Kevin Drum notes the falloff in support of the Democratic Congress in the wake of the Iraq Supplemental and joins the extreme prosyletizers:

This is water under the bridge at this point, but I think congressional Dems blew it by caving in to Bush on the war supplemental so quickly. . . If Democrats want to be taken seriously on national security, they need to be serious about national security. Sticking to their guns on Iraq is the place to start. Hesitation and indecision never won the public's support for anything.

Still, Kevin makes a curious and I think, inaccurate, statement:

What the angriest proselytizers on the left and right have in common is a conviction that their political parties will commit hara-kiri if they don’t adhere to their bases’ strict ideological orders. “If Democrats do not stick to their guns on Iraq,” a blogger at TalkLeft.com warns, there will be “serious political consequences in 2008.” . . . -Frank Rich

The Democrats in Congress have lost much of the leadership edge they carried out of the 2006 midterm election, with the lack of progress in Iraq being the leading cause. . . . Six weeks ago the Democrats held a 24-point lead over Bush as the stronger leadership force in Washington; today that's collapsed to a dead heat. The Democrats' overall job approval rating likewise has dropped, from a 54 percent majority to 44 percent now -- with the decline occurring almost exclusively among strong opponents of the Iraq War. - ABC News

Call them "idiot liberals" if that is your fancy. I call them voters.

Boy, Fred Hiatt is unbelievable. Discussing the foreign policy views of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, he writes:

[A]fter you cut through some of their campaign rhetoric, here's what you find:

(1) The two candidates' programs are strikingly similar to each other.

(2) Both are strikingly similar to Bush administration policy.

Obama like Bush? Okaaaaay. I bet Obama loves that. I guess one could go to the trouble of debunking this nonsense but is it really necessary? Hiatt is quite the wanker isn't he?

The NYTimes reports:

Three months after the start of the Baghdad security plan that has added thousands of American and Iraqi troops to the capital, they control fewer than one-third of the city’s neighborhoods, far short of the initial goal for the operation, according to some commanders and an internal military assessment.

. . . In an interview, [General Vincent Brooks] said that while military planners had expected to make greater gains by now, that has not been possible in large part because Iraqi police and army units, which were expected to handle basic security tasks, like manning checkpoints and conducting patrols, have not provided all the forces promised, and in some cases have performed poorly.

Who'da thunk it? Plan B anyone?

From the GOP Talking Points-addled mind of Fred Hiatt:

As painful and costly as the war in Iraq has been, the United States stands to lose far more if it simply abandons a country in the heart of the Middle East and hands a victory to al-Qaeda and other extremists.

A victory for Al Qaida and other extremists? The Al Qaida part is . . . well, just idiotic. Non-dirty effing hippie Fareed Zakaria writes:

The first thing to admit is that our mission in Iraq has substantially failed. . . . If anything, Iraq has become a model in exactly the opposite sense from what Bush had hoped. It has become a living advertisement of the dangers of illiberal democracy. . . . It would be far better for us to reduce our exposure to the current civil war, draw down our forces, let Iraq's internal political forces play themselves out and restrict our troops to certain limited but core missions. . . .

Via andgarden, Frank Rich seems to believe that those of us agitating for the Democratic Congress ending the Iraq Debacle by setting a date certain for not funding, what I term the Reid-Feingold framework, are being unrealistic and unreasonable. Like the Democrats in Congress and many pundits and bloggers, Mr. Rich believes Republicans will end the Debacle:

Contrary to Mr. Edwards, only Republicans in Congress can overcome presidential vetoes and in so doing force Mr. Bush’s hand on the war. As the bottom drops out of Iraq and the polls, those G.O.P. votes are starting to line up.

If only this were true. Mr. Rich must know that Republicans have been singing this song for a while. Mr. Rich's colleague, David Broder, has told us that John Warner is the key. And Senator Warner is illuminative on the subject. Senator Warner has made noises for some time about ending the Debacle, but always votes for the Bush plan, whatever it is at the time, including the Surge. A review of Senator Warner's statements and actions is instructive:

Via teddysanfran, Michael Kinsley drinks from the cup of Steve Gilliard on funding the Iraq Debacle:

What are you supposed to do, according to supporters of the Iraq war, if you think that the war is a dreadful mistake? Suppose you are a member of Congress, elected by constituents who also, like most Americans, according to opinion polls, oppose the war. Is there any legitimate action you can take? Or must you simply allow the war to go on and let young Americans die in what you regard as a bad cause? What are your options?

NOT funding the war of course. And Kinsley gets to the point of how Democrats can not let the Republicans cow them on this point:

Atrios focuses on the Bush "plan" for leaving Iraq. I am sadly amused by this from Iraq President Jalil Talabani:

Iraq's president tells ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "This Week" this Sunday that Iraqi forces can take over, but not any time soon. When asked when the Iraqi army will be ready to defend its country, Jalal Talabani said, "I think the end of the next year." But officials have serious doubts about that statement.

I have no doubts. It is a pack of lies. Jalil talabani has been saying next year for the last three years:

2 years ago, Talabani said:

[T]wo years should be enough time for Iraqi forces to rebuild and secure control of the country as well as take over the job currently being performed by some 140,000 U.S. troops.

And two years from now, he'll same the same thing. As will the Generals. As will Republicans. And, sad to say, so will a lot of Democrats.

Via digby, President Bush inspiring confidence:

[T]here is not much real give in the administration's policies. . . . [B]y all reports, President Bush is more convinced than ever of his righteousness. Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny."

Oh gawd.

or so say the usual suspects.

Atrios has been all over this and there is no need to rehash the obvious.

I mean how many times will the Beltway Gasbags trot this bromide out?

The question that remains for the autumn is what the Republicans will do. Their congressional members voted almost unanimously to give the president financing long enough to sustain the current offensive. . . . But just below the surface, the GOP ground is beginning to shift. . . . Mitch McConnell, the supremely realistic Senate Republican leader, told reporters that "the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall, and I expect the president to lead it."

The problem is the President says he has changed course:

Last November, the American people said they were frustrated and wanted a change in our strategy in Iraq . . . . I listened. Today, General David Petraeus is carrying out a strategy that is dramatically different from our previous course.

One more time Charlie Brown?

Only in America, folks. Like Cookie Jill at Skippy, I'm at a loss for words:

Previously, a soldier who lost a limb almost automatically received a quick discharge, a disability check and an appointment with the Veterans Administration.

But since the start of the Iraq war, the military has begun holding on to amputees, treating them in rehab programs like the one here at Fort Sam Houston and promising to help them return to active duty if that is what they want.

"The mindset of our Army has changed, to the extent that we realize the importance of all our soldiers and what they can contribute to our Army. Someone who loses a limb is still a very valuable asset," said Lt. Col. Kevin Arata, a spokesman for the Army's Human Resources Command at the Pentagon.

They aren't just returning to desk jobs.

More...

In March, Harold Meyerson wrote:

In effect, what the protesters are doing is making the unattainable perfect the enemy of the barely-attainable good. Because Obey is quite right: The votes aren't there to shut down funding for the war. What he and Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership in both houses are about is finding some way to curtail the president's determination to pass the war on to his successor regardless of the continuing cost to U.S. interests and lives.

Did the Iraq Supplemental do that? Of course not. But on to Meyerson's Plan B, from:

It took the Democrats, and their dovish Republican allies, four full years to pass a cutoff of funds for U.S. ground forces in Vietnam. . . . Pelosi is steering the same course, for a war even more reckless and absurd than Vietnam.

What is Meyerson saying? That Congress can not end the war 'cuz they don't have the votes.' Well, why not just say that in the first place? As it happens, most of us always knew that. And many of us advocate an approach that requires strong Democrat support only, not waiting for phantom GOP support. This is what galls. The stupidity of it all.