Every time a Republican trots out the tired line that whatever happens in Congress “emboldens” terrorists, I realize that its not just beer consumption that kills brain cells, its time spent in the Republican caucus in Congress. Today, after what, 18 trips to Iraq, where undoubtedly Shays has seen first hand that the 2 hours of electricity that Iraqis get is put ot better uses than watching television, Shays delivers another dumb statement.

“It’s almost like my Democratic colleagues want us to fail,” U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays said of a Democratic Iraq war funding proposal Tuesday, “like they got elected because of the war and now they’ve got to have that final blow.”

[Read more →]

Gregory Djerejian over at Belgarvia dispatch posts about Lieberman’s advice to President Bush a few weeks ago. That advice was, “Mr. President, I have two words for you…Be bold. “. Okaaaaay.

Naturally his comments quickly filled up with the usual “is he crazy” critiques. The crazy one is Bush, Cheney, Franken-Bush-Cheney-stein. I don’t mean crazy in a reckless way either. I mean insane, disconnected from reality, deep in the bunker, or as Joe Biden said about Cheney; “every single person out there that is of any consequence knows the vice president doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

[Read more →]

The Washington Post leads with the Dodd story:

Dodd introduced legislation to cap the number of troops in Iraq at roughly 130,000, saying that lawmakers should take an up-or-down vote on Bush’s plan to send additional troops to the country and not settle for the nonbinding resolution several Senate leaders prefer.

Later, however, Democratic senators Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Carl M. Levin (Mich.) were joined by Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska in putting forward a resolution that describes Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq as “not in the national interest of the United States.” Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran, is considered a potential GOP presidential candidate in 2008.

[Read more →]

Anti-war activists were all atwitter this week over Senator Lieberman’s public comments of support for President Bush’s call for increasing troops. The blogsphere, naturally, was the fulcrum for pushing the message that Lieberman was sucking up to the GOP and not a true Democrat. Many example of this line of thinking can be found at My Left Nutmeg. The Iraq occupation has become to many, the litmus test position, that supposedly decides where political philosophies can be gaged. The reality is that what to do with Iraq, theocratic Islamic states, terrorism, foreign oil dependency and propping up defense contractors have all become a knot of conflicting interests that aren’t so simply defined, and more importantly solved. As long as President Cheney Bush calls the shots as commander in chief, there’s not much bloviating senators can do to change things. Unless of course they follow the money and take away the checkbook from the reckless spenders in the white house.

[Read more →]

Last night George Bush laid out his master plan for finishing the bungled occupation of Iraq. Earler in the week, Joe Biden offered up the Cliff Notes summary of Bush’s plan. Biden:

“I have reached the tentative conclusion that a significant portion of this administration, maybe even including the vice president, believes Iraq is lost. They have no answer to deal with how badly they have screwed it up. I am not being facetious now. Therefore, the best thing to do is keep it from totally collapsing on your watch and hand it off to the next guy — literally, not figuratively.”

[Read more →]

Walter Shaprio in Salon hits the highpoints about the direction of debate that has not yet materialized.

With Bush reportedly poised to unveil his new military strategy next week, it is time to pose fresh, future-oriented questions about Iraq. If a “surge” in troop levels had a 20 percent chance of reducing the lethal nature of the civil war, would it be a risk worth taking? If America began a major troop withdrawal tomorrow, would more Iraqi civilians be alive in 2008? What should be the guiding philosophy that determines America’s next step in Iraq? Reducing U.S. military casualties? Saving Iraqi lives? Preventing further chaos in the region?

[Read more →]

Iraq is a quagmire, and that leaves little room for serious debate about what the US interests really are in the Middle East. Everything distills to either “pull the troops out” or “add more troops to win it.” There are a few blogs out there that dissect the real issues in blunt terms that reflect the actual reality of the precarious position of not only our military, our foreign policy and our role in the middle east and a few of them are Belgravia Dispatch and Juan Cole and Steven Clemons. Today’s WashingPost Op-Ed by Joe Lieberman has certainly ignited the blogsphere to rehash arguments that have been hashed and hashed and hashed.

[Read more →]

Today’s Hartford Courant pits the current Lieberman position in the context of the recently released Rumsfeld memo(see link for full text). The key grafs:

Despite mounting pressure from both parties for a change in direction in Iraq, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., said Sunday that withdrawing American forces would be a “statement of weakness.”

“In the end, there has to be an Iraqi political settlement,” Lieberman told CBS’ “Face the Nation,” “but they can’t do it without security. And they can’t achieve security if we begin to withdraw.”

[Read more →]