Fred Hiatt wrote:

Fortunately some of the coolest heads in this discussion belong to Senate Democrats such as Barack Obama (Ill.) and Carl M. Levin (Mich.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Both have suggested that if Mr. Bush vetoes a bill containing a withdrawal mandate, as he has promised to do, Congress should nevertheless approve the war funding.

Fred Hiatt is not exactly fact based but Obama's muddled answers on the question lend themselves to just such distortions. But there is an easy way for Obama to settle the question - endorse Reid-Feingold.

Show Fred Hiatt, and the rest of us where you stand on the issue Senator Obama. You might want to ask for a retraction as well Senator.

Senator Levin, on the other hand, has nothing to complain about.

Via Greg Sargent, Senate Majority Leader Reid says:

Asked by a reporter if Congress would be making some kind of offer to Bush in the quest for a compromise, Reid said: "The offer is that the President sign our bill."

Great! But Senator Levin already is plannning the fifth best plan or something.

I guess Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) is not one of those Democrats Krugman claims is being influenced by the base:

Levin said Democrats remain committed to sending Bush a compromise package with the withdrawal language intact, to express the strong concerns among Democrats and some Republicans that the Iraq war is exacting too high a cost for the country to continue.

That language is likely to track closely with the Senate approach, which sets a goal instead of a hard date. "We're going to send him, first of all, hopefully, a very strong bill which would say that we're going to begin to reduce troops in four months as a way of telling the Iraqi leadership that the open-ended commitment is over," Levin said.

"If we don't have the votes to override, and it appears that we don't -- but we never know until that vote is taken -- we will then hopefully send him something strong in the area of benchmarks as the second-best way of putting pressure on the president to put pressure on the Iraqis."

And if the second best way fails then the thrid best way and so on.

This is a joke. There is one way - Reid Feingold. And it does not have to pass.

mcjoan highlights Paul Krugman's kudos to the Democratic base for pulling the Democratic Party to majority positions on Iraq and other issues:

Normally, politicians face a difficult tradeoff between taking positions that satisfy their party’s base and appealing to the broader public.... But a funny thing has happened on the Democratic side: the party’s base seems to be more in touch with the mood of the country than many of the party’s leaders. And the result is peculiar: on key issues, reluctant Democratic politicians are being dragged by their base into taking highly popular positions. Iraq is the most dramatic example.... It took an angry base to push the Democrats into taking a tough line in the midterm election. And it took further prodding from that base — which was infuriated when Barack Obama seemed to say that he would support a funding bill without a timeline — to push them into confronting Mr. Bush over war funding. (Mr. Obama says that he didn’t mean to suggest that the president be given "carte blanche.")

Certainly on 2006 that was true. But, is the Party listening to the "base" now on Iraq? What is the base saying? Are the Netroots clamoring for Reid-Feingold? Is the Party flocking to it?

I think Krugman is more accurate in this:

The only risk the party now faces is excessive caution on the part of its politicians. Or, to coin a phrase, the only thing Democrats have to fear is fear itself.

I think the base should think about that and consider whether it is pushing our politicians hard enough on Iraq and Reid-Feingold. I don't think we are

While I agree with Matt Yglesias that demands regarding a "no residual force in Iraq" pledge are not meaningful or even smart, I actually question the entire premise of the discussion.

What matters now, what everyone needs to ask of their representatives, of the Presidential candidates, of the blogs, of the activists, is 'what is your plan for ending the Iraq Debacle?' I get rather impatient with these discussions about residual forces and whatnot. These are fine questions, for the debates and the primaries and for down the road.

The REAL question now is 'what is your plan for getting us out of Iraq?' President Bush is not talking about residual forces - he is sending in MORE troops. We need to stop this Debacle. Right now, Reid-Feingold is the only viable proposal, and no it does not have to become law to end the Debacle.

So my main questions now for all pols, activists, etc. is, and will remain for the time being, "do you support Reid-Feingold? If not, why not?"

John McCain is just losing it:

He said that if the Bush administration’s plan had not produced visible signs of progress by the time a McCain presidency began, he might be forced — if only by the will of public opinion — to end American involvement in Iraq. “I do believe that history shows us Americans will not continue to support an overseas engagement involving the loss of American lives for an unlimited period of time unless they see some success,” he added. “And then, when they run out of patience, they will demand that we get out.”

But the American People HAVE said it. They said it in 2006. They say it in every poll.

The Reid-Feingold bill is the proposal the American People support. By a wide margin. Heck, it even gives Bush and McCain a year to see if their ridiculous "strategy" can work. There is no reason why the Congress, and every Democrat in particular, should not embrace the Reid-Feingold proposal. Especially Democratic Presidential candidates. Why is Chris Dodd the only one supporting Reid-Feingold?

barb has this from CBS :

Which of these comes closest to your opinion? 1. Congress should block all funding war in Iraq no matter what OR 2. Congress should allow funding only for a limited period of time OR 3. Congress should allow all funding for the war in Iraq without a time limit.

Block all funding 9
Allow only w/time limit 58
Should allow all funding 29
Don't know/No answer 4

Reid-Reingold anyone? How about you Presidential candidates? Who will join Chris Dodd now?

This is a preemptive post, because I am positive that the defenders of those Presidential candidates who do not endorse Reid-Feingold will trot out the same critiques about the NOT funding the Debacle approach that was used when Feingold first proposed his Not Funding plan in January. To wit, we don't have the votes, McConnell will filibuster, Bush will veto. My response remains

I ask for three things: First, announce NOW that the Democratic Congress will NOT fund the Iraq Debacle after a date certain. You pick the date. Whatever works politically. If October 2007 is the date Dems can agree to, then let it be then. If March 2008, then let that be the date; Second, spend the year reminding the President and the American People every day that Democrats will not fund the war past the date certain; Third, do NOT fund the Iraq Debacle PAST the date certain.

Some argue we will never have the votes for this. That McConnell will filibuster, that Bush will veto. To them I say I KNOW. But filbustering and vetoing does not fund the Iraq Debacle. Let me repeat, to end the war in Iraq, the Democratic Congress does not have to pass a single bill; they need only NOT pass bills that fund the Iraq Debacle.

But but but, defund the whole government? Defund the whole military? What if Bush does not pull out the troops? First, no, not defund the government, defund the Iraq Debacle. If the Republicans choose to shut down government in order to force the continuation of the Iraq Debacle, do not give in. Fight the political fight. We'll win. Second, defund the military? See answer to number one. Third, well, if you tell the American People what is coming for a year, and that Bush is on notice, that i t will be Bush abandoning the troops in Iraq, we can win that political battle too.

Georgia10 asks why the Democratic Presidential candidates, who all proclaim a desire to end the Iraq Debacle, are not supporting the Reid-Feingold bill. She discusses Barack Obama in particular, but it applies to ALL the candidates except Senator Chris Dodd (who I am supporting):

To Obama (and Clinton, Biden, and Edwards, [and Richardson, Kucinich, Gravel] for that matter), I ask this: how can we believe you words, your claims that you are the president who will end this war, when you refuse to take the one step that best evidences your dedication to that cause? Either you want the war to end in March 2008 (as so many of their bills claim), or you don't. It is fundamentally inconsistent--and frankly, disrespectful to the American voter--to on the one hand boldly proclaim that it should be the policy of the United States to have all or most troops out of Iraq by March 2008, but then refuse to sign on to legislation that would truly effectuate that policy.

Hear, hear! Hurray for Georgia and the other daily kos FPers who are speaking up on this. Oh by the way, where is Move On and the rest of the Netroots on this? I hear crickets.

Hurray also to Jerome Armstrong, who adds great political analysis on how Obama is putting himself in a corner.

Through a Freedom of Information Act request, the ACLU has obtained hundreds of files on damage claims brought by family members of civilians killed or injured by Coalition Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yesterday, it released the files.

The files made public today are claims submitted to the U.S. Foreign Claims Commissions by surviving Iraqi and Afghan family members of civilians said to have been killed or injured or to have suffered property damages due to actions by Coalition Forces. The ACLU released a total of 496 files: 479 from Iraq and 17 from Afghanistan.

You can view the files here.

Some of the stories that show the human cost of war -- and the toll on innocent civilians:

More...

Defense secretary Robert Gates held a press conference today to announce that the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will now serve up to 15 months.

Stretched thin by four years of war, the Army is adding three months to the standard yearlong tour for all active-duty soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, an unpopular step aimed at maintaining the troop buildup in Baghdad.

....Rather than continue to shrink the at-home intervals to a point that might compromise soldiers' preparedness for combat, Gates chose to lengthen combat tours to buy time for units newly returned from battle. ``Our forces are stretched, there's no question about that,'' Gates said.

The new policy:

More...

Reid-Feingold bill co-sponsor and Presidential candidate Senator Chris Dodd will ask his co-aspirants to support the Reid-Feingold bill:

"I am calling on all the candidates in this race to join me in clearly standing up to the president once and for all by stating their support for the Feingold-Reid legislation that sets a firm timetable to end this war by March 31st, 2008. After more than 3,200 lives lost, tens of thousands wounded and $400 billion spent, it is time to bring an end to a war that at every turn has failed to make America safer. The hour is late. It is time to begin putting our country on a more secure path."

Hear, hear! Disclosure, I am supporting Chris Dodd for President at this time.