Former Senator Gary Hart has a new post at Huffpo on the specious argument that the National Guard needs to be fighting in Iraq to protect Americans at home.

....the National Guard units in Iraq are not in the United States standing post over our nation's security at home. They are not being trained and equipped for this vital mission. If we are in fact at war with terrorism, we are leaving our homeland flanks totally exposed. The Administration and its supporters have excused this dereliction in security with the hollow slogan: We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here.

....The "them" we are fighting in Iraq are overwhelmingly Iraqi insurgents who have no interest in following us home. And the relatively small but growing numbers of al Qaeda in Iraq can do more than one thing at once, as the people of London and Madrid can testify.

We need the National Guard at home, not in Iraq.

More...

Josh Marshall points to a Joe Lieberman statement where Lieberman essentially argues for evisceration of the separation of powers when it comes to the war power.

Lieberman starts with some correct analysis:

Congress has been given constitutional responsibilities. But the micro-management of war is not one of them. The appropriation of funds for war is. I appreciate that each of us here has our own ideas about the best way forward in Iraq, I respect those that take a different position than I, and I understand that many feel strongly that the President’s strategy is the wrong one. But the Constitution, which has served us now for more than two great centuries of our history, creates not 535 commanders-in-chief, but one—the President of the United States, who is authorized to lead the day to day conduct of war.

As I have written before, this is my view:

What is clear is that all this legal tapdancing get us nowhere. To end the war, the Congress can do one of two things, or preferably both: it can repeal the Iraq AUMF, and/or it can refuse to fund the war. This sophistry from Democrats, politicians and legal scholars, does neither us nor our principles credit.

It isn't enough, but it's something. After years of nothing, the vote is worthy of note.

After four days of emotional debate over the extent of presidential powers in wartime and the proper role of Congress, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution today denouncing President Bush’s plan to send more American troops to Iraq.

The 246 to 182 outcome included 17 Republican votes in favor of the (unfortunately) nonbinding resolution.

Atrios appears not to think much of Broder's prediction of a Bush Bounce:

Dean Broder says the Bush Bounce is coming!!!!!!!!! AWESUM!!!!

It may seem perverse to suggest that, at the very moment the House of Representatives is repudiating his policy in Iraq, President Bush is poised for a political comeback. But don't be astonished if that is the case.

Well, politics, like everything, is relative. What I think Broder is really talking about is that the Democratic Congress is likely to take a tumble, because of Iraq:

[Bush] minimized the stakes in the House debate by endorsing the good motives of his critics, rejecting the notion that their actions would damage U.S. troops' morale or embolden the enemy -- all by way of saying that the House vote was no big deal. . . . [B]y contrasting today's vote on a nonbinding resolution with the pending vote on funding the war in Iraq, he shifted the battleground to a fight he is likely to win -- and put the Democrats on the defensive. Much of their own core constituency wants them to go beyond nonbinding resolutions and use the power of the purse to force Bush to reduce the American commitment in Iraq.

Sure the Dems support with the base is going to suffer if that happens. But more than that, Dems will join Bush in being blamed on Iraq if that happens. The Dems must see that a position on Iraq can not be avoided. And the choices are binary - in or out. Vote funding for the war and the Iraq Debacle becomes your Debacle too. Vote against it and it does not. It is that simple.

It is "cut and run" all over again. In 2006, the Dems were smart enough not to bite on Rove's gambit. I smell them biting this time, and taking the Iraq Debacle on their shoulders. Incredibly stupid politically as well as being bad policy.

And when that happens, Bush will look better relatively in comparison. Call it an Einstein Bounce.

Like the Right Wing blogs, as described by Blogometer, I am not comfortable with what the Politico blog describes as the Democratic strategy on Iraq, but for different reasons of course. Politico reports:

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.

. . . As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement -- the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.

Unlike the deluded Right, which describes this strategy as Surrender without Responsibility!, my problem is that it does not move to end the war immediately. The contrargument is that defunding the war does not have the votes and this is the quickest way yo end the war. If that is true, then this might be defensible. I do not think it is.

Apparently, Barack Obama apologized for saying that US troops' lives have been wasted in Iraq:

Obama has twice apologized since implying that U.S. troops had died in vain, telling a rally crowd in Ames, Iowa, on Sunday, "We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized, and should never been waged, and on which we have now spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."

. . . In an interview with the Des Moines Register, the leading newspaper in the critical first-in-the-nation caucus state, immediately backpedaled saying, "I was actually upset with myself when I said that, because I never use that term."

But, the first-term Senator's use of the term in a very public setting has forced Obama to elaborate on that apology, telling a house party crowd of potential supports in Nashua, N.H., Monday night, "Even as I said it, I realized I had misspoken."

Obama did indeed misspeak. The fact is our troops in Iraq have not been wasted, they have been used in an enterprise that has been as damaging to the United States as any in memory. They were worse than wasted -- they were employed in a Debacle that was foretold from the first moment PNAC dreamed up this insane scheme in the 1990s.

I am not sure about the politics of it all. Chris Bowers is upset with Obama.

I am upset with the Bush Administration, which has done severe damage to our country and in the process caused the death and maiming of tens of thousands of our fine soldiers, who have, in the main, acted in the best traditions of our country. I feel tremendously sad for the families of our brave soldiers, who must realize what Bush has wrought and at what cost. I would certainly not want to see them caused further pain. But the truth is the truth.

It's difficult for people with criminal records to find employment. Young people sometimes hope that military service will provide them with civilian job skills and a fresh start, but the military has, until recently, refused enlistment to most of those who have a criminal past.

Given the military's ongoing shortage of new recruits, more individuals with criminal histories are finding a second chance in the military.

[Since 2003, the Army has] increased the number of so-called “moral waivers” to recruits with criminal pasts, even as the total number of recruits dropped slightly. The sharpest increase was in waivers for serious misdemeanors, which make up the bulk of all the Army’s moral waivers. These include aggravated assault, burglary, robbery and vehicular homicide.

The number of waivers for felony convictions also increased, to 11 percent of the 8,129 moral waivers granted in 2006, from 8 percent.

Desperation breeds forgiveness. Enlistees with conviction records made up almost 12 percent of the Army's recruits in 2006. It's unfortunate that the only opportunity to obtain employment available to many of these ex-offenders is in such a dangerous occupation. Fresh starts should be routine for those who have paid their debt to society.

Debate in the House of Representatives is underway concerning the president's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. Predictably, most Republicans are relying on the canard that any criticism of President Bush will "embolden" terrorists, when in truth it was the invasion and occupation of Iraq that has increased the threat of terrorism. Some are trying to change the subject by pretending that disapproval of escalation equates to cutting off funding for troops who are in harm's way -- as if Congress intends to leave soldiers in Baghdad without food or ammunition.

The nonbinding measure states simply that the House "will continue to support and protect" troops serving in Iraq but that it "disapproves" of the troop buildup.

A few Republicans, understandably concerned about voter frustration with congressional inaction to stop the escalation, will break from the ranks.

Republicans conceded that the measure was headed for approval and said a few dozen party members were likely to break ranks and vote for it.

Krugman gets it:

So the administration has always had it in for the Iranian regime. Now, let’s do an O. J. Simpson: if you were determined to start a war with Iran, how would you do it?

First, you’d set up a special intelligence unit to cook up rationales for war. . . . Next, you’d go for a repeat of the highly successful strategy by which scare stories about the Iraqi threat were disseminated to the public.

This time, however, the assertions wouldn’t be about W.M.D.; they’d be that Iranian actions are endangering U.S. forces in Iraq. Why? Because there’s no way Congress will approve another war resolution. But if you can claim that Iran is doing evil in Iraq, you can assert that you don’t need authorization to attack — that Congress has already empowered the administration to do whatever is necessary to stabilize Iraq. And by the time the lawyers are finished arguing — well, the war would be in full swing.

Yes, you have read similar arguments here on a number of occasions.

I haven't been following the case of Lt. Ehren Watada, the soldier who refused to deploy to Iraq because he believes the war to be illegal and immoral, who proceeded to a courts martial trial this week, only to have the judge declare a mistrial at the prosecution's request after it had presented its witnesses.

What was up with that? Here's one view. And another.

Jack Balkin's post on the theories of the Commander in Chief is, in my opinion, essentially incorrect. Balkin favors a view that the Commander in Chief's conduct of war is subject to specific control by the Congress. I think that is wrong, but what really troubles me about Balkin's piece is his misstatement of the contrary view - Balkin creates a cartoon theory that, one hopes, is rejected by any reasonable person:

The second conception of the President as Commander-in-Chief is that the President stands at the head of the armed forces of the United States and therefore that he is and should be entrusted with all important decisions regarding the conduct and use of the armed forces. Under this conception, Congress may not interfere with the President's use of the military (despite textual authority for doing so in Article I, section 8) because this would undermine or interfere with the Presidential chain of command. . . . The problem with the second conception of Commander-in-Chief is that it turns the Framers' principle of civilian control over the military on its head, realizing the Framers' fears in a different way. The danger now is not that the military will act independently and pressure the civilian government into capitulation but that the President will see the opportunity to use his position as head of the military to escape Congressional and judicial control; he will use control of the military and patriotic appeals to take the country into a series of misguided wars or to establish quasi-dictatorial powers.

This is a misstatement of both the contrary view of what is meant by Commander-in-Chief AND what it is the Framers feared.

In a much lauded (not by me) piece, Larry Diamond passed a big piece of misinformation that was credulously accepted by too many:

Beyond this, the president and vice president subscribe to what some call the "unitary executive," which is a fancy way of saying they believe that Congress cannot prevent the president from doing almost anything he wants. . . . [Bush] could still attack Iran and have up to 90 days before being required to get congressional authorization for the attack.

The Unitary Executive theory propounded by the Bush Administration is a travesty, but it does not provide for what Diamond says it does. In relevant part, it means that once the CONGRESS authorizes military action, then the President's power as Commander in Chief is plenary. In any event, the Supreme Court has scuttled this idea with its decisions in Rasul, Hamdi and Hamdan.

Bruce Ackerman debunks Diamond's false claim:

BA: The president has to get another authorization for a war against Iran. It isn't up to Nancy Pelosi or the House to prevent him; he doesn't have the constitutional authority to just expand the war. He does not have the authority to unilaterally invade Iran....

FP: What about actions short of invasion: air strikes or hot pursuit?

BA: Air strikes would be an invasion. It's an act of war of an unambiguous variety....On a major incursion into another large Middle Eastern country, I believe that, when push comes to shove, the president will once again request the explicit authorization of Congress. When he was contemplating the invasion of Iraq, he was in a much stronger position politically -- and he was still obliged to request authorization.

Obviously I agree with my former Con Law professor. But he does miss the important wrinkle - that the 2002 Iraq AUMF could be Bush's rationale for striking Iran. That is why I say to stop a war with Iran, end the war in Iraq.