Lt. Col. William Steele, Commander of the 451st Police Detachment Unit at Camp Cropper, located at the Baghdad airport, which houses some of Saddam Hussein's top deputies, has been charged with aiding the enemy, having improper sexual relations with a translator and a detainee's daughter and possessing pornographic videos.

The aiding the enemy charge stems partially from allegations he provided unmonitored cell phones to detainees. In all there are nine charges:

The other charges included unauthorized possession of classified information, fraternizing with the daughter of a detainee, maintaining an inappropriate relationship with an interpreter, storing classified information in his quarters and possessing pornographic videos, the military said. Steele also was charged with improperly marking classified information, failing to obey an order and failing to fulfill his obligations in the expenditure of funds, the military said.

Steele is being held in Kuwait pending an Article 32 hearing. The 451st Police Detachment Unit is based in Inkster, MI (pdf).

Too funny:

Last week a series of coordinated suicide bombings killed more than 170 people. . . . Unfortunately, because this slaughter took place in Baghdad, the carnage was seized upon as the latest talking point by advocates of withdrawal here in Washington. Rather than condemning the attacks and the terrorists who committed them, critics trumpeted them as proof that Gen. David Petraeus's security strategy has failed and that the war is "lost."

Um, failing to provide security in Baghdad, says Joe, is not evidence that "Gen. David Petraeus's security strategy is failing?" Well surely it is not evidence that it is working is it Joe? But it gets better:

And today, perversely, the Senate is likely to vote on a binding timeline of withdrawal from Iraq. This reaction is dangerously wrong. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both the reality in Iraq and the nature of the enemy we are fighting there. What is needed in Iraq policy is not overheated rhetoric but a sober assessment of the progress we have made and the challenges we still face.

A sober assessment you say Joe? Like this one from November 2005?

The Iraq funding bill has passed the House by a vote of 218 to 208.

The $124.2 billion bill would fund the war, among other things, but demand troop withdrawals begin on Oct. 1 or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain standards. The bill sets a nonbinding goal of completing the troop pull out by April 1, 2008, allowing for forces conducting certain noncombat missions, such as attacking terrorist networks or training Iraqi forces, to remain.

The Senate is expected to vote and pass the bill tomorrow, and then it will go to President Bush, who has promised to veto it.

"Our troops are mired in a civil war with no clear enemy and no clear strategy for success," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

Videos of the debate are here.

The bill, "Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1591 - Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes." is here.

Pointing to the latest WSJ poll, which Jeralyn posted on earlier, Atrios says:

People Hate Bush And Hate The War
I don't know what it'll take for that to enter the bloodstream of Official Washington.

The answer is nothing will make it enter their bloodstream because of their contempt for the American People. Consider the comment by the Republican pollster who conducted the poll that demonstrates that the American People want Congress to end the war:

Yet Newhouse, the GOP pollster, says that there are dangers for the Democrats if they decide to go too far on Iraq. "The Democrats risk overplaying the Iraq issue by tying the president's hands on funding. Yes, Americans want Congress to put pressure on the president for a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, but that doesn't mean they want Congress to sidestep the president and do it on their own."

HIS OWN POLL proves that what he says is false. And still he spouts this nonsense. So the simple answer to Atrios' question is this - nothing will ever convince the Beltway that the American People want the Congress to end the Iraq Debacle. Democrats are fools to pay attention to them. They need to pay attention to the American People.

Democrats were successful today in a vote to subpoena Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice about the Administration's decision to go to war in Iraq.

When the decision was made, Rice was Bush's National Security Advisor.

Republicans accused Democrats of a "fishing expedition." But Democrats said they want Rice to explain what she knew about administration's warnings, later proven false, that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger for nuclear arms.

"There was one person in the White House who had primary responsibility to get the intelligence about Iraq right — and that was Secretary Rice who was then President George W. Bush's national security adviser," said committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat.

Adding to Jeralyn's post on the Iraq Supplemental, I want to discuss an issue Kid Oakland mentions:

Speaker Pelosi was most emphatic on this point, this bill will also define under law that the President does not have the authority by any Act of Congress to continue his chosen course of action unfettered in Iraq. . . . Speaker Pelosi emphasized that Congress must reassert itself and say, and I'm paraphrasing here, when Congress defines the limits of the authorization in Iraq, that is the law. The bill that Congress sends to the President, veto or not, goal language or not, will be an important first step in the process of putting Congressional limits on the President's authority in Iraq and, hence, ending this war.

I do not understand this point frankly. Is Pelosi saying by the mere act of passing this bill, whether the President vetoes it or not, the Iraq War is deauthorized? Because if she is, then she seems wrong to me. We have discussed this point before. Another point from Pelosi is disheartening:

The House of Representatives will vote today on the compromise legislation to pull out of Iraq, as part of the Iraq funding bill.

I was on a blogger conference call with Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday. Here's what she had to say:

She is proud of the conference report. The President should either sign the bill and honor it or veto it.

The goal is for troops to be out of Iraq by March, 2008. If the Iraqi government is not meeting the benchmarks by July, 2007, redeployment would begin this July. If they meet the benchmarks, the redeployment would begin in October, 2007 and must be with a goal of completion in 180 days, by March, 2008.

More...

Via mcjoan, Harry Reid cracks wise on Cheney:

Mr. Reid said he was not going to engage in a tit-for-tat with the vice president. "I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating," Mr. Reid said.

Heh.

Now that we know the Pentagon lied about the attack on Jessica Lynch and the death of Pat Tillman, who's going to be held accountable?

Now that we know Bush will veto the compromise Iraq funding legislation with a suggested timeline for leaving Iraq, what comes next -- other than a misguided attempt to blame Sen. Harry Reid.

We need to keep the pressure on. It's our only way out of Iraq.

There can be nothing better for the fortunes of Democratic leaders in Congress than to be attacked by Vice President Cheney, especially on Iraq. Today, Cheney Accommodated Dems:

The battle of words over an Iraq war-spending bill intensified this afternoon as Vice President Dick Cheney suggested that Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, was indulging in cynical political calculation. Mr. Reid dismissed the vice president’s words as the utterances of President Bush’s “attack dog,” and said the administration remained in thrall to a failed policy, one that Democrats would continue trying to change.

Can you doubt that Dems are thinking "more please" from Mr. "Shoot Them In The Face," whose personal approval rating is around 32%?

Responding to Senator Harry Reid's statement:

I understand the restlessness that some feel. Many who voted for change in November anticipated dramatic and immediate results in January. But like it or not, George W. Bush is still the commander in chief -- and this is his war."

Cliff May writes:

Actually, like it or not, it's America's war.

May's criticsm of Reid is right. But what does May NOT mention? That America wants the Debacle ended and Bush is defying the wishes of the American People:

Which of these comes closest to your opinion? 1. Congress should block all funding war in Iraq no matter what OR 2. Congress should allow funding only for a limited period of time OR 3. Congress should allow all funding for the war in Iraq without a time limit.
Block all funding 9
Allow only w/time limit 58
Should allow all funding 29
Don't know/No answer 4

The principles of Reid's proposal are supported by 2/3 of the American People. The President is NOT a King Clifford May. He does not get to rule the American People by diktat. The American People do not support the Debacle in Iraq. They want it over. And Harry Reid is the voice for the will of the American People. The view of Bush that you support is at odds with what the American People want. The war in Iraq is a Debacle the American People want ended. Time to do the will of the People Mr. May.

And the toll, it just keeps growing.

A suicide bomber rammed an explosives-rigged truck into a U.S. military outpost near Baqubah on Monday, killing nine soldiers and wounding 20 in one of the deadliest single ground attacks on U.S. forces since the start of the war in Iraq, military officials said early Tuesday.

....The truck bombing caused the highest number of U.S. fatalities in a ground attack since Aug. 3, 2005, when 14 Marines were killed after their amphibious assault vehicle hit a roadside bomb in Haditha.

How many times have we heard that phrase, "one of the deadliest attacks since the start of the war?"

The House and the Senate have now agreed on a compromise Iraq funding bill.

The measure, a compromise between separate legislation passed earlier by each chamber, requires U.S. troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq by Oct. 1, with the goal of completing the withdrawal within 180 days. Some U.S. forces could remain in the country for training and counterterrorism operations.

Bush still threatens to veto it. Democrats may not have the votes necessary to override the veto.

Your unitary executive at work. He refuses to listen, is unable to grasp and unwilling to concede this war cannot be won by military means. And every day, more soldiers continue to die.