Via dpg, in an interview with Ed Schultz, Barack Obama chose to insult those of us committed to ending the Debacle in Iraq while simultaneously getting punked by George Bush, and bringing Jim Webb along for the ride:

There are no good options on Iraq . . . People are going to have concerns no matter what proposals are offered. . . . In the Senate you still need 60 votes. . . . There's gonna be a discrepency between those who want to EXPRESS a full throated desire to end the war and those who want to actually pass something through the Senate and have to take Republican votes into account . . .

I find that answer extremely insulting. I neither want to EXPRESS a full throated desire to end the war or have "something pass" through the Senate. I want the war to end. I believe it is clear that defunding is the only viable way. I have suggested the announcing a date certain in the future when no more funding will be provided is the way to do it. I won't repeat my arguments again. But Obama's condescension and sheer nonsense on this is insulting.

On defunding:

I have concerns about cutting off funding . . . Jim Webb has some concerns, both of us have been consistent critics of the war. I think there is a possibility, given how obstinate the Administration is, that if we try to cut off funding, Bush is hellbent on doing what he is doing . . . he may decide to play chicken and say 'you guys do whatever you want [I'm keeping the troops there]' . . .

Hell, why does Bush even need to play chicken with Senate Dems? Obama and Webb seem to have been pre-punked by Bush. For if Obama lets Bush's "obstinancy" paralyze him when Bush has said the Congress has the power to end the war through the Spending Power, then what in the hell is he proposing? Oh, let me guess, Obama 2008. A lot less likely to have my support after hearing Obama on Ed Schultz. Pathetic.

I have written so much on the Iraq Debacle and how to end it, that I really feel all I am doing now is repeating myself. I am for the Democratic leadership of Congress announcing a date certain for when no more funding would be provided for the Irag Debacle. The date is subject to political consideration. But pick a date certain. Everyone agrees the Congress can do this. Including Bush and Cheney. Despite that some on the Left still write this:

Dems don't have either the votes or the balls to force a constitutional confrontation with Bush to get us out of this war.

What Constitutional Crisis? There would be NO Constitutional Crisis.

Former senator Linc Chafee talks about the past:

There was indeed a third way, which Senator James Jeffords, independent of Vermont, hailed at the time as “one of the most important votes we will cast in this process.” And it was opposed by every single senator at the time who now seeks higher office. . . . Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, offered a substitute to the war resolution, the Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002. Senator Levin’s amendment called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. It was unambiguous and compatible with international law. . . . Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: . . . the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened.

All true . But what I care about is now. What is Carl Levin doing NOW to end the war? Not as much.

Many Democratic Senators like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have argued for years that their vote in October 2002 in favor of the Iraq AUMF was not a vote for war, but to give the President leverage. That is a crock of course. No, the stark choice presented was for war with Iraq or against war with Iraq.

Today, the choice for Congress is just as stark - for continuing the Iraq Debacle or for ending the Iraq Debacle. Democrats in Congress simply have not, and apparently will not anytime soon, accept this reality. More.

From Melinda Henneberger:

Before their Iraq briefing at the White House yesterday, the nation's governors were instructed that they were not to ask any pesky questions about a timetable for bringing the troops home. So by the time California's Arnold Schwarzenegger was on his third question about a timetable for bringing the troops home, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Peter Pace was just the tiniest bit out of patience . . .

I got news for General Pace, the American People are out of patience.

Matt Stoller asks that question. The answer is obviously yes. I am a Centrist. And yet on Iraq, the voices joining me on the call to end the Iraq Debacle through the only viable way to do it, defunding, have been relatively few to my knowledge.

In this post, I warned of the Netroots forgetting the lessons learned from the intraparty battles on Iraq and other issues from 2003 to 2006:

Are we forgetting these lessons? I fear we are. The Netroots must not forget this fight, how we won it and how we must continue to win it in our Democratic Party.

See also Glenn Greenwald.

On June 19, 2006, Senators Carl Levin and Jack Reed introduced a resolution calling for the phased redeployment of US military from Iraq commencing in 2006. Senator Levin said:

Our current open-ended policy is counterproductive and unsustainable. The Administration’s policy of ‘we’ll be there for as long as Iraq needs us’ will result in Iraqis depending on us longer. Three and a half years into the conflict, we should tell the Iraqis that the American security blanket is not permanent. Beginning a phased redeployment this year will add incentives for the Iraqis to make the hard compromises necessary to bring their country together and secure it. They need to do that job themselves and our amendment is one way to prod them to make that commitment and stick to it.

Now, the Democrats do not need to "prod" the President to do anything. They can do it themselves. They have the power. They have no excuses. The question is do the Democrats in Congress actually want to have our troops redeploy from Iraq or not? They can do it if they want. If they believe what they said in in June 2006, then they will.

Opposing the president's plan to send more troops to Iraq: two out of three Americans.

The Post-ABC poll found that 53 percent of Americans favored setting a deadline for troop withdrawals. Among those who favored a deadline, 24 percent said they would like to see U.S. forces out within six months and 21 percent called for the withdrawals to be completed within a year. ...

Growing numbers of Americans also favored withdrawing U.S. forces even if civil order in Iraq has not been restored. The poll found that 42 percent favored keeping troops there until order is reestablished, while 56 percent said the troops should be redeployed to avoid further U.S. casualties, even if the sectarian violence is continuing.

Rep. Murtha's congressional colleagues (and critics) may find it easier to support his proposal after reading this:

One point in Lieberman's column I do agree with:

There is of course a direct and straightforward way that Congress could end the war, consistent with its authority under the Constitution: by cutting off funds.

In fact, one would expect Joe to have some kind words for Russ Feingold, and his proposal to end funding for the war six months after enactment of such a law. Heck, General Petraeus even gets a chance to "succeed." Or if Joe thinks General Petraeus needs more time, let's make the date certain March 31, 2008. Which would mean the US "occupation" of Iraq will have lasted five years. Does Joe need more time than that?

Funny how Joe does not mention THAT proposal.

Lieberman on Iraq, December 2005:

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do.

Lieberman on Iraq today:

What is remarkable about this state of affairs in Washington is just how removed it is from what is actually happening in Iraq. There, the battle of Baghdad is now under way. A new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by the Senate, 81-0, just a few weeks ago. And a new strategy is being put into action, with thousands of additional American soldiers streaming into the Iraqi capital.

Oh, and the lie Lieberman told Connecticut during the 2006 campaign:

What I don't think is right, as I have said over and over again, are many of the Bush Administration's decisions regarding the planning for and execution of the war.

The most dishonest, dishonorable person in Washington, DC today, Joe Lieberman.

There was a time, circa 2005 and 2006, when I argued against Dem plans for Iraq:

With due respect to everybody that wants to play President, Bush is the President and we should concentrate on ripping him to shreds for the Iraq Debacle, including his current failures. Does Warner believe in deadlines or timetables? Clark for training or redployment? Who cares? None of it matters until Dems get some power.

But now Dems control the Congress, and this approach will no longer work. For in 2008, the American People will PROPERLY ask 'what did the Dems do to end the Iraq Debacle?'

In TChris' post highlighting Sy Hersh's article, he points to a critical point:

The panel initially focused on destroying Iran's nuclear facilities and on regime change but has more recently been directed to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq, according to an Air Force adviser and a Pentagon consultant, who were not identified.

I believe this is confirmation of my view that the road to war with Iran runs through Iraq.

For a number of reasons, the Bush Administration must use Iraq as the excuse for war with Iran. First, Bush has no legal authority to initiate war with Iran. Second, no one believes US intelligence. Finally, the military commanders are opposed to a strike on Iran, so the Bush Administration will need some strong PR to counter this opposition.

My conclusion remains the same, to prevent war with Iran, end the war in Iraq.