Yesterday we were informed about a new Democratic plan for funding the Iraq Debacle:

Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives said on Tuesday that they will try to pass a new Iraq war-funding bill to keep combat operations running for the next two or three months while also forcing a troop withdrawal vote in July. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, said a vote could come as early as Thursday on a new plan to provide more than $30 billion now for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan before existing war funds run out. Another $10 billion or so would beef up veterans health care and other military programs.

Today, President Bush promised to veto such legislation:

U.S. President George W. Bush would veto an emerging House of Representatives bill which would include limits on funding for the Iraq war, White House spokesman Tony Snow said on Wednesday.

"There are restrictions on funding and there are also some of the spending items that were mentioned in the first veto message that are still in the bill," Snow told reporters aboard Air Force One as he flew with Bush to visit parts of Kansas devastated by tornadoes last week.

Asked whether Bush would veto the bill in its current form, Snow said: "Yes."

Well now, how will Dems deal with Bush on Iraq now? Clearly he wants what he wants and will not budge on it. Senator Obama and some other folks look to September for a veto-proof majority to overcome Bush's intransigence. Let's hope they are right. I am confident they are wrong.

To me, everything points to one way to end the Debacle - announce a date certain when the Iraq Debacle will not be funded. Yes, the Reid-Feingold framework.

Via Vote Vets.Org:

In a stunning, new half-million dollar ad series from VoteVets.org being launched today, three retired Generals, two of whom were commanders in Iraq, directly take on the notion that the President listens to commanders on the ground in Iraq, and declares that his plan for Iraq endangers American security. This is the first time in the history of the war that former commanders are taking to the paid airwaves to challenge the President, and push Members of Congress to oppose his policy on the war.

The first in the series of three ads features Major General (ret.) John Batiste, who was commanding general of the 1st Infantry Division from August 2002-June 2005. During this timeframe, he conducted combat operations in Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. ... Batiste twice voted for President Bush and is a lifelong Republican.

More...

Lt. William Kallop testified yesterday at a military Article 32 hearing on the atrocities at Haditha. He said that there were two live children among the dead.

``I saw one breathe. That's how I knew,'' 1st Lt. William Kallop testified on Tuesday at a military tribunal at Camp Pendleton. ``The little boy who breathed was about 6 or 7 and when I touched him, the little girl jumped up. She was about 11.''

The two injured children were the only survivors of a Marine Corps assault on two Iraqi homes near the site of a bomb attack on a Marine convoy that left one Marine dead and two injured. Prosecutors contend that the surviving Marines swept through the town on a revenge spree, killing 24 civilians with grenades and guns.

The case in which he testified was that against Capt. Randy Stone. Stone was,

More....

Save the Children and the National Center for Health Statistics have released their latest studies of infant mortality rates around the world. While the rate in the U.S. remains about the same, the rate in Iraq is soaring:

Two wars and a decade of sanctions have led to a huge rise in the mortality rate among young children in Iraq, leaving statistics that were once the envy of the Arab world now comparable with those of sub-Saharan Africa.

A new report shows that in the years since 1990, Iraq has seen its child mortality rate soar by 125 per cent, the highest increase of any country in the world. Its rate of deaths of children under five now matches that of Mauritania.

The U.S. report is here.

Via KagroX, some are saying September is the key month on Iraq:

"Many of my Republican colleagues have been promised they will get a straight story on the surge by September," said Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). "I won't be the only Republican, or one of two Republicans, demanding a change in our disposition of troops in Iraq at that point. That is very clear to me."

Via Talex, Obama agrees:

Presidential candidate Barack Obama on Sunday launched a public campaign to win enough votes to override a presidential veto of a troop withdrawal from Iraq. . . . Obama said he believed a phased troop withdrawal could be pushed through Congress this fall if the public applies enough pressure on Republicans over the summer. . . . "I think by the fall, if there's been concerted pressure over the summer (it could happen)," he said. "

Sigh. Here we do NOT go again:

"Over the course of the next three to four months, we'll have some idea how well the plan's working. . . . By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B?"

Sure they will. This is deja vu all over again:

I think it will be rather clear in the next 60 to 90 days as to whether this plan is going to work. . . . We need to know, as we . . . move through these benchmarks, that the Iraqis are doing what they have to do. -Boehner, 1/23/07

Democrats and anti-war groups that are waiting for Republicans to move to end the Debacle now sound like this:

Vladimir: Well? Shall we go?
Estragon: Yes, let's go.

They do not move.

Who wrote this column, cuz it makes good sense:

The gap between public opinion and Washington reality has rarely been wider than on the issue of the Iraq war. A clear national mandate is being blocked -- for now -- by constraints that make sense only in the short-term calculus of politics in this capital city. The public verdict on the war is plain. Large majorities have come to believe that it was a mistake to go in, and equally large majorities want to begin the process of getting out. That is what the polls say; it is what the mail to Capitol Hill says; and it is what voters signaled when they put the Democrats back into control of Congress in November. . . . Congress shares war-making power under the Constitution but can exercise it only through its control of the money the president needs to finance any military operation.

But then it makes the Friedman Unit mistake:

Putting aside her professional failings, which were very serious, plagiarism is one of the most serious sins in academia, why does anyone take Doris Kearns Goodwin seriously? As Atrios point out, she has said so many stupid things, such as this one on Bush's Mission Accomplished stunt:

Well, you see, I think what worked about the speech the other night was not only the imagery. The imagery is a kind of static thing, even the plane going in, but what made it work was partly what David said. There’s a war behind it. It was a real event, and by speaking to those soldiers who were on their way home, it gave it such an emotional connection between him and the soldiers, just like when Reagan spoke on the anniversary of D-Day before that incredible rock. And people had climbed up that rock and those rangers were there. There’s a connection then between the commander in chief and the troops that you cannot take away. So I think it is crazy to criticize it. I think it was a good thing he did for himself, for the country and the Democrats have plenty of other things to criticize, but it’s silly to go on about that.

(Emphasis supplied.) Doris Kearns Goodwin is silly, to put it mildly. Tim Russert is grilling George Tenet this morning on all the things he said in the past. When do pundits get grilled for all the things they said in the past? When is there accountability for them?

Some anti-Iraq Debacle groups have discovered that the House Iraq supplemental funding bill that they supported has led to nowhere. They feign outrage now and try to reclaim some type of pressuring role. It is too little, too late:

On Thursday, leaders of the liberal group MoveOn.org . . . sent a harshly worded warning to the Democratic leadership. “In the past few days, we have seen what appear to be trial balloons signaling a significant weakening of the Democratic position,” the letter read. . . . The letter went on to say that if Democrats passed a bill “without a timeline and with all five months of funding,” they would essentially be endorsing a “war without end.” MoveOn, it said, “will move to a position of opposition.”

NOW they will oppose? They supported a bill that would not have even, theoretically, ended the war until September 2008, two months before an election!

This is the strongest and best statement yet from John Edwards on ending the Iraq Debacle:

We don't need any more non-binding resolutions or big statements; we need to end the war. I've been in Washington, so I understand the urge to make a statement - but in this situation, statements can be an excuse for inaction. Congress has a clear choice - they can talk about ending the war, or they can just end it. The only way for Congress to end the war is to cut off the money for it, and they should concentrate on doing just that. Anything else is just noise.

Edwards has joined my preferred candidate Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), and there can be no doubt that Dodd's co-sponsorship of Reid-Feingold has had an effect on the entire slate of candidates, in supporting Reid-Feingold. Rep. Kucinich also has been strong on this issue.

We now need Senators Clinton, Obama and Biden to step up along with Governor Richardson. Let's concentrate on ending the Debacle by NOT funding it on a date certain. This is the ONLY way to end the Iraq Debacle.

Update [2007-5-4 21:57:3 by Big Tent Democrat]: I want to clarify that I do not mean to say that mahablog believes the one benchmark mentioned in the proposed bill she is touting is the end of the road, but rather a step in the "ratcheting up the pressure" process. I thought I was clear on that point but I want to make sure I am not misstating mahablog's position. I do not believe that changes my analysis of the situation. Indeed, I think John Edwards has the best response to that argument.

Being called naive by someone who believes this tickles me no end:

Monday I published a post about building a veto-proof majority in the House and Senate to vote against the war.

Bulding a veto-proof majority??? It takes 290 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate to override a Presidential veto. Let's just take the Senate. Can anyone name the 17 Republicans who are gonna vote to end the war please (Lieberman never will, so IF you can hold the 50 Dems, you need 17 Republican Senators.) And you call me naive? Puhleeeaze. It is no wonder that someone who believes a veto proof majority to end the war can be built thinks this:

One thing I like about these Democratic leaders is they’re very subtle and canny. We have to keep in mind, of course, that we’re dealing with a hostage situation here, and we have to protect our soldiers from this maniac.

Suuuure. That House Supplemental is working out like a charm for ending the war. Honestly, sometimes our side can be as stubborn in clinging to ideas that have been proven not to work as the Right.

Glenn Greenwald points to the latest deep thinking from the Wingnuts:

After having created "The Victory Caucus" two months ago only to stand by helplessly as it died a rapid and painful death, right-wing bloggers have now joined forces with former Senator Bill Frist to create a new Victory website, the purpose of which is to set forth their foreign policy principles for the Iraq war. The name of the site is "We Win. They Lose."

Their advice is good. No, really. They seem to have borrowed it from Prof Reynolds:

Glenn Reynolds

1. Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Yes.

2. Have you changed your position? No. . . .

3. What should the U.S. do in Iraq now? Win.

Or Al Davis. Course, the Raiders were the worst team in the NFL last year.