Michael Keller is a computer programmer from Tampa who joined the Florida National Guard where he was in charge of oversight at Abu Ghraib prison. His goal was to protect the inmates. He has written a new book, Torture Central: E-mails from Abu Ghraib. From the St. Petersburg Times:

Keller provides new details of the torture he witnessed at Abu Ghraib.

"The detainee is then laid flat on a medical litter, and another litter is placed on top of them producing a sandwich effect," he wrote in Torture Central: E-mails from Abu Ghraib. "The two litters are then tightened together with ratchet straps, creating a vice. The detainee remains crushed between the litters for one hour, with the guard checking every 15 minutes to ensure that the detainee still has a pulse."

There were other abuses, including those involving children: [More...]

Kevin Drum and his Beltway correspondent have very bad memories:

A member in (extremely good) standing of the VSP community emails to suggest a delicate topic for the liberal blogosphere to take a second look at:

One thing you might write about — if only because nobody else has, I think — is how that whole dust-up over the O'Hanlon/Pollack op-ed looks in retrospect. I mean, clearly they were on to something — the relative quieting down of stuff that has taken place in Iraq over the last several months, etc. -- it's not like the caricature of them put forth in the blogosphere at the time . . . holds up, does it?

Hmmm. Yes.

Hmm, no. O'Hanlon and Pollock were ripped for LYING that they were critics of the Iraq War and Surge. I wrote this:

[G]ive [Congressman Brian] Baird his due, he is not lying when he says he was a war and Surge critic. Michael O'Hanlon IS lying when he says he was an Iraq war and Surge critic. One argument merits respect. It is not the one made by the dishonest Michael O'Hanlon.

Kevin Drum and his Beltway friend have very poor memories. On the merits of course, they are also wrong. But I will leave that for another post.

Via Meteor Blades, the Dems proved themselves liars when they said they would not fund the war without timelines:

Congress approved $70 billion Wednesday for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a bitter finish for majority Democrats who tried to force a change in President Bush's war policy.

The House's 272-142 vote also sent the president a $555 billion catchall spending bill that combines the war money with money for 14 Cabinet departments.

Bush and his Senate GOP allies forced the Iraq money upon anti-war Democrats as the price for permitting the year-end budget deal to pass and be signed. But other Democrats were eager to avoid being seen as not supporting troops who are in harm's way — and avoid weeks of bashing by Bush for failing to provide that money.

"This is a blank check," complained Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war.

Steny and Rahmbo have their wish - Iraq is officially no longer a campaign issue for 2008.

Personally, I will not be working to elect Dems in Congress this cycle. It is obvious that the only office that matters now for ending the war is the Presidency.

Rubber Stamp Democrats. Pelosi and Reid are now on my ignore list. You will not be hearing about them from me anymore.

Via The Termite, Speaker Pelosi said yesterday that:

. . . [S]he had underestimated the willingness of Republicans to stand behind President Bush’s Iraq policy despite the drubbing the GOP took in the polls in 2006. "The assumption I made was that the Republicans would soon see the light," she said. Instead, the minority stuck to the president’s war policy in the face of unrelenting pressure from congressional Democrats and powerful lobbying campaigns by anti-war groups. "That was a revelation to me, because I felt the American peoples' voices were so strong and still are in this regard that I hoped that with some compromise and reaching out there might be some change in direction," Pelosi said. "But they are sticking with the president on this."

No kidding. Who would have predicted that?. But do not feel bad Madame Speaker, you had good company waiting for the Godot Republicans. Frank Rich, liberal bloggers and the much vaunted Move On. None of us has much to be proud about in all this. The question is have we learned our lesson? Are Dems in Congress ready to not fund the Iraq Debacle? I hope so. Then again, perhaps I am as naive about the Democrats as Speaker Pelosi has been about the Republicans.

Noah Shachtman at Wired reports on a bill passed last week banning gang members from serving in the military. He writes:

It's a problem that's worse -- and more complicated -- than you think. I've talked to Marine officers in Anbar province who swore by their gang-bangers: No one else could spot criminal activity on a base more quickly; no one else could find so many holes in the base's protection.

But when these guys come home, it can become a nightmare -- with gangs equipped with military gear, and trained in close-combat tactics.

More from the Army Times and Stars and Stripes.

In for a quick post on an important issue

Via Turkana, we see that Steny Hoyer and Rahmbo are determined to have Dems own the Iraq Debacle:

House Democratic leaders could complete work as soon as Monday on a half-trillion-dollar spending package that will include billions of dollars for the war effort in Iraq without the timelines for the withdrawal of combat forces that President Bush has refused to accept, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday. . . . "The way you pass appropriations bills is you get agreement among all the relevant players, among which the president with his veto pen is a very relevant player," Hoyer said. "Everybody knows he has no intention of signing anything without money for Iraq, unfettered, without constraints. I think that's ultimately going to be the result."

What a loser Hoyer is. If "everybody [knew] that [the Democratic House] ha[d] no intention of [passing] anything with[] money for Iraq, unfettered, without constraints[,]" then ultimately THAT would be the result.

What a pathetic cowardly loser Hoyer is. There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans on Iraq. They both own it.

I am watching Senator Webb's appearance on Meet the Press this morning and in response to Tim Russert's playing President George Bush's statement that Congress capitulate to his demand that the Iraq Debacle be funded without conditions, Senator Webb basically said that Congress will provide funds for Bush Iraq Debacle.

Senator Webb talks a good game, but as he has done all year, the bottom line is he will vote cede Congress' Constitutional Spending Power. He will not vote to stand up to Bush. In the next breath he is real strong on nonbinding resolutions about Iran.

When asked by Russert about Joe Biden's call to impeach Bush if he attacks Iran, Webb hems and haws and says that the SPENDING POWER is the way to stop Bush from attacking Iran.

Excuse me Senator Webb, IF Bush does attack Iran, basedon your statements on Iraq funding, I would expect that you will vote for funding there too.

Senator Webb is a real mess on these issues.

Matt Yglesias writes:

Dana Goldstein remarks after watching the Republicans debate that they "are terrified of the words 'George W. Bush.' A smart Democrat would force her or his Republican opponent to face up, as often as possible, to the legacy of his party's leader." . . . I think Democrats need to worry about a possible Republican blurring strategy on Iraq especially if the Democratic nominee voted for the war. . .

Just so. What always is missing from Yglesias' analysis on this is what the current Congress can do - stand up to Bush on funding the Iraq Debacle:

President Bush sternly pressed Democrats to approve money to fund the Iraq war "without strings and without delay" before leaving town for the Christmas holidays, something congressional leaders have already indicated they will not do.

I liked Harry Reid's response:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., responded that Democrats will get troops the money they need as part of a "war strategy worthy of their sacrifices." "Bush Republicans have indefinitely committed our military to a civil war that has taken a tremendous toll on our troops and our ability to respond to other very real threats around the world," Reid said.

Now the hard part, just saying no. That is what Democrats need to do. It is good policy. It is good politics.

Via Crooks and Liars: USA Today reports:

At least 20,000 U.S. troops who were not classified as wounded during combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have been found with signs of brain injuries, according to military and veterans records compiled by USA TODAY.

....Soldiers and Marines whose wounds were discovered after they left Iraq are not added to the official casualty list, says Army Col. Robert Labutta, a neurologist and brain injury consultant for the Pentagon. More than 150,000 troops may have suffered head injuries in combat, says Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., founder of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force.

As Logan at C&L notes:

Hiding the true human cost of their wars has proven difficult for the Bush administration. They don’t want the world to know about the real numbers of injured — or the staggering number of homeless vets or those who have killed themselves during or after their service in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Another troop hater:

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq shortly after the fall of Baghdad, said this week he supports Democratic legislation that calls for most troops to come home within a year.

Of course, Sanchez is a controversial figure who allowed the atrocities at Abu Ghraib under his watch. And his past judgments were very faulty. My point is not that we should trust his judgment. I do not. I have made my own. My point is it is hard to label Sanchez or anyone, who favors withdrawal from Iraq as "anti-troops. That is the political sigificance here. Hopefully, it will stiffen some Dem backbones.

I have long said this. Today, I am proven right:

Senate Democrats appear ready to omit Iraq withdrawal timelines from a supplemental spending bill in hopes of clearing in December funds for the troops — but House leaders have no intentions of following suit.

Good for Speaker Pelosi and good for House Democrats. Now who do we have to worry about? The eternal capitulation leaders, Hoyer and Rahmbo. Watch out for them.

Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey fled to Canada to avoid being shipped to Iraq. The Canadian Supreme Court yesterday denied their appeal for asylum.

Desertions are at their highest since 2001 and growing steadily.

More disturbingly, the pace of Army desertions appears to have increased even during fiscal 2007: 63.6 percent of the year’s 4,698 desertions were recorded from April through September, according to Army data.

The desertion rate is up 80% since the Iraq war began in 2003.

A CBS investigation has found a suicide epidemic among veterans. The suicide rate is 120 per week.

At least 6,256 US veterans committed suicide in 2005 -- an average of 17 a day -- the network reported, with veterans overall more than twice as likely to take their own lives as the rest of the general population.

As to why Canada shut the door: