(Guest Post by Terry Kindlon)

In 1968, as a 21 year old wounded Marine Sergeant, I got great medical care in a sparkling Navy hospital where I was treated with dignity and respect. When the Marine Corps decided that my injuries required a medical retirement I was quickly set up for a disability pension and introduced to a VA representative, right there in the hospital, who designed a plan for me that paid every single cent of my education, together with my living expenses.

While I was in college, this older, grandfatherly counselor from the VA would swing by once a month to tell me I was a nice kid, that he was proud of me and to say "keep up the good work." Same deal in law school where there were three other disabled vets in my class (including the extraordinarily talented and dedicated Ray Kelly, who's just finished a term as President of the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers) whose education was also being fully funded by the VA, and, of course, there were also dozens of regular, non-disabled vets who were able to go to law school because of the GI Bill. The VA even paid for my bar review course and sent me a check for $50 to cover the bar exam fee.

Because the VA did what it was designed to do I've been able to have a good life, to practice law, to become the father of seven remarkable kids and grandfather to four more. Not only that, but my taxes have now repaid the government's financial investment in me hundreds of times over. As equations go this is kind of a no-brainer.

More...

Congressman David Obey is a terrific, hardworking, committed Congressman who wants to end the Iraq Debacle. He had a bad moment with some citizens working to end the war.

As one of the "idiot liberals" (actually I am not a liberal at all, I'm an anti-Debacle Centrist) Obey references, I want to take a moment to defend Congressman Obey. Was he uncivil? Of course. Was he inappropriate?" Perhaps. But do you think Obey does not care? Or does not want to end the Debacle? Of course he does.

This is the Harry Reid I admired:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today joined Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, Democratic Conference Vice Chairman Charles Schumer, Democratic Conference Secretary Patty Murray, Senator Russ Feingold, and Senator Evan Bayh to announce a new Joint Resolution to revise U.S. policy on Iraq. Iraq has fallen into a bloody civil war, and as conditions on the ground have changed so must U.S. policy change to meet them.

The Reid Joint Resolution builds on the longstanding Democratic position on Iraq and the Levin-Reed Amendment: the current conflict in Iraq requires a political solution, Iraq must take responsibility for its own future, and our troops should not be policing a civil war. It contains binding language to direct the President to transition the mission for U.S. forces in Iraq and begin their phased redeployment within one-hundred twenty days with a goal of redeploying all combat forces by March 31, 2008.

. . . "Last November, the American people made a clear call for a new direction, and Democrats are committed to bringing stability to Iraq and bringing our troops home from a civil war."

Let's have no illusions - this has no chance of overcoming a GOP filibuster. But that does not matter. Because Dems are laying down markers - dates certain for when the troops must be out of harm's way. The Spending Power, or NOT Spending Power, as I will now refer to it, will be the key.

This is a start of a long political road. But at least it is in the right direction.

David Sirota crossposts a piece at Daily Kos arguing that Dems are ignoring the judgment of the voters in the 2006 election by not working harder to end the war in Iraq. One commenter disagreed with Sirota on the meaning of the 2006 election, saying:

Ending the war wasn't on the ballot.

Actually, very few Dems ran on "ending the war". Most of them ran on oversight of the war.

To say the vote in November was a vote to end the war is demeaning to each and every voter who voted in the fall. Each voter has their own reasons for voting, and to declare by fiat why they voted is wrong.

This seems not a true statement to me. On the eve of the November 2006 election, the NYTimes reported:

A substantial majority of Americans expect Democrats to reduce or end American military involvement in Iraq if they win control of Congress next Tuesday and say Republicans will maintain or increase troop levels to try to win the war if they hold on to power on Capitol Hill, according to the final New York Times/CBS News poll before the midterm election.

I certainly expected it.

The Out of Iraq caucus is beginning to get some movement out of the timid Dem leadership in the House, succesfully pushing back the retrograde Blue Dogs:

Under the deal, to be formally drafted by the Appropriations Committee next week, Congress would institute the same tough benchmarks for the Iraqi government that Bush detailed in a national address in January. Under those benchmarks, the Iraqi government would have to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November, and adopt and implement oil-revenue-sharing legislation. . . . Bush would have to certify the benchmarks are met by year's end. If not, troops would begin leaving Iraq next spring, with all troops out of combat by the fall, a senior Democratic aide said.

Now this is a terrible proposal because it allows Bush to get off the hook by "certifying" benchmarks are met. Simply unacceptable. But certainly better than just a few days ago. The pressure must continue to build from the Out of Iraq Caucus, the grassroots AND the Netroots. We need to disabuse the Blue Dog notion expressed here:

"The war is the issue, but it's the president's issue, not ours," [Rep.] Boren said.

Via Greg Sargent, after not reaching agreement with Dem leadership, the Out Of Iraq Caucus will unveil its Iraq proposal tomorrow:

[The Out of Iraq Caucus is] going to present their plan to the public. Tomorrow morning, a group of them -- including Reps. Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Jerrold Nadler and others -- will hold a press conference to detail the specifics of their plan. It'll be interesting to see how the House Dem leadership reacts.

As we also reported yesterday, the liberal Dems are privately circulating a "dear colleague" letter designed to win over other House members to their approach[:]

Dear Colleague,

We write to share our thoughts with you about Congressional action regarding the ongoing occupation of Iraq and to make the case for fully funding the safe withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq over a clear timeline.

By framing their discussion of the war in terms of winning and losing, the Bush administration seeks to portray critics of their policies as opposed to victory, or supportive of defeat.

. . . There is no question that moving to stop this folly carries a political risk - the accusation that Democrats gave up on the Vietnam War, despite all evidence that it was an unwinnable conflict, hurt the party's credibility on national security issues for a generation.

But we must consider the very real cost of not acting. We are spending $8 billion a month occupying Iraq, with an average of 67 U.S. troops being killed and 500 being wounded. The cost to our security of having our military bogged down in Iraq indefinitely is unsustainable, and is not only sapping vital funds from efforts to fight global terrorism, but is strengthening jihadist recruitment efforts internationally. The longer we allow the administration to delay meaningful movement, and the longer we fail to extract ourselves from this quagmire, the more dangerous this failed foreign policy becomes to America and the rest of the world.

Is the Surge working?

For the second straight day, insurgents struck at Shiite pilgrims and other civilians across central Iraq on Wednesday, apparently seeking to reignite a cycle of sectarian retribution as hundreds of thousands of Shiites made their pilgrimage to Karbala to commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Hussein.

. . . At least 70 people were reported killed across Iraq on Wednesday, victims of bombs, drive-by shootings and assassination, according to hospitals and local police officials.

. . . Attacks against Shiite pilgrims making their way to Karbala for the Arbaeen holiday coming this weekend continued on Wednesday, though none were as bad as the coordinated bombings that killed at least 113 people on Tuesday at a false aid station for pilgrims in Hilla.

Not so much.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) of the Progressive Caucus on Iraq:

Our soldiers are dying in Iraq because President Bush refuses to recognize that it’s time to bring our troops home, his is a position that has been overwhelmingly rejected by the American public. Democrats were elected in November in conservative districts across the country so that we could find an end to the war, and now the majority of the American public supports a time-bound withdrawal plan that ensures that our troops return home in a safe and orderly fashion.

It’s time to end our military occupation of Iraq, and it’s time to fully fund our withdrawal.

Taylor Marsh and Matt Stoller demonstrate their commitment and focus on ending the Iraq Debacle is there. But I think they also demonstrate their understanding of the issue is not quite there.

Marsh and Stoller take Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to task for saying, as Marsh describes it:

Mr. Reid will continue to fund the Iraq war. Period. He said so emphatically last night on "Charlie Rose." Of course, he did give a verbal nod to senators wanting to "look" at the funding issue, but he said the Senate will continue the "tradition" of funding war. Simply stated, Harry Reid will not be the first majority leader in U.S. Senate history to break with that "tradition." Constitutional checks and balances on a runaway commander in chief mean nothing to the senator. So on the war will rage until Mr. Bush decides to end it. That is our fate as it stands today.

Can Harry Reid singlehandedly fund the war? Or stop funding the war? Can the Senate? The answer is the Senate can singlehandedly stop the funding of the war but it cannot singlehandedly fund the war.

If the Bush Administration thought that Walter Reed is the only veterans hospital needing fixing, it's in for a huge awakening. In the aftermath of the publicity about the deficient conditions at Reed, soldiers elsewhere are weighing in, with similar stories about treatment across the country.

Stories of neglect and substandard care have flooded in from soldiers, their family members, veterans, doctors and nurses working inside the system. They describe depressing living conditions for outpatients at other military bases around the country, from Fort Lewis in Washington state to Fort Dix in New Jersey. They tell stories -- their own versions, not verified -- of callous responses to combat stress and a system ill equipped to handle another generation of psychologically scarred vets.

...much deeper [than Reed] has been the reaction outside Washington, including from many of the 600,000 new veterans who left the service after Iraq and Afghanistan. Wrenching questions have dominated blogs, talk shows, editorial cartoons, VFW spaghetti suppers and the solitary late nights of soldiers and former soldiers who fire off e-mails to reporters, members of Congress and the White House -- looking, finally, for attention and solutions.

The hearings that begin Monday come none too soon. They need to be expanded. We trusted the Government to treat our returning wounded soldiers with the best care possible. This is just such an outrage.

Congressman Murtha said today:

MR. RUSSERT: What are the Democrats going to do to try to stop the war in Iraq? REP. MURTHA: Well, the, the details haven’t been released yet. Until the members see it, we’re not going to talk about the details of what’s going to happen. That will be released tomorrow.

I'll withhold judgment then Congressman. Meanwhile, the Out of Iraq Caucus is:

becoming increasingly frustrated by what its members say is the Democratic leadership’s unwillingness to heed their calls for decisive action to the end the war.

Me too.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced today that Frances Harvey, Secretary of the Army, has resigned in the wake of Walter Reed-gate.

A new chief of Walter Reed Hospital has been appointed:

Army officials announced after Gates' news conference that Maj. Gen. Eric R. Schoomaker will be the new commander of Walter Reed Army Medical Center and North Atlantic Regional Medical Command. Schoomaker currently is the commanding general of the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command at Fort Detrick, Md.

According to the Reuters link above,