office building in the New York Stock Exchange "compound," in addition to going through the usual airport-style security checks, I will have to sign in -- and the signers will almost all be from my company.)

I have about a 10-minute walk to the subway station that offers me the combination of: (a) a chance of making the journey in not too much more than an hour, and (b) a pretty sure chance, even on a normal business day, of getting a seat, provided I go straight to the back of the platform and wait for the las car. Imagine how cheered I was to get to the outer entrance to the station and find signs on it proclaiming, "NO TRAINS RUNNING."

My first thought was that the signs hadn't been taken down from yesterday, when I recalled there really weren't any trains running. This is a little game that New York City Transit, which operates our city buses and subways, likes to play with us NY-ers, especially on weekends. Every weekend there is a usually long list of route alterations and cancellations. It's posted in every station, and I believe we're responsible for all that material on the midterm. But of course it changes from week to week.

There are, however, old staples -- route changes so beloved by NYCT (which most of us older-timers still think of under its old name, as the TA, or Transit Authority) that they keep bringing them back, like never-say-die vaudevillians. I understand that all these weekend changes are necessary for system maintenance (and even occasional upgrading). I just wonder how it is that these same changes keep popping up. Wouldn't you think that whatever it is they're trying to fix would eventually get, you know, fixed?

Perhaps needless to say, it turned out that the signs weren't left over from yesterday. Well, they were, but that's because apparently for this holiday weekend the weekend changes carried over to today! At least I didn't have to make the long trek from the outer station entrance to the actual train platforms. The steady stream of frustrated commuters coming from that direction -- frowning, shaking their hands, waving us newbies off -- told us that our dream of soon boarding a downtown A train was shattered.

Oh, there were free shuttle buses running, to take passengers to the northernmost functional A station. But there are also two bus routes running on Broadway at that point, and even though they make many more stops, I had the sense to take the Bx7 bus that came along (quickly followed by an M100, but with no shuttle bus in sight). MetroCard users get one free transfer from bus to subway anyway, so it wouldn't cost anything. I did, however, have to suffer the humiliation of riding right smack past the building I'd left 15-20 minutes earlier, and even stopping in the bus stop right across the street from my building.

In all, the adventure didn't add more than 20 minutes, maybe 25, to the trip, and part of that was the (related) fact that, as part of the weekend route changes, the C local train wasn't running, with the A making all local stops, which added some 14 stops to the trip -- but then, who's counting? Still, it set a tone.

At the other end of my A train journey, the connecting train I sometimes take (if one happens to come), to save about five blocks' walk, was shuttered -- apparently another casualty of "weekend" service.

By now, of course, my music program had run out. Delightful as it is, the CD coupling of Arthur Rubinstein playing Rachmaninoff's 2nd Piano Concerto and Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini wouldn't have gotten me all the way to work, With today's Special Expanded itinerary, I had already switched to a recording I'd thrown in mostly because it hit my eye when I was leaving the house. Somehow Mussorgsky's unremittingly grim opera Boris Godunov seemed fairly appropriate as I set off, on foot, on the final leg of the journey -- with the temperature apparently still in the 20s. (I'd heard 28 on the radio earlier.)

At this point we'd gotten through the opening scene, in which a crowd of Russian peasants have been herded up by the police outside Novodevichy monastery, where Boris Godunov, the brother-in-law of the recently deceased Tsar Feodor, is holded up, to beg him to reconsider his refusal to accept the throne in the absence of a legal heir. The boyar Shchelkalov, in his gorgeous address to the crowd (beautifully sung, I have to say, by the fine baritone Arthur Budney), reports that no, Boris is adamant, he will not accept the throne.

And the next scene, officially the second and final scene of the Prologue, is of course the coronation of Tsar Boris (George London, in glorious voice here in 1956), who takes the throne delivering an address filled with gloom and doubt. And then I had to pack up all my stuff for the twin hurdles of bag inspection and the metal detectors.

But speaking of time, I'm afraid ours is up. We'll have to put Iraq off till the next post.

#

Do Virginians understand that Terry McAuliffe's fund-raising genius is unlikely ever to be used to benefit them? Plus: Rahm slips out of the House

Former Democratic National Committee chair (and current

Virginia gubernatorial candidate) Terry McAuliffe

"[Terry McAuliffe] has an astonishingly strong personality," said [Virginia billionaire Randal J.] Kirk, a biotech and investment mogul. "When you meet someone, you often get a gut feeling whether this is an integrated personality. Are they the same with Joe Blow as they are with me? To me, this guy just seems utterly consistent."

-- quoted by Tim Craig in today's Washington Post

by Ken

In case you didn't see the article, it starts like this:

McAuliffe's Prowess As Fundraiser Grabs Spotlight in Va. Race

By Tim Craig

RICHMOND -- With his booming voice, quick wit and gregarious nature, Terry McAuliffe established a reputation as one of the world's best political fundraisers, soaking up hundreds of millions of dollars for Democratic causes and candidates.

Now, after spending much of his adult life soliciting donations for others -- most notably, former president Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) -- McAuliffe is considering using those prodigious skills and extensive contacts for himself, as a candidate for governor of Virginia. McAuliffe's potential candidacy has created what Michael Toner, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, calls "the perfect fundraising storm."

Virginia is a state with no limits on how much an individual, corporation or union can donate to a candidate running for state office, and some say McAuliffe could wage an $80 million campaign -- triple what Kaine spent four years ago -- if he is the Democratic nominee.

"I think the sky is the limit in terms of Terry McAuliffe's fundraising potential in Virginia," Toner said. "I suspect there will be a lot more interest in Virginia politics in Manhattan and Palm Beach than there usually is."

Already, McAuliffe is showing what's possible. . . .

And it goes on from there. Boy, does it go on. And on and on. Anyone looking for a glimpse at the behind-the-scenes world of fund-raising -- or a highly sanitized version of same -- has come to the right place. Ah yes, the sky is the limit. I think we get it: This man can fund-raise the feathers off a chicken. Check.

I suppose this is the sort of thing that gives Rahm Emanuel or Chuck Schumer a hard-on. We're talking about that prized political species the self-funding candidate. Usually SFCs self-finance from their own personal fortunes, exercising the right of no-price-too-high free speech which the non-activist strict constructionists of our Supreme Court cherish. But it would be unfair to say that our Rahm and Chucky only like rich people. Rich people certainly do occupy a special place in their, er, hearts, it's true, but if you've got a guy like Terry McAuliffe who can extract campaign cash from a stone, well, sign him up! (To my knowledge, our Terry isn't exactly a candidate for welfare himself.)

I know a lot of people out there don't understand why Howie and I are always going off on Rahm Emanuel, would-be master of the political cosmos. Why, isn't he the Democratic answer to Karl Rove? A Dem with the muscle and balls to stand up to the blasted Other Side?

Um, no and no. As a matter of fact, Master Rahm often seems to get along with Republicans better than Democrats. (Many of his most prized new "Democratic" candidates actually are Republicans, often up to the very moment of the filing deadline.) As Howie has frequently suggested, Master Rahm in his tactics and goals much more closely resembles a Dem version of Tom DeLay, a man for whom the political cosmos begins with money (lots and lots of it), continues with influence-peddling (the backbone of American democracy, no?), and ends -- if you've done it right -- with power (lots and lots of it).

As to the uses of that power, it's hard for a long-term observer to divine much vision or even principle at play, unless you count the clearly felt urgency of protecting the interests of fat-cat donors, the people and corporations who cough up all that campaign cash. It's not hard to understand why Master Rahm values those candidates who are long on cash and short on political vision: because he will own them. Even new representatives who join the House infected with some nasty desire to make the country and the world a better place quickly find themselves under pressure to be coopted to the bosom of the master's Realpolitik -- the way things are done, Rahm-style.

People I trust insist that Master Rahm really didn't want to take the job of White House chief of staff, that in fact he regarded it as a derailment from his painstakingly laid fast track to power in the House of Representatives. But, say these sources, his old pal Barack Obama maneuvered him into a position where he couldn't say no. Howie has already reported that Master Rahm has made clear his ardent wish that his House seat be filled on a temporary basis by a "caretaker" who will step aside as soon as he's ready to return to the House.
(This represents high-quality political maneuvering on the president-elect's part, but highly questionable judgment. Rahm looks to be the pre-installed cancer on the Obama presidency. I'll bet the Vegas oddmakers already have him as the odds-on favorite to be the first member of the new administration to be the target of a congressional investigation and the first to be indicted.)

From all accounts, Master Rahm was already exercising considerable influence within the House Democratic caucus. And yet I'm not aware of any significant instance where the public good benefited from his use of his vaunted political "muscle" in a meaningful tough fight.

I keep coming back to the point David Sirota made some months after the Democrats retook control of the House: that the likely reason why the new majority was doing squat to end the war in Iraq was that important segments of the leadership didn't want to. As we know, Speaker Nancy Pelosi explained the House's consistent record of inaction on "not having the votes." I would love to hear just once that there was ever a meeting at which Master Rahm looked the speaker in the eye and said: "We have to stop that damned war, Nancy -- whatever it takes to do it. Don't you worry about the votes -- I'll get you the votes! We'll show that friggin' David Sirota!"

It may seem that we've ventured far afield from our subject: Terry McAuliffe's fitness to be governor of Virginia. I would argue, though, that this is just what we've been talking about. What made Terry chairman of the Democratic National Committee and what makes him a force in Democratic politics is his prodigious fund-raising ability.

Hassan Namazee, a New York investment banker who was a top fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, said McAuliffe has a gift for persuading people to invest in causes that matter. He has "the most fundamental skill that you have to have when you ask people for money. . . . He makes you feel good when he asks you to write a check."

And what more could you ask from a prospective governor?

I suppose at some point candidate McAuliffe will say a word or two relative to some sort of policy he might wish to enact as governor -- like a solution for Virginia's long-simmering, crippling transportation crisis. Or maybe it's just going to be an unending string of well-tried, consultant-tested bromides about responsible and fiscally prudent government.

Here's about as close as we get to good news, policy-wise, in the Post article:

Advisers to [rival Democratic candidates Brian] Moran and [Creigh] Deeds said they had been expecting that it would cost about $3 million to win the June 9 primary, but McAuliffe could spend triple that amount, launching a wave of television advertisements early in the spring that could drown out his opponents' messages. [No, no, that's not the good news! Just wait. -- Ed.]

Political strategists said it's not clear whether money will make the difference. [Emphasis added. This is the good news, or the good-as-it-gets news. -- Ed.] In the 2006 primary contest between Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) and lawyer Harris Miller, Webb was outspent 4 to 1. But he won the race because antiwar activists and liberal bloggers were drawn to his military background and opposition to the war in Iraq.

"I think the money is important, but you have to have a message," said Democratic strategist Kristen Denny Todd, who was Webb's communications director. "I strongly feel that Virginians expect it to come from the heart and come from the soul, and I don't know if it can be manufactured or if Virginians can be bought."

Confidential to Virginia Democratic voters: Have you heard the old saying "Money talks, bullshit walks"? Did somebody out there say, "Money talks bullshit"? Yeah, that too.


UPDATE: THE SEARCH FOR A CARETAKER . . . ER, REPLACEMENT
FOR MASTER RAHM'S HOUSE SEAT IS OFFICIALLY UNDER WAY

After writing the above, I found the following e-mail from Howie (in Bamako):

I don't know if you're in the mood for some Rahm-bashing or not but...

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000003001169

As I wrote back promptly, "Not in the mood for Rahm-bashing? When would that be?" I explained that at that very moment I was in the act of Rahm-bashing.

Howie's link is to CQ's report of Master Rahm's announcement -- in a letter to Illinois Gov. Rod Blogojevich (well, it's not Rahm's fault that that's who he has to announce it to) -- that he will resign from the House as of January 2.

Emanuel’s resignation will trigger a special election in Illinois’ 5th District, which takes in parts of Chicago and its suburbs and is strongly Democratic. At least 10 Democrats have filed candidacy papers with the Federal Election Commission or announced plans to run. Republican Tom Hanson, who received 22 percent of the vote as Emanuel’s Republican opponent in 2008, also intends to run.

It’s not clear when the special primary and general elections will be held. The Illinois election law gives Blagojevich five days after a vacancy occurs to set the date for the special general election, which must be held within 115 days.

The timing of Emanuel’s resignation will make it difficult if not impossible for the special election schedule to coincide with regularly scheduled local elections on Feb. 24 and April 7 because Illinois law calls for a candidate filing period 50 to 57 days before the primary election.

#

Of course the government could limit executive compensation, says Dean Baker -- if the government actually wanted to

Economist Dean Baker is on the warpath.

by Ken

I recognized that it was frightfully naive of me, but back in the days when we thought, or at least hoped, that the 110th Congress, with its new Democratic majorities (however slight in the Senate), would actually do something about issues that had been left to fester under the all-Republican federal government, it just didn't occur to me there was one pretty good reason why nothing was being done -- for example, in the matter of extracting the U.S. from Iraq.

No, I don't mean the fashionable official reasons:

* There's nothing Congress can do. (Oh, like hell! Congress can vote to cut off the damned money! Yes, the Bush regime would have finagled and cooked the books and just plain stolen to find the money it needed -- well, let them!)

* We just don't have the votes. Maybe in the next Congress? (Oh, phooey! Why do you people have the word "leader" in your titles if you can't for once show some leadership? Knock some heads in your caucus, and if in the end you can't bring enough people around, make sure the ones you can't get to vote with you know that their votes will be hung around their necks for all to see.)

I'm embarrassed to say that it was a moment like the sudden clearing of a solidly overcast sky when David Sirota wrote a column suggesting that the reason the Democratic leadership in Congress couldn't do anything to end the Iraq adventure was that there were segments of the leadership that didn't want to.

Oh.

I would feel more embarrassed if there were any indication that I was one of the sleepy few who didn't get it. The indications, however, are the opposite: that a lot of Americans, even fairly well-informed ones, not only didn't get it then but still don't get it.

I still think it fairly likely that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would have liked to do something about ending the Iraq occupation, though note already that "would have liked to do something" isn't the same thing as "was determined to try to do something." I think now, though, that one reason she never had the votes -- for this or anything else at all controversial -- was that people she would have depended on to count and commandeer Democratic votes, Beltway insiders like House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (the majority leader she hadn't wanted, remember) and House Master of the Dark Arts Rahm Emanuel, didn't want anything done.

Once you see the principle at work . . .

This is a long way around to where I wanted to get, which is another application of the same principle: the seeming inability of the federal government to do anything to rein in executive compensation as part of the bailout package. I did try to suggest the other day that perhaps it wasn't a coincidence that even the toothless provisions that had been written into the bailout legislation suddenly turned out to be in fact meaningless, because of the way the Bushbailers had insisted on writing the bill.

Today Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, about the highest-ranking progressive economist you'll find stalking the corridors of D.C., takes withering note of a "lengthy business section article in the Washington Post" which "noted the failure of past efforts to restrict executive compensation" and "then implied that it is inherently impossible to effectively restrict executive compensation."

Dean points out, first, that this inherent impossibility would have to be something uniquely American, because the problem just doesn't seem to come up elsewhere. ("Companies outside of the United States seem to have no difficulty attracting highly qualified executives even though their pay is generally an order of magnitude lower than in the United States.")

Then he moves in for the kill:

While it is possible that efforts to limit executive compensation failed because it is intrinsically difficult to limit executive compensation, it is also possible that these efforts failed because the politicians who designed them did not really want to crack down on executive compensation. While high CEO pay packages are very unpopular politically, top executives are important sources of campaign contributions and political support for politicians.

Therefore, it would be very reasonable for politicians to design measures that have no actual impact on executive compensation, even though this is their stated purpose. This strategy is especially attractive if the media don't point out that the measures will be ineffective, so that the public is unaware of the charade.

"This is exactly what happened with the restrictions on executive compensation that were put into the recent bank bailout bill," Dean points out, noting that some economists had in fact argued while the bill was being debated that the proposed compensation restrictions would "likely have no impact whatsoever," but that "this fact received almost no attention in the media."

And now --

If Congress actually wanted to limit executive pay, there are some simple methods to do it. For example, it could require that the pay packages for the five highest paid executives be subject to a binding vote by shareholders at regular intervals, in an election where ballots that are not returned are not counted. By changing the rules of corporate governance in a way that gives more power to shareholders, Congress can make it far more difficult for top executives to pillage the companies they work for.

In the context of the current bailouts, Congress could make demands that executives have pay parity with their foreign competitors, just as President Bush just demanded of the auto workers.

It is actually very easy to find effective ways to limit executive compensation. The problem is simply one of political will. The Post is badly misleading its readers with this article that implies otherwise.

AND SPEAKING OF THE WASHINGTON POST'S AGENDA --

Dean is also pretty hot today about an unsigned front-page piece (purporting to survey the economics of the bailout effort), which contains "the strong assertion":

"The boldness of the economic rescue is already straining the government's finances."

The only explanation he can think of is the title of his post: "Washington Post Does Full Merger of News and Editorial Section."

The piece never presents any evidence for the claim that the government's finances are being strained. Economists would usually look for high interest rates on government bonds as evidence for such strain, the argument being that excessive borrowing is causing lenders to view the U.S. government as a questionable credit risk.

In fact, the evidence here suggests the opposite. The short-term rates on Treasury debt are near zero. The 10-year Treasury rate is just over 2.0 percent, the lowest in more than fifty years. So, there is no obvious real world support for the Post's claim.

Of course the Post has editorialized against deficits for decades and its ed board has been on a near religious crusade to cut Social Security, so it would not be surprising to see them oppose a large stimulus package no matter how urgent the economic need. It is however somewhat surprising to see them editorializing on the front page in this way.

#

Bush Regime Reaches Agreement On Date Certain Timeline With Its Iraqi Puppets

The U.S. has legalistically occupied Iraq since 2003. Without an agreement extending that occupation with the puppetty Baghdad regime that Bush set up, U.S. troops and mercenaries would all have to leave by December 31... or extend the occupation without the legalistic fig leaf. Yesterday there was an announcement that the Iraqi cabinet and the Bush Regime have come to an agreement. The Iraqi Parliament has to approve it but the U.S. Congress doesn't. However, Barack Obama needs to decide what to do starting in January. His own campaign promises included ending the war by 2010.

NeoCon and right wing loons will be unhappy to hear how cabinet spokesman Ali al-Daddagh termed the deal, which seems to fly in the face of everything the Bushists have been saying about timelines and a date-certain end to the war:

"The total withdrawal will be completed by December 31, 2011. This is not governed by circumstances on the ground. This date is specific and final."

The deal also places the 150,000 U.S. forces under the authority of the Iraqi government. That should go over well in Wingnuttia if Fox lets them know. By the middle of next year there should be no more U.S. troops on the streets of Iraq's cities and villages and sometime next year the U.S. will no longer be allowed to raid Iraqi homes without a court order for an Iraqi judge and permission from the government.

But even above and beyond the U.S. lunatic fringe, not everyone is thrilled with the agreement. Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr had called for armed resistance against any agreement that allowed a continued U.S. presence in Iraq and now he's saying Iraqis should demonstrate against it and insists Parliament should vote it down. He termed it "disgrace and ignominy."

“I repeat my demand to the occupier to leave our land without keeping bases or signing agreements,” Mr. Sadr said in a statement read to thousands of supporters at Friday prayers. “If they keep bases, then I would support honorable resistance.”

Bush Moves To Remove Iraq From The Campaign By... Adopting Obama's Position-- McCain Too Busy Counting His Homes To Realize

After a sudden and unannounced flight, Condoleeza Rice is in Baghdad this morning. She's hammering the Iraqi political leadership on the timing of the withdrawal of U.S. forces And on the issue of extraterritoriality (i.e.- the "issue of immunity for American troops from Iraqi prosecution.") The U.S. and Iraq have been haggling over this since early March and Condi said, “This agreement will be ready when it’s ready."

It's especially funny because American neoCons are yelling about Russian troops occupying a couple of checkpoints in northern Georgia near where Stalin was born just as the UN document making the U.S. occupation of Iraq legalish expires.

This morning's Wall Street Journal goes a little further than the cautious Times in terms of how the Bush Regime is trying to remove Iraq as a campaign issue without flat-out admitting that they lost the war.

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators reached agreement on a security deal that calls for American military forces to leave Iraq's cities by next summer as a prelude to a full withdrawal of combat troops from the country, according to senior American officials.

The draft agreement sets 2011 as the goal date by which U.S. combat troops will leave Iraq, according to Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammed al-Haj Humood and other people familiar with the matter. In the meantime, American troops will be leaving cities, towns and other population centers by the summer of 2009, living in bases outside of those areas, according to the draft.

...Bush is almost certain to accept the agreement, according to U.S. officials. The administration believes that the deal doesn't require congressional approval and won't present it to U.S. lawmakers.

The situation is more complicated in Iraq. The draft agreement must be approved by several layers of Iraqi political leaders. Several members of Mr. Maliki's cabinet have voiced opposition to elements of the deal. The Iraqi Parliament, which also has to sign off on the deal, is in recess until the beginning of September.

The security deal came together after the Bush administration made concessions on several long-held positions. The White House softened its stance over a pullout date after it became clear that Mr. Maliki was adamant that the agreement contain at least a vague timetable for a U.S. withdrawal.

The administration also dropped its insistence that American contractors remain immune from Iraqi law. Western contractors-- especially those working for Blackwater, which is under investigation for a deadly shooting last year -- are deeply unpopular in Iraq.

One of the last remaining roadblocks had been whether U.S. military personnel would enjoy immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law. Mr. Humood, Iraq's chief negotiator on the agreement, said joint committees of U.S. and Iraqi officials will be formed to resolve such issues when cases arise.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander here, said in an interview that the U.S. already was focusing on turning control of the country over to Iraqis.

The problem for Petreus and his Republican masters is that they can't look like they're leaving while Iraq disintegrates into civil war... and that is not an unlikely scenario. "A key pillar of the U.S. strategy to pacify Iraq is in danger of collapsing because the Iraqi government is failing to absorb tens of thousands of former Sunni Muslim insurgents who'd joined U.S.-allied militia groups into the country's security forces."

American officials have credited the militias, known as the Sons of Iraq or Awakening councils, with undercutting support for the group al Qaida in Iraq and bringing peace to large swaths of the country, including Anbar province and parts of Baghdad. Under the program, the United States pays each militia member a stipend of about $300 a month and promised that they'd get jobs with the Iraqi government.

But the Iraqi government, which is led by Shiite Muslims, has brought only a relative handful of the more than 100,000 militia members into the security forces. Now officials are making it clear that they don't intend to include most of the rest.

"We cannot stand them, and we detained many of them recently," said one senior Iraqi commander in Baghdad, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue. "Many of them were part of al Qaida despite the fact that many of them are helping us to fight al Qaida."

He said the army was considering setting a Nov. 1 deadline for those militia members who hadn't been absorbed into the security forces or given civilian jobs to give up their weapons. After that, they'd be arrested, he said.

Some militia members say that such a move would force them into open warfare with the government again.

...The conflict over the militias underscores how little has changed in Iraq in the past year despite the drop in violence, which American politicians often attribute to the temporary increase of U.S. troops in Iraq that ended in July.

American military officials here have always said that the creation of the Sunni militias was at least as important to the precipitous drop in violence as the presence of 30,000 more U.S. troops, and that incorporating them into the security forces would go a long way toward bringing about the sort of reconciliation needed for long-term stability.

Kevin Drum takes a good look at the probable impact domestically and at the spin each campaign is likely to use. One thing is certain though; the war is viewed by most Americans as a mistake and it is another example of McCain's lifelong awful judgment. McCain is dazed, confused and out-of-touch. He doesn't even know how many homes he owns-- is it four? Seven? Ten? Thirteen? Do you count the million dollar parking lot he owns and call it fourteen? He can't be bothered to think about those kinds of questions (though Chris Cillizza explains why he'd better), not when he's trying to explain his latest flip flops, one on how he would promise to just be a one-term president and one on abortion. The abortion flip flop is actually serious because he has been trying to reassure women that although he opposes Roe v Wade, and will appoint judges to overturn it, he favors the right of abortion for rape, incest and to protect the life of mothers. He's had to promise his religionist fanatic supporters that he would back away from that-- and he has.

Ashwin Madia Blog Day In Minnesota-- Let's Show Some Solidarity

When 9-term Republican Congressman Jim Ramstad (MN-03) decided to pack it in and retire from politics this year, he was doing a favor for the residents of the Hennepin County suburbs surrounding the twin cities. Ramstad isn't some kind of radical right extremist like bizarre neighbors John Kline and Michele Bachmann; he's a mainstream conservative in a moderate blue-trending district (PVI- R+1). Bush managed to win the district with 51% of the vote in 2004; in a rematch today he'd be lucky to break 30%. Ramstad's would-be successor, Erik Paulsen, is not a mainstream conservative; he's a far right extremist more in the Kline/Bachmann mold. Hennepin County Democrats/DFLers have nominated a far more suitable candidate, Ashwin Madia.

Minnesota bloggers are out raising funds for Ashwin today. It's Ashwin Media Blog Day. He deserves a hand-- and in a race that the polls show neck and neck, a hand is just what he needs. The Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll of March 12 shows Ash and Paulson in a statistical dead heat. Right-wing PACs, Big Pharma, commercial banks, the Insurance Industry have all been pouring money into Paulson's campaign. Ash has managed to pretty much keep up thanks to grassroots and netroots efforts on his behalf. Paulson's biggest donor: Target Corp. Ash's: ActBlue.

A few weeks ago I spent some time on the phone with Ashwin and I was very impressed by an idealistic young man with a sharp mind a good solid sense of reality. The former Iraq-based Marine has strong leadership qualities that made me think he's not going to be a rubber stamp for devious Democratic Party bosses like Rahm Emanuel or Steny Hoyer. He'll be his own man, an independent voice for the folks who elect him. He was good on all the progressive issues I ask candidates about. But one surprised me-- his strong and outspoken support for equal rights for all Americans, including gays. Many Democrats, forever fearful of hate-filled Republicans and their media allies, skirt around "gay marriage" and wimp out, like Obama, with support for civil unions. Ashwin supports equality, not separate-but-equal formulations to appease bigots. Here's a statement he sent me after we got off the phone:

Ever since the start of my campaign, I have been reaching out to members of the LGBT community in Minnesota. That’s because I strongly believe in full equal rights for all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.
 
As a Marine Corps lawyer who served in Iraq, I was one of first attorneys to successfully defend a gay Marine from discrimination in the military. It wasn’t easy to stand in front of a jury made up of other U.S. Marines and argue against the military's bigoted and shameful "don't ask, don't tell" policy, but I was more than willing to do so. I would I would be proud to serve alongside anyone brave enough to put on the uniform.
 
As someone with a brother who is gay, I would advocate passionately for passage of a federal hate crimes law that recognizes the disproportionate number of threats on a daily basis faced by members of the LGBT community. Existing law already extends legal protections for a number of vulnerable minority communities. Every day that we do not have this protection, LGBT individuals remain at risk.
 
I support same-sex marriage and full equality under the law. Civil unions fall short and seem to be a way for politicians to avoid recognizing all people as equal.
 
Lastly, it is unacceptable that our nation continues to allow a form of discrimination to exist in the workplace based on a characteristic that is just as inherent as sex, race, or disability. I support efforts to prohibit job discrimination.
 
I’m running for an open seat which had been held by a moderate Republican. But my opponent, State Representative Erik Paulsen, has been a vehement opponent of equal rights for LGBT Minnesotans for more than a decade. He led the fight in 2004, and again in 2006, to write discrimination into the Minnesota state constitution. He even voted to prevent equal benefits from being provided to domestic partners of state employees even though many of Minnesota’s largest employers already have policies that promote equality.
 
I have been endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign and by Minnesota’s Stonewall DFL (Democrats). I hope you will consider supporting my campaign in the coming days and weeks. We need pragmatic problem solving not people who put their political ideology ahead of principles. It’s time for a few more patriots in Congress and a few less politicians.

This is the kind of leadership Americans need in a post-Bush era. Forget how you feel about gay rights for a moment. And, instead, think about how you feel about a candidate talking this way. You like? Here's the joint Minnesota bloggers ActBlue page-- and here's your introduction to Ash:

• MTV
• Music Videos
• MTV Shows
• Entertainment News

ASH TAKES ON HOLY JOE

May I recommend a post Ashwin did for today's Hill in which he slaps the taste out of arch-hypocrit Joe Liberman's mouth? Again, this is the kind of leader we need in Congress.

Today, the Republican Party announced that the loudest defender of status quo policies on Iraq, Senator Joe Lieberman, will be a prominent speaker at the Republican National Convention in my home state of Minnesota. Senator Lieberman and I do have one thing in common. We’ve both changed political parties. I left the Republican Party in 2002 after it replaced “balance our budget” with “borrow and spend” and after we started a war without a plan for success; a war we did not need.

With all respect to Senator Lieberman, talking tough about Iraq is not brave. Bravery is not demonstrated through words but instead through action.

I served for four years in the Marine Corps. While stationed in Baghdad, I worked with U.S. military and civilian officials, European Union and United Nations representatives and Iraqi judicial officers to build the Iraqi legal system. I was not a hero but I served with many heroes, some of the bravest people I’ve ever seen in my whole life. I saw bravery from my fellow Marines. I also worked with Iraqi judges who risked their lives every morning just to come to work.

It’s time for a little more bravery in Washington.

This war has cost us $600 billion so far with another $10 billion added to the tab every month. That’s in addition to a $9 trillion debt caused by reckless spending and irresponsible borrowing, making it harder for Minnesota’s families to afford gas, food and medicine.

Restoring fiscal responsibility includes a new direction for our foreign policy. That’s why I support a strategic and gradual withdrawal from Iraq that is done in a safe and responsible way.

There are a quite a few folks like me down at VFW Post 425 in Hopkins, Minnesota, where I’m a Member. And there’s millions more of us across the country who know that real patriotism means more than just bumper stickers, slogans, and cheers at a convention.

Obama On The Road-- Making Friends For America Again

Barack Obama with King Abdullah of Jordan

If Senator Obama's trip abroad is doing one thing, it is showing American voters back home how completely isolated and stuck in pre-9/11-- even Vietnam era-- thought McCain is. Today's NY Daily News reports another Obama political victory in Iraq. Despite massive pressure from the McBush Regime, the Iraqi leadership finally seems to have found something to unite around: Obama's plan to end the occupation of their country.

After meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and President Jalal Talabani, the Iraqis declared they like Obama's plan to pull U.S. forces from the country by 2010.

"We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq," government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told reporters after the meeting in the heavily fortified Green Zone.

The announcement, aligning Iraqi leaders with his 16-month withdrawal plan, is a political coup for Obama, who went overseas after being mocked relentlessly by the GOP for never visiting Afghanistan and last going to Iraq more than 900 days ago.

Obama acknowledged U.S. military leaders have "deep concerns" about a timetable that doesn't account for changing conditions. But he reserved some wiggle room for himself.

"I retain the flexibility of anyone who, in the job of commander in chief, is constantly reassessing facts, risks and so forth," Obama told ABC News.

President Bush shifted a bit toward Obama's position last week, embracing a "general time horizon" to pull out.

But Republican nominee John McCain has not moved that far.

Yes, and he is pretty much all alone... well, all alone with the crazed extremists, the lobbyists, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman (who reports today show is less popular among American Jews than... the same Barack Obama he has been traveling to Jewish communities around the country to slam and malign. As the confused and gaffe-prone McCain stumbles from one inconsistency after another and from one complete misstatement of reality after another, it is becoming clearer and clearer that virtually no one not on the Double Talk Express thinks McCain's Iraq strategy of escalation is the way to end the war. And it isn't just the vast majority of Europeans, Chris Matthews, the Iraqi leadership, American musicians, and American Jews who like Obama. State Department employees and military personnel mobbed him in Baghdad as though he were their savior. Watch the ABC-TV report on Obama at the American Embassy:

The Real Time Table That Iraqis Set: 2010-- McBush Against The World Again

This weekend there was general hysteria in the McBush camp when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said specifically that he agrees with Barack Obama's timeline for getting U.S. troops out of Iraq (and especially away from population centers). McBush has been having the vapors of this ever since and have badgered and threatened al-Maliki to retract. Despite so unsubstantiated quibbling about the translations and contexts, etc, al-Maliki and his government are still saying they want the troops out by 2010. McCain's camp fears that that dooms his whole raison d'etre for his campaign.

It must have hurt especially badly this morning when the lobbyists went in and told McCain that British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said he agrees with al-Maliki.

Gordon Brown prepared the ground for a historic realignment in the "war on terror" yesterday by setting out a four-point plan for withdrawal of British troops from Iraq by the end of next year.

Although he is refusing to set a detailed timetable for withdrawal, it is clear Mr Brown is in agreement with the US presidential candidate Barack Obama on the need for military action in Afghanistan to take priority. Both appear to be working to a 16-month timetable.

While Mr Brown addressed troops in Basra and met Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, the Democratic hopeful arrived in Afghanistan to declare the US mission there to be more important than that in Iraq.

McCain feels otherwise and he clearly states he doesn't give a hoot what the Iraqi people think or want-- or, for that matter, what the American people think or want. Watch this authoritarian asshole in TV exposing himself behind his signature Crypt Keeper smile:



Of course, McCain isn't all alone. The extremist NeoCons who got us into this mess in the first place, are right there with him, still unconcerned about anything apart from their own "might makes right," "law of the jungle" vision of international relations. True, John Derbyshire is more baboon than legitimate policy spokesperson but he does seem to parrot what's coming out of the McCain camp. "We should tell Maliki, loudly and in public, that he owes his job to us, and that further prosecution of our military operations in his country will be conducted with regard only to U.S. interests, as determined in consensus by our established domestic political processes. And if he doesn't like that, he can go to hell." Someone should read this to the blue thumb boosters like Condi or even the Commander-in-Chimp and ask them for a comment.

al-Maliki Endorses Obama's Plan To End The Iraq War

On MSNBC yesterday I heard one of the GOP shills whining that the big bad librul media better give poor little John McCain equal coverage while Obama is overseas. Although the Phil Gramm and Juan Carlos Benitez scandals are plenty newsworthy, I don't think that's what she had in mind. (The Benitez story has been barely touched by the media and yet it is the perfect reminder of why Republicans are utterly unfit to get anywhere near government spending authorization.)

But instead of covering how the Double Talk Express is completely stocked with the very people who have authored the miseries with which the next president will have to grapple, the media seems to be content to allow McCain to slide while they watch the rest of the world hailing Barack Obama as the salvation from the most hated phenomenon since the deaths of Hitler and Stalin.

Just as the new reports were coming back that Obama had visited American troops in Kuwait and flown on to Afghanistan, Der Spiegel, Germany's biggest news magazine (their Time) releases an interview with John McCain's good friend, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. He may have forgotten to clear it with the McBush folks.

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.

SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?

Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.

I'm guessing McCain would prefer to see a front page profile on Juan Carlos Benitez-- or even another story about how his rabidly homophobic Alabama leadership campaign chairman, Attorney General Troy King, was caught by his wife, Paige, in bed with a young man. Instead he's going to be seeing thoughtful pieces like Spencer Ackerman's Fight War, Not Wars and news coverage about Obama's triumphal progress through country after country.

Maliki has read the tea leaves and evidently realized what the rest of us considered obvious: that the only one demanding that he turn Iraq to permanent foreign domination is a president thoroughly discredited in his own country who'll be out of office in a few months. That president's replacement might very well decide on a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq, abrogating any deal Maliki was strongarmed into signing, at which point the U.S. would essentially be cutting Maliki off. Oh motherfucking shit, Maliki surely thought, if I sign this deal, my people will run my body through the streets and hoist me from a fucking lamppost. Not that the electricity works, but still.

And so Maliki flip-flopped. His newfound resiliency is born of survival -- not merely political survival, either. He has forced George Bush to accept what Bush and McCain has said for years would lead to doom, ruin, humiliation, catastrophe-- a euphemistic "time horizon" for withdrawal. On the one hand, the fact that it won't actually be a timetable is significant, since Bush, of course, won't actually end a war he wants to entrench as the natural order of the world. But on the other, the euphemism is itself important, since once again Bush's attempt at denying reality only creates a trap for McCain. If McCain embraces the time-horizons, he shatters his own previous argument that such a thing will bring national ruin and indicates a certain moral and strategic turpitude on the part of its advocates. His only solution is to magically pretend that Bush's move isn't politically motivated and hope no one laughs at him. But now Maliki evidently wants to stick it to McCain, an indicator that the Iraqi PM knows who's going to be president next January. Reuters reports that Maliki has embraced Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan.

Obama isn't running around looking for bargains in the Kabul carpet markets with Lieberman and Lindsey. He landed at Kabul at noon and he's going to visit Jalalabad in east Afghanistan, on the road to the Khyber Pass. I was there a couple times when there was no war, and it was like the American wild West. According to the NY Times the trip "will give him a first-hand look at the region where American troops are feeling the brunt of increased attacks from militants infiltrating across the border from Pakistan." Instead of dragging along a light in the loafers carpet hunter and a fanatic warmonger who sees everything in the Middle East through his Likud prism, Obama has two deadly serious senior U.S. senators and national security experts with him, Republican Chuck Hagel and Democrat Jack Reed.

This news and the strain of campaigning is all a bit much for an elderly man like McCain, who nodded off during an interview with Conan O'Brien on NBC's Late Night. And the show wasn't even taped late at night; they tape in the afternoon! Or was that another of his lame stunts, part of McCain's one-note plea for sympathy?

UPDATE: OBAMA SCORES

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, LIVE AT C&L TODAY

Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) is one of the seven incumbents endorsed by Blue America. Like the 6 other candidates on our list, Rep. Shea-Porter opposed continued funding for the occupation of Iraq on Thursday and split with the Democratic leaders on Thursday over FISA's retroactive immunity clause. She voted with most House Democrats in standing up to the leadership on both issues, knowing full well that New Hampshire voters are eager to see the war in Iraq come to a speedy, responsible end and that the "Live Free Or Die" motto is something they take seriously there-- and that it doesn't include warrantless wiretaps. She's joining us for questions for an hour today at Crooks and Liars.

Congresswoman Shea-Porter serves on the House Armed Services Committee and few members have worked as tirelessly as she to help veterans and the men and women serving in our armed forces. "What the Bush Administration has done to veterans and to the troops," she told me last week, "was to send troops off to war while cutting benefits... they did not support the troops or the veterans. Looking at the backlog in cases, the number of people who were turned away for traumatic brain injuries, for post traumatic stress syndrome, and because of all of the problems they got because they were sent to war is outrageous. Veterans are suffering from Bush's misguided war and we will be paying-- trying to fix these problems-- for many years to come. We simply must honor our commitments to these men and women by being there for them and providing them with veterans' benefits. The real cost of this war isn't simply the money that we're seeing right now, which is horrific: a billion dollars every other day and the deaths and casualties on the battlefield. It isn't just that; it is also caring for these men and women and their families for decades to come... The real cost hasn't even been calculated yet.

The ineffectual right-wing kook she beat in 2006, Jeb Bradley, is challenging her again. If you'd like to help keep a real progressive in Congress, you can volunteer here and donate here.

DON'T SUPPORT ANYONE WHO VOTES TO GIVE BUSH $12 BILLION A MONTH FOR THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ-- NO MATTER WHICH PARTY THEY'RE WITH

We may have mentioned a few times this week how Steny Hoyer is taking a leading role in delivering retroactive immunity and warrantless wiretapping authority to the Bush Regime... on a silver platter. But that doesn't make him too busy to also figure out how to make sure Bush has all the money he needs to continue his absolutely disastrous war policy in Iraq. Of course, Hoyer has plenty of allies among Democrats helping him with that odious task. "But Steny is the Democratic leader," you ask... kind of plaintively. "Would he really do that?" Sure, his Iraq voting record is pro-war and has been since October 10, 2002 when he voted to give Bush a blank check in attacking Iraq. If ever there are war crimes trials, Hoyer will have a tough time proving his innocence-- and he will need to pray I'm not on the jury.

I have little doubt that Bush's latest "supplemental budget"-- $108.1 billion in war funds for the remainder of fiscal 2008, plus $70 billion in fiscal 2009 for the war and $5.8 billion for Gulf Coast levee reconstruction in fiscal 2009-- after the Congressional leadership and various congressional factions are finished with their pointless dramatics. Hoyer and other reactionary pro-war Democrats want to lure moderates in by offering a temporary extension of unemployment benefits and a major expansion of education benefits for veterans (which Bush says he'll veto)-- at which point, Hoyer will lead the Democrats back to approve Bush's billions. It's complicated by the warmongering Blue Dog faction, which, like the Republicans, wants plenty of war but no economic middle class relief-- not even for returning vets.

You think there's a better way to handle this? Maine Congressman Tom Allen is one of a growing cadre of Democrats-- ones who actually want to end the war-- who take a completely different tact from Hoyer's shameful and deceptive pro-war policy. Allen says he'll oppose the "supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war in Iraq because it lacks a binding responsible deadline for troop withdrawal and leaves room for an open-ended commitment."

This is one reason-- among many-- Blue America supports his election to Congress. Tom:

“After more than five long years, there is still no end in sight in Iraq. Yet President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Senator Collins, and other supporters of an open-ended commitment still have no plan for bringing our troops home. During a time when the middle class is struggling to pay for things like fuel, groceries, healthcare, and education, we continue to spend $12 billion every month in Iraq. America can’t afford to stay in Iraq indefinitely. For that reason, I will oppose any funding bill that doesn’t include a firm, responsible deadline to bring our troops home.”

That's the progressive position. Ironically, the pro-war Blue Dogs and the anti-war Out-of-Iraq Caucus may vote together on a procedural motion to prevent Hoyer's plans from working. Right wing Blue Dogs are against it because, like the Republicans, they oppose the modernization of the GI Bill which would offer military vets better educational benefits. Out of this mess, Pelosi predicts not just victory (in Congress, obviously victory in Iraq is beyond illusory), but Democratic unanimity. I don't know what drugs she's on but she must have picked them up when she visited Damascus. She thinks she's going to get Democrats who want-- I mean really want, not make believe, theoretically, rhetorically want-- to end the war to support the same bill the die-hard war mongers like Jim Marshall (GA), John Barrow (GA), Gene Taylor (MS), Jim Matheson (UT), Chris Carney (PA) and Dan Boren support. Roll some of that up and send it over here, Ms Off the Table.