Apparently, the Saudis believe the Al Maliki government is beholden to Iran:

During a high-level meeting in Riyadh in January, Saudi officials confronted a top American envoy with documents that seemed to suggest that Iraq’s prime minister could not be trusted. One purported to be an early alert from the prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr warning him to lie low during the coming American troop increase, which was aimed in part at Mr. Sadr’s militia. Another document purported to offer proof that Mr. Maliki was an agent of Iran. . . . Now, Bush administration officials are voicing increasing anger at what they say has been Saudi Arabia’s counterproductive role in the Iraq war. They say that beyond regarding Mr. Maliki as an Iranian agent, the Saudis have offered financial support to Sunni groups in Iraq. Of an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters who enter Iraq each month, American military and intelligence officials say that nearly half are coming from Saudi Arabia and that the Saudis have not done enough to stem the flow.

So the Saudis are fueling the Sunni insurgents, who we are working with to defeat Al Qaida in Iraq in Anbar? And we are upset about that? Hard to figure what the plan is. More.

In what can only be read as a sharp rebuke to Cheney acolyte Eric Edelman, SecDef Gates responds to Senator Clinton as follows:

First, allow me to reiterate that I have long been and continue to be an advocate of congressional oversight as a fundamental element of our system of government. I also have publicly expressed my belief that congressional debate on Iraq has been constructive, appropriate and necessary. . . . Furthermore, I agree with you that planning concerning the future of U.S. forces in Iraq — including the draw down of those forces at the right time — is not only appropriate, but essential. . . .

Specifically, I emphatically assure you that we do not claim, suggest, or otherwise believe that congressional oversight emboldens our enemies, nor do we question anyone’s motives in this regard.

. . . Further, you may rest assured that such planning is indeed taking place with my active involvement as well as that of senior military and civilian officials and our commanders in the field. I consider this contingency planning to be a priority for this Department.

Gates of course assures Edelman of his "strong support." Well, this letter clearly is a rebuke of Edelman's previous letter.

There has been a kerfuffle about a TNR piece by a soldier in Iraq. The piece apparently describes some alleged atrocities. I have not read the piece as I am not a TNR subscriber. It has been a cause celebre in the Right Blogs. John Cole reports the soldier decided to reveal his true identity.

Memeorandum reports that the Right blogs have been in full bore attack mode against this US soldier fighting in Iraq.

I have no brief for the soldier. I do not even know what he wrote. I do find it ironic that supporting the troops is important for some only to the extent the soldier says what you want him to say.

Matt Yglesias, who knows what this was all about in terms of the soldier's article, writes some good stuff.

The conservative Republican site Red State says:

Indeed, it has been conceded from the outset that Congress has the power to bring the war to an end by stopping all funding. And if [NYTimes Editorial writer] Adam Cohen had been paying attention, he might have noticed that ever since the beginning of the 110th Congress, Republicans--including those found in the Bush Administration--have been daring Democrats to bring an end to the war by stopping all funding if they believe so strongly that the war and America's continued presence in Iraq is a mistake.

President Bush has said the same thing. John Yoo says the same thing. Bruce Fein says the same thing. This appears to be a settled question in the political debate.

CNN's Jack Cafferty's post debate question:

Is Dennis Kucinich right that the Congress should end the Iraq war by not funding it?

Answer? Yes. What did the candidates say?

Also, Democratic Underground extremely upset with CNN for not asking a question on impeachment.

A new WaPo poll:

Most Americans see President Bush as intransigent on Iraq and prefer that the Democratic-controlled Congress make decisions over a possible withdrawal of U.S. forces, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. . . . [M]ore than six in 10 in the new poll said Congress should have the final say on when to bring the troops home. The president has steadfastly asserted his power as commander-in-chief to make decisions about the war, but his posture is now viewed by majorities of Democrats, independents and even Republicans as too inflexible. Asked whether Bush is willing enough to change policies in Iraq, nearly eight in 10 Americans said no.

I'll say it again - there is one way for Congress to have the finakl say on Iraq - not funding the Debacle after a date certain. If this is explained to the American People, they will support it.

More.

KagroX finds a military law review article that states in no uncertain terms that the Congress is exclusive holder of the funding power. The article comprehensively reviews the history of Anglo-American law on the subject, including discusions of the British Parliament and the Monarchy, the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions and custom. Not surprisingly, Kagro tries to shoot holes in the comprehensive argument, relying on the examples cited by the law review author of extraconstitutional emergency expenditures by Washington during the Whisky Rebellion and Lincoln during the Civil War. But the conclusion of the author is without ambiguity:

When, in some cases of urgent necessity, they ventured to act without law or against law, they boldly took a responsibility; they ran the risk of the law, sometimes the risk of their fortune in damages; then they hastened to acknowledge on the records of the legislature that they had done a thing, meritorious indeed, but illegal; and asked the legislature to cover them with an indemnity.

Washington and Lincoln were not availed of the opportunity to seek the funding PRIOR to acting. That was their principal argument for why they did what they did and the Congress subsequently ratified their actions. Here, not funding the Iraq Debacle will follow years of public debate and would be an express rejection of the President's requests. The situations are not comparable. More.

Adam Cohen of the NYTimes Ed Board reminds us what the Founders intended:

The founders would have been astonished by President Bush's assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly. Madison described Congress's control over spending as "the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure." . . .

But Cohen warns:

The Constitution cannot enforce itself. It is, as the constitutional scholar Edwin Corwin famously observed, an "invitation to struggle" among the branches, but the founders wisely bequeathed to Congress some powerful tools for engaging in the struggle. . . . Members of Congress should not be intimidated into thinking that they are overstepping their constitutional bounds. If the founders were looking on now, it is not Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who would strike them as out of line, but George W. Bush, who would seem less like a president than a king.

Hear, hear!

Impeachniks will say anything to forward their preferred approach. Here KagroX goes fraudster (a species of activist that ignores all facts and insists all elections are stolen by electronic means)and proposes that the Bush Administration will not be stymied by NOT funding the Iraq Debacle based on well, nothing. In essence, KagroX proposes that Bush will enact his own funding despite the fact that every Bush official, up to and including Bush himself, has stated in unequivocal terms that the Congress can end the war by not funding it. The theory of the Unitary Executive and its proponents, including the likes of John Yoo, says this. But those inconvenient facts are not addressed by impeachniks. And let me be clear, impeachment proponents are NOT impeachniks. Impeachment proponents can be honest advocates for a constitutional remedy and still respect the facts. ImpeachNIKS, like Kagro, do not respect the facts. They are like fraudsters. They are different than impeachment proponents. For example, Bruce Fein, impeachment proponent, not impeachNIK, said:

BRUCE FEIN: . . . [W]e do find this peculiarity that Congress is giving up powers voluntarily. Because there's nothing right now, Bill, that would prevent Congress from the immediate shutting down all of George Bush's and Dick Cheney's illegal programs. Simply saying there's no money to collect foreign intelligence-

BILL MOYERS: The power of the purse-

BRUCE FEIN: --the power of the purse. That is an absolute power. And yet Congress shies from it. . .

An inconvenient statement by an impeachment proponent for the impeachniks. More.

In August, 2006, six Marines had been charged charged with assault and murder in connection with the April 26 killing of 52-year-old Hashim Ibrahim Awad.

Trent Thomas initially agreed to plead guilty and accept a 12 year sentence. Then he backed out and decided to proceed with his courts-martial.

He went to trial this week and on Wednesday, was convicted of kidnapping and conspiracy to commit murder (carrying the possibility of a life sentence) but acquitted of aggravated murder which mandated a life sentence.

His military jury deliberated less than an hour and despite the recommendation of the prosecution that he be sentenced to 15 years, has decided no additional jail time was appropriate.( Thomas has spent the last 14 months in the brig while awaiting trial.)

His punishment: a bad-conduct discharge and a reduction in rank to private.

More...

Via Sargent:

Dear Mr. President: We are writing to inform you that we will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office. . . .

More

This is truly outrageous politicization of the Pentagon and deserves the most serious reubke:

In a stinging rebuke to a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman responded to questions [Sen.] Clinton raised in May in which she urged the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of American forces. "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.

Edelman seems not to know that the Pentagon is not the commanding officer of the Senate. His response is disrespectful, outrageous and he should be immediately fired for his unacceptable behavior. And you can have no doubt that Edelman is not a uniform wearing member of the military, but rather a BushCo hack (From February 2001 to June 2003, he was Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs. Career foreign service officers do not get that posting without being Cheney acolytes.) Senator Clinton's response is right on the mark:

Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called Edelman's answer "at once outrageous and dangerous," and said the senator would respond to his boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Gates should apologize and fire Edelman for this outrageous behavior.