Remember when the LeftBlogs were focused on the Iraq Supplemental?

Surprisingly, after yesterday's victory in the Senate, it now seems that Democrats are both capable and ready to send a supplemental funding bill that requires withdrawal from Iraq to Bush's desk. While there are still other battles to be fought before that point, such as the conference report on the funding bill and a vote today on the Webb amendment requiring congressional approval before an attack on Iran [whatever happened to that?], the next major step in this fight will clearly come when Bush vetoes the supplemental.

(Emphasis supplied.) Well, it now seems that Dems are NOT capable of sending a supplemental funding bill that requires withdrawal from Iraq to Bush's desk. Apparently, there will be no fight on the conference report. 0 for 2 there. So what if it becomes 0 for 3? What happens if Bush does not veto? Where does this ingenious strategy go from here? Can't Bush ask for the same language for the regular Iraq appropriations bill this summer? I mean, he will have "caved in" already. How "reasonable" can a guy be? I think it becomes increasingly clear that the Dems' Iraq supplemental funding strategy has been a big mistake. The Reid-Feingold proposal, which can work without becoming legislation, is the only approach that can end the Debacle.

But not to worry, Progressives are fully engaged with the 2008 Presidential election. And aren't we happy about that? I mean who wants to focus on the Iraq Debacle anyway? It's a lot more fun to beat up on Hillary Clinton every day no? What harm can Bush and Iraq do in the next 20 months? A few of us are worried:

Confronting Mr. Bush on Iraq has become a patriotic duty. . . . If nothing is done to wind down this war during the 21 months — 21 months! — Mr. Bush has left, the damage may be irreparable.

Brad Plumer points us to a terrific article in the National Journal that discusses the politics and policy of withdrawal from Iraq. As Plumer and the article note, President Bush's myopic refusal to allow planning for withdrawal is another harmful act by the worst President in history. But a serious flaw in the article remains the assumption that, in terms of American interest, the situation in Iraq will worsen as a result of troop withdrawal. One of the usual "expert" suspects, Ken Pollack, who strongly supported the Iraq Debacle, now predictably warns about the dangers of withdrawal:

"I think the Baker-Hamilton proposal that we yank combat forces from Iraq but retain the missions of training Iraqi forces and hunting for terrorists was always unrealistic," said Kenneth Pollack, a Brookings Institution senior fellow and former Middle East analyst for the CIA. Given the likely size of the forward operating bases, rapid-reaction forces, and logistical footprint required to adequately conduct those missions, Pollack estimates that the United States would still need many tens of thousands of troops in Iraq. "Because I think things are going to get ugly very fast as the bad actors see a major reduction in U.S. forces, I also fear that the rapid-reaction forces we leave behind in Iraq will begin to look like a fire brigade at an arsonists' convention."

Coming from Debacle supporter Ken Pollock, who has been wrong on EVERYTHING about Iraq, this means next to nothing. But let's assume this is true, in what way would that be worse than if we keep US troops executing whatever the heck strategy Bush is supposed to be doing now or will be doing 12 months from now? Tell me Mr. Pollock, from the perspective of American interests, what could be worse than what we have now? If Ken Pollock had been in charge of Vietnam, we would still be there.

A critical part of General Petraeus' strategy:

Another part of the strategy is to wall off communities along their traditional boundaries to control population access and prevent attacks. "That's part of the concrete caterpillar," Petraeus said, pointing out a barrier going up in a neighborhood in west Baghdad. . . .

Iraq PM Maliki's response:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Sunday that he has ordered a halt to the construction of a barrier that would separate a Sunni enclave from surrounding Shiite areas in Baghdad, saying there are other ways to protect the neighborhood. The U.S. military announced last week that it was building a large concrete wall in the northern Azamiyah section of Baghdad in an effort to protect the minority Sunnis from attacks by Shiites living nearby. . . . In his first public comments on the issue, al-Maliki said he had ordered the construction to stop. "I oppose the building of the wall and its construction will stop," al-Maliki told reporters during a joint news conference with the Secretary-General of the Arab League Amr Moussa in Cairo, Egypt. "There are other methods to protect neighborhoods."

Well, I wonder if, unlike John McCain, Gen. Petraeus has a Plan B.

In discussing the coverage of Senator Harry Reid telling the truth about Iraq, Atrios has two posts that understand that Democrats' ending the war is what the American People want:

People hate Bush and hate this war and the more the Democrats are associated with that view the more support they'll have.

Exactly and this applies to funding the Debacle as well. If Democrats will embrace Reid-Feingold it will be a political boon to their fortunes. Let the GOP and Bush wail that Dems want to end the war, or in the false rhetoirc they will use - "abandon the troops." The American People want to abandon IRAQ.

Whatever the merits of the policy, understand that, the American People want out. Atrios, citing Bill Schneider with the data I have posted here previously:

The latest example of sheer ignorance on not funding the Iraq Debacle comes from Matt Yglesias:

This memo on Iraq funding strategy from John Podesta, Larry Korb, Scott Lilly, and Brian Katulis seems smart to me; about the right combination of politics and substance. It's extremely frustrating that there doesn't appear to be a viable way for anti-war congressfolk to simply use their authority to mandate both a beginning point for withdrawal and an endpoint but, well, there just isn't one.

The Podesta memo is wrong and Yglesias does not know what he is talking about. See this, among my many explanations of why Reid-Feingold, even if NOT passed, can lead to an end to the Debacle.

This type of non-thinking is infuriating, especially on the most important issue of the day from someone who is smart enough to know better.

Update [2007-4-21 13:45:27 by Big Tent Democrat]: KagroX documents the Dem cavein. Yep, I told you so when I urged defeat of the House Iraq supplemental funding bill. Let's hope Bush vetoes. It is our only hope for ending the Debacle by 2008.

Jonathan Alter is one of the better journalists around, maybe one of the best. But he has lost his bearings on Iraq. On Keith Olbermann's program "Countdown" last night, he berated President Bush for leaving the "tough decision" of withdrawing from the Iraq Debacle for the next President and not a moment later criticized Democrats like me that believe the Congress should set a date certain for NOT funding the Iraq Debacle, in other words, Reid-Feingold. He calls the toothless approach of nonbinding benchmarks and timelines "shrewd" politics. Set aside the moral repugnancy of not ending the Debacle (funding a war for political purposes strikes me as one of the most reprehensible ideas I have ever heard), Alter has mislabeled the toothless so-called "ratcheting up the pressure" approach "shrewd." It is supremely stupid. And Jon Alter himself has explained why, as he did in his column urging Democrats to not fear Karl Rove's promise to run on "cut and run" in 2006:

Rove is focused again on what he does best: ginning up the slime machine. Anyone who dares criticize President Bush's Iraq policy is a "cut-and-run" Democrat. The White House's object here is not to engage in a real debate about an exit strategy from Iraq; that would require acknowledging some complications, like the fact that Gen. George Casey, commander of the multinational forces in Iraq, believes it's time to start bringing some troops home. The object is instead to either get the Democrats tangled up in Kerryesque complexities on Iraq—or intimidate them into changing the subject to other, less-potent issues for fear of looking like unpatriotic pansies. These are the stakes: if Rove can successfully con Democrats into ignoring Iraq and reciting their laundry list of other priorities, Republicans win.

Alter thinks that a Democratic Congress can get away with just "talk" now. He is wrong. The country will now hold a Democratic Congress jointly responsible for Iraq if they do not end the Debacle.

KagroX writes a great post on what Rep. David Obey (D-WI) needs to do now in the Iraq supplemental funding bill conference:

With the bill now heading into a House-Senate conference, and rumors floating that the Senate conferees may seek to strip the much-vaunted timelines and withdrawal triggers from the bill, it seems to me that Chairman Obey has a unique obligation to insure that the teeth of the bill -- such as they are -- remain in the final conference report.

Nobody, as far as I can recall, was ever pressing Congress to "make it illegal to proceed with the war." While that certainly would be a welcome development, it's an innovation created and touted by Obey, and offered unsolicited by him as a defense against the "idiot liberals" who were working to end the war but were, in his mind, "screwing it up."

To each question the activists posed, Obey's every answer was premised on the same objection: "That's not how it works."

Well, now we're seeing how it does work, Mr. Obey. . . . The burden to make sure it remains "illegal to proceed with the war," at least according to the terms of the bill that emerges from conference, is yours.

KagroX's point is entirely missed by MYDD's Chris Bowers, who had no qualms in whipping the Out of Iraq Caucus to vote for the incredibly flawed House bill, but now objects to KagroX pressuring Obey to hold the line. No one doubts that Obey is a great Congressman dedicated to ending the war. What is at issue is whether Obey's stated strategy will work. As Kagro says, for it to work, the binding timeline, such as it is, must survive conference. If Obey's argument meant anything, then Rep. Obey has to fight hard in the conference to keep binding timelines in the bill. That is KagroX's point. How can that be quarreled with?

John Podesta discusses potential Democratic strategies for reacting to a Bush veto of the Iraq supplemental funding bill scheduled to be sent the President next week:

Four Post-Veto Scenarios:

Provide a short infusion of funding of $40 billion

Demand the president to account for the military readiness of units being sent to Iraq and acknowledge the strains on troops already in Iraq in the fiscal year 2007 supplemental bill

Demand that certification of progress towards benchmarks for Iraq’s political transition remains a part of the FY2007 supplemental funding bill

Keep the pressure for redeployment dates by offering redeployment language in the markups of the fiscal year 2008 Defense Authorization and Appropriations bills.

What's missing? Reid-Feingold. Why would John Podesta not consider Reid-Feingold? Why would he ignore the stated policy of the Democratic Senate Majority Leader? Here's why -- because John Podesta and his group do not believe, apparently, that Congress can NOT fund the Debacle:

The latest CNN Poll shows a trend that most reasonably intelligent persons should be able to discern:

In the latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, taken April 10-12, 69 percent of Americans say things are going badly for the United States in Iraq. That's the most negative assessment yet recorded, up from 54 percent who thought things were going badly last June and 62 percent in October. (Full poll results [PDF])

Let's try it this way:

June 2006 54%
October 2006 62% +8

April 2007 69% +7

Every 4 to 6 months 7-8% of the remaining Americans who do not believe the Iraq Debacle is a debacle come to their senses. I know what you are asking, 'what does this have to do with Reid-Feingold?' Simply this.

By March 31, 2008, how many Americans will there be left who do not believe the Debacle is a debacle? Even better, how many will think it by NOVEMBER 2008? The right place to be politically is to be seen as the Party doing everything it can to END the Debacle. That means supporting Reid-Feingold NOW.

CNN, to their credit, makes this as plain as possible:

Asked which side they take in the standoff between Congress and President Bush, the result is not close: 60 percent of Americans side with the Democrats in Congress and 37 percent with the President.

Charges against one of the Marines in the Haditha killings have been dropped, but it's not because he wasn't involved.

Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz, 24, had been charged with premeditated murder and making a false report in the November 19, 2005, deaths, which damaged U.S. prestige and led to international condemnation.

``Charges against him were dismissed on April 2 after the government balanced his low level of culpability in the alleged crime against the potential value of his testimony,'' a Marine Corps statement said.

Two dozen Iraqi men, women and children were killed in this raid.

Three Marines remain charged with murder and four others are charged with dereliction of duty for failing to properly report and investigate the shooting deaths of the two dozen Iraqi men, women and children.

Was this deal really necessary? Why not make Dela Cruz plead to the dereliction of duty count? Why reward him with a complete dismissal? How trustworthy will his testimony be?

TalkLeft's prior coverage of the Haditha killings is accessible here.

Defense Secretary Bob Gates must be on thin ice with the President tonight. Via Kevin Drum:

...."The debate in Congress ... has been helpful in demonstrating to the Iraqis that American patience is limited," Gates told Pentagon reporters traveling with him in Jordan. "The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact ... in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment."

So if you are against the Dems' Congressional pressure on Bush over the Iraq Debacle you are for the terrorists right?

Glenn Greenwald documents again how the Beltway Media is clueless, but I think he overlooks an important sidebar, it is also remains irrelevant on Iraq. Glenn goes through the atrocious Pelosi in Syria coverage and her rising poll numbers:

Yes, Pelosi's trip to Syria sure did make Democrats look weak and untrustworthy on national security -- just like our brilliant media stars told us it would. After all, the percentage of Americans who trust Democrats over Bush to handle the situation in Iraq increased after Pelosi's trip -- from 54% to 58%. And the gap between those who trust Democrats more than The Great War Leader George W. Bush with regard to the war is now a startling 25 point gap -- up from 20 points as compared to the period before Pelosi went to Syria. . . . These media stars have absolutely no idea what and how "Americans" think. They take the conventional Beltway wisdom they pass amongst one another -- all generated by their White House confidants and other right-wing sources who have long ruled Washington (and therefore "their world") -- and they mindlessly assume it to be true and then run around repeating it without any effort to determine if it is actually true . . .

All true, but consider what happened - their relentless bleating had ZERO effect on public opinion. The Beltway Media has rendered itself irrelevant to the American People when it comes to Bush and Iraq.

The views of the folks back home should be uppermost in the minds of the Democratic Congress when it considers what type of Iraq funding bill should emerge from conference this week: