It's astounding, time is fleeting Madness takes its toll, But listen closely, not for very much longer, I've got to keep control I remember doing the TIme Warp, Drinking those moments when, The blackness would hit me and the void would be calling, Let's do the time warp again... Let's do the time warp again!

John McCain is all chutzpah today:

The new political-military strategy is beginning to show results. But most Americans are not aware because much of the media are not reporting it or devote far more attention to car bombs and mortar attacks that reveal little about the strategic direction of the war.

Back to the show:

It's just a jump to the left And then a step to the right, With your hands on your hips, You bring your knees in tight
But it's the pelvic thrust that really drives you insane, Let's do the Time Warp again!

The Pentagon is notifying 14,000 National Guard troops they may be heading to Iraq.

The Pentagon has identified some 14,000 National Guard soldiers who may go to Iraq as part of planning for deployments stretching as far as 2010, a senior U.S. defense official said on Friday.

Some of the Guard soldiers, part of the U.S. military's reserve component, may face deployment far sooner than the Pentagon's goal of five years at home for every year they are mobilized, the official said.

This is in addition to the redeployment of 4,500 active troops announced earlier this week.

More...

John McCain will run for President based on his record on Iraq. I kid you not:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will launch a high-profile effort next week to convince Americans that the Iraq war is winnable, embracing the unpopular conflict with renewed vigor as he attempts to reignite his stalling bid for the presidency. With the Virginia Military Institute as a backdrop, McCain plans to argue in a speech on Wednesday that victory in Iraq is essential to American security and that President Bush's war machine is finally getting on track after four years, aides and advisers said.

I think John McCain will be the GOP nominee if he promises that as President he will continue to prosecute the Iraq Debacle. And I think this is a political loser in the General Election. But will the Dem nominee recognize this? I have my doubts.

For the 'You don't say?' file:

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

In other news, Dick Cheney is still lying about it:

Red State thinks a plan to end the war is abandoning the troops:

You see, when you tell the nice veteran that nobody's planning to deny the troops what they need, political obsessives like Gateway Pundit go track down the boasting press releases that say, yeah, people are.

The press release is of course about the Reid-Feingold bill. That bill gives the troops what they need, an end to the Iraq Debacle on March 31, 2008 and full funding while the troops are in the field. I wish the Republicans would explain to the nice veterans that they oppose ending the Iraq Debacle one year from now. That 5 years of disaster is not enough for them.

The Reid-Feingold bill is something the "anti-war movement" is embracing, as is over 60% of the country. The Republicans want Debacle without end. Tell the nice vet Red State. 5 years of the Iraq Debacle is not enough for you. You want, nay, demand, more.

His supporters will say, indeed have said, that John Edwards supports the goals of Reid-Feingold, but that it does not go far enough:

EDWARDS: I can't tell from the way you're describing [Reid-Feingold] enough of the specifics. I can tell you what I support, if Bush vetoes a bill, we should send him a bill that forces a drawdown of troops.

Ben Smith at Politico asked the Edwards campaign to elaborate on Edwards' view of Reid-Feingold. Smith reports:

"EDWARDS: Spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield emails, "I wouldn't say he supports Reid-Feingold. He supports defunding as a policy and applauds Reid and Feingold for putting it on the table, but the plan he supports is his own -- which would force a drawdown of 40-50,000 immediately and have all combat troops out in 12-18 months." UPDATE: That is to say, says Bedingfield, his only quarrel with the bill is it doesn't go far enough, but he has no problem with the methods."

This is nice and all, but Edwards can and should make it simple - he should say he supports Reid-Feingold and advocates for even TOUGHER measures. But this is too cute by half. KISS Senator Edwards. Keep it simple.

Digby cited to some real insight on the Bush calculus on the Iraq supplemental funding bill from Gene Lyons and then added some of the special Digby insight. It got me to thinking, and hopefully adding some insights of my own. But first, Gene Lyons:

Here’s a puzzle: If President Bush really thinks he’s holding all the cards in his impending showdown with congressional Democrats over Iraq funding, why bother with a veto ? On previous occasions when Congress passed laws Bush found irksome, he’s quietly issued “signing statements” declaring in essence that the president is a law unto himself. . . . Two somewhat paradoxical reasons. First, the stakes are too high, because everybody’s watching. Bush may be commander-in-chief, but the United States isn’t yet a military dictatorship. Second, some Republicans have convinced themselves they’ve got the Democrats where they want them.

The first is the right answer. Too many people have become convinced that Bush can do anything and get away with it. Only if Dems LET him. Look at Gonzogate The second I think is not true. I do not believe there isa Republican in the United States that does not believe Bush is leading them towards an unprecedented electoral disaster in 2008. I think Lyons is wrong on 2. Then why will the GOP not jump off of Bush's political kamikaze mission? I'll tell you why I think they aren't on the flip.

Obama supporters have complained bitterly about Left Blog criticism of Obama being punked by Bush on Iraq. Do you think they are going to complain about David Ignatius taking the same "AP falsehood" and pouring some love on Obama for it?

A glimmer of hope that U.S. politicians haven't all lost their minds was a statement this week by Barack Obama challenging his party's extreme wing. "I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground," he said in an interview with the Associated Press. "I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage."

Well Obama supporters, any outrage at Ignatius? He reaches the same factual conclusion on the AP story, but likes Obama getting punked. Some of us do not like it. Ignatius thinksa this is a good time for pushback not against Bush but against the Left:

If Obama is in fact ready to challenge his party's most partisan activists, perhaps he is a man who can meet Hamilton's test [of Beltway Broderism BS "Bipartisanship.]

Ignatius is a Beltway Idiot of longstanding. That he thinks these ridiculous things is not new. Is this now Obama's target audience?

This is the way to step up:

The Feingold-Reid Bill helps Congress finally put the brakes on the Administration's failed Iraq strategy, and serves notice to the President in terms he can't ignore. "It sets forth a new direction that will require the Iraqis to take responsibility for their future by mandating the safe, phased redeployment of US combat forces from Iraq, with a hard date for completing that redeployment. It also very responsibly provides for a continued, very limited role for US troops who remain in Iraq -- equip and train Iraqi security forces, carry out limited counter terrorism operations and protect US personnel and infrastructure. I am pleased to join with Senators Feingold and Reid as a co-sponsor on this important legislative initiative. I would urge the President to embrace the new direction set forth in the bill.

Thank you Senator Dodd. Senator Clinton? Senator Obama? And how about some statements of support from Edwards and Richardson?

Senator Russ Feingold reminds us:

The amendment offered by Sen. John McCain on Oct. 15, 1993, would have eliminated funding for operations in Somalia immediately, except for funds for withdrawing troops or for continuing operations if any American POWs/MIAs were not accounted for. The mostly Republican senators who supported the McCain amendment were not disregarding the safety of our troops, or being indifferent to their need for guns, ammunition, food and clothing. They were supporting an appropriate, safe, responsible proposal to use Congress' power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops.

Think the Media will include THAT in its reporting? The point is simple, when the Congress believes a military operation should end, it is well within its rights, indeed, it is its duty, to NOT FUND said military operation. Whether it is Somalia, or Iraq.

I watched President Bush's press conference and there is a lot to think about from it. (Full text here.) For example, Bush said he needs a bill by May. The idea of the money running out April 15 was obviously nonsense. He reiterated he will veto all funding bills that "set an artificial timeline."

I think that the Obama idea of "ratcheting up pressure" is a silly nonstarter. Bush has ignored the 2006 elections, the Iraq Study Group, nonbinding resolutions and he will ignore any Congressional initiative that attempts to tell hm how to run the war.

Specifically about the Reid-Feingold bill, Bush said it was a legitimate exercise of Congressional power but that he just disagrees and he will veto it too. End of the story right? Wrong. It is the beginning of the story.

More....

The Cult of Obama is screeching at the criticism their hero is receiving. He can fix it with one statement.

I endorse the Reid-Feingold bill. I am co-sponsoring the Reid-Feingold bill.

How hard is that? Apparently, it is too hard for Senator Barack Obama at this time. Till then, the Obama Cult needs to suck it up.

As Senators, what makes Senator Obama different than Senator Hillary Clinton? Nothing.

Any top tier Presidential candidate want to prove their mettle? Endorse the Reid-Feingold bill.

P.S. Senator Harry Reid is NOT Dennis Kucinich. He is the leader of the Senate. This is the MAINSTREAM Democratic position now.