Thank you, Steve, for interjecting a note of reason into this march of triumphalism.

I don't see anything that leads me to believe the age of radical conservatism is over. In fact, the undead remain with us -- Bill Bennett, Newt Gingrich, even Tom Delay are being resurrected.

We should never forget that many of the prime movers of the mess we're in have been there, done that before. And were pardoned, rehabilitated and put back in power.

How many times has the beast been put down? The defeat of Goldwater. The impeachment of Nixon. The defeat of Bush I which brought the Reagan-Bush era to a close. Now the defeat of the Republican Congress.

Somewhere still it is stirring, "slouching toward Bethlehem..."

i don't deny for a moment that bush is still a powerful figure in many respects: that's how the american system is designed.

but i am tired of reading observers as sharp as steve write pieces that essentially assume that just because delay ran a parliamentary system for a few years, we now have parliamentary style parties.

it has never been true that the opposition party in the absence of a presidential candidate can itself forcefully articulate an opposition policy; the most that can happen is that individuals in the opposition party can do the spadework to prepare for the moment when there is a presidential candidate.

the test, in short, of the continuing power of the right wing and/or the dems ability to do something about it will not be whether the dems can somehow collectively come up with an alternative policy: it will be the presidential election of 2008.

and i think when we look ahead to that election, i'd rather be the dem candidate than the gop candidate.

now, will individual dems do enough spadework to marginalize right-wing opinion as we know it today? that's a fair question to which i don't begin to have an answer. but since republicans are asking it themselves (not all republicans, after all, are jumping up and down with joy at the escalation in iraq), i think we have some indication.

republicans weren't asking questions about supporting bush for fear of being marginalized in 2003, after all....

I'll agree that Bush still is the center of power that has to be dealt with, and that at the moment, there is no Democratic - or for that matter, Republican, leader ready and capable of doing that. Also, both parties have an open Presidential nomination for 2008, so right now instead of trying to lead their party, the main contenders in each party are trying to differentiate themselves from their intra-party competition.

It seems to me that that intra-party differentiation will delay the rise of any real opposition to Bush until it is resolved. Because of the extreme messiness of the Iraq situation, there are no good resolutions to be presented that can be used by candidates as significant differentiating ideas. "Stay the course" is clearly not working, setting a timetable for withdrawal has a lot of our Middle Eastern allies extremely concerned for their own welfare, and no expansion or change of strategy or focus of our military has any prospect of success other than holding off total collapse of the Iraqi government.

Whatever does finally get us out will have to come from diplomacy, which is beyond the capability of the Bush administration and is anyway too murky and unclear to be used to galvanize an intra-party leadership campaign for the Presidential nomination.

Right now the potential nominees in both parties seem to be holding their fingers to the wind and searching for indicators of which way the electorate might go so that they can get in front and simulate leadership. Unless something out of the blue happens, that will last until the primaries start in 2008. In 2007 all the potential candidates will be trying to gather money and set up organizations, and the minor candidates will not have to start dropping out until it gets too expensive for them.

In the meantime, Bush has the Presidency with the power to act on foreign policy and military matters, and he has the bully pulpit, which allows him to strongly effect the national news agenda. This is going to leave all his potential competitors looking like midgets in comparison.

Barring some form of lightning strike in 2007, that's going to be the status quo for 2007. Congressional Democrats will get a bit of notice here and there, but you are quite correct to say that for the next year at least, Bush will still dominate the game.

At least, that's how it looks to me this morning. Yuk!

Bush is not bold. He is not thoughtful. As a result he takes actions that are obviously idiotic (invading Iraq) without realizing the consequences. I don't think words like "strong" and "bold" should be used in describing his actions. "Stupid", "moronic", "dangerous", "stubborn", "poorly informed", "subservient to the military-industrial complex" - these are words and phrases that describe Bush.

Tom

I salute Steve for noting that some leading Democrats are failing to lead, but somehow he seems to draw the wrong lesson after all, as in his title, that liberals are fools. He and the America Abroad crowd should really have a forum called "Beltway Bandits." Even when they see Washington insiders acting too much like, well, Washington insiders, they blame it on everyone else.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

Bush still has the authority to make (bureaucratic) decisions, and if the past is any guide, they will be bad decisions. But that's different from having power, unless it's the power to make things worse.

But the power to influence events? That's a different matter. The remainder of Bush's term will be a preoccupation with Iraq, where his power to influence events is shrinking rapidly and irreversibly.

Just because the Democrats are likely to remain ineffectual does not mean Bush will have power. It means that there is a power vacuum.

I tried to give this comment a four.

But the problem is that we are all in the fucking car, and we are all headed off the cliff. We have no real choice but to try to grab the steering wheel.

Yes, I agree completely. But I do not see a mechanism for grabbing the steering wheel that does not involve significant support and cooperation from Republicans, especially senators.

Democrats must now make a play to seize it back on behalf of their party, the Congress and the American people.

Same point. They cannot exercise the power of the purse. The president will veto bills like Kucinich's, even if passed. And the veto will be sustained unless members of the senate realize that they are going to lose their lose their seats. That's why I think the centerpiece of the message should be to associate Republicans, not Bush, with this war.

Believe me, if you could think of a way a 49-49-2 senate could get us out of this, I'd be first in line. In the end, I don't care about the politics. Just end the madness.

That beast has a lot of money behind it which is used to deceive many of the American people.

Tom

Mr. Clemons writes:

Bush may not be one of the smartest presidents this country has had -- but he is one of the boldest, and he loves being the "decider."

There's no debating the first statement up to the hyphen, except to point out that, as stated, it may mis-overestimate the man. 

I'm not quite sure the post-hyphen half is accurate now, if it ever was accurate.   Bush loved to appear the bold decider, and clung to that script as others cling to life-jackets.  But was he ever truly bold?  Boldness and bullheadedness/impulsiveness are not quite the same thing.  And bold men and women generally don't hide behind walls of secrecy, or surround themselves with sycophants the way George Bush has done.  Decisive individuals accept responsibility for their decisions, and don't pass the buck to "advice from generals" or any other convenient scapegoats.  They don't blame reverses on "trifectas" of fate, either.  Decisive and bold "deciders" change course and move on when circumstances merit.  And self-confident, bold, and incisive decision-makers don't, in the eleventh hour, make public show of the kinds of consultations they should have been making as a matter of perpetual practice:  thus delaying the announcement of a new policy in humiliating and embarrassing ways.

I think Mr. Clemons is right to warn about overconfidence, however.  One of the reasons we got Reagan was a feeling that "our side won" when the Vietnam war concluded and Nixon departed in ignominy.  We relaxed and let down our guard, tired after a decade of protest and agitation.  We wound up with Reagan six years later, but not on the basis of "bold agendas" and "action plans".  Those may have worked with Gingrich's "Contract with America," perhaps.  With Reagan, it was more a matter of a compelling narrative, I think.  And to the degree that this is what Mr. C. means by a compelling "alternative,"  I'm in agreement with him.  "Had Enough?" can be part of that narrative:  so can "The Audacity of Hope".  Story--"The vision thing"--is what seems to be so terribly important now. 

The greatest American Presidents could articulate a compelling vision:  the very greatest of them could draw the vision out of the culture and give it voice.  That's the kind of candidate for whom I'll be looking.

aMike

Yes, I agree completely. But I do not see a mechanism for grabbing the steering wheel that does not involve significant support and cooperation from Republicans, especially senators.

We're going to get a lot of that. Republicans who are running for President in 2008, or even just reelection, are not about to let Bush drag their party down the tubes, and take them with him. Bush is leaving office, but they have to run again on his record, and live with the damage he creates. If he fails to heed which way the political winds are blowing and does not alter his course of action, they will send party leaders to make it clear to him that he is isolated and no longer has their support, and they will work with democrats to scuttle his initiatives.

The President can veto a bill that passes the Congress, but cannot implement a bill that doesn't pass. The Congress exercises the power of the purse both by appropriating moneies, and by refusing to pass requests for appropriations. When it does appropriate money, it can say a lot about how the money is to be spent. In the area of foreign policy, we need more earmarking - not less.

How would you ever get the idea that Congress can't exercise the power of the purse? It's power in that realm is awesome. But the key is the public. Ultimately the winner of these conflicts is the one that has public support. That support is now moving toward Congress and away from the President, and if Congress plays its cards right, and delivers popular results, the trend will continue.

Even in the case of authorizing expenditures and budgets, if the Congress gets on the side of the public, they can avoid the threat of veto. Let Bush go ahead and veto bills that have majority support. Go ahead G.W. - make my day. See how long Bush's Republican allies in Congress will stand for that political assisted suicide.

The Congress can call high-profile hearings on a huge variety of topics. As the political pressure mounts on all those involved in administration wrongdoing and incompetence over the past few years, they will begin giving each other up and pointing fingers to avoid damage to their own reputations, or even prison time. They will begin to write tell-all books to provide a nest egg for the lean times to come, and give themselves soft landings into a new career. All of this will weaken the President further.

Congress can subvert White House plans by delving into executive branch secrecy, and laying bare plans before they come to fruition. It is all a question of how aggressive they choose to be. If the laws they pass are obstructed by members of the executive branch, they can haul those people before Congress and make them account for themselves with camaras flashing. Once again, if they are on the side of public opinion, they win these political dramas.

The members of Congress can hold press conferences. And the caucus can work in a coordinated and disciplined way to elevate top leaders whose voices come to rival the President's in national deliberations. The press will go where the story is. Let Edwards, Biden, Hillary and Obama perform a daily rotation of Democratic foreign policy mssages. Aside from the inherent interest in the statemaents, the press will be obsessed with the 2008 race and the political one-upmanship among our top leaders. Bush is a lame duck, and will come to seem increasingly irrelevat. The more irrelevant he becomes, the more people tune him out, and the less power he has to mobilize public support to get anything done.

He may of course seek to reassert his power with wag-the-dog actions, in which case Democrats can point out "the President is attempting to ressurect his vanishing power by wagging the dog."

Members of Congress can go on high-profile "fact-finding" missions to foreign capitals. They should do everything they can to convey the message that foreign leaders recognize Bush is a lame duck, and that these leaders are now more interested in talking to the people who will still be around post 2008 than they are interested in talking to Bush. And by doing so they will help spread the news that no foreign cooperation will be forthcoming for Bush initiatives, but must wait until there is a new administration in place.

The possibilities are limited only by imagination and timidity. The president might not like some of the things Congress tries, and might claim Congress is stepping on his prerogatives. Fine. Let him take Congress to court and bury himself deeper.

The Congress can also reassert lost or neglected Constitutional authorities. It can force court challenges that bring Presidential usurpations to light. And it can educate Americans on the proper role of the Congress in our Constitutional system.

I think Steve's post is a good one and boils down to one cogent point - the chimperor is still a very dangerous beast. As long as he and Che Ney hold the power to use our military, the world is a powderkeg. They itch for whatever justification or excuse possible to blow away Iran. If they are allowed to do that all the King's men will not put this globe back together again.

Many Dems, indeed, many Repubs and military men understand the insanity of an attack on Iran and are opposing it, as well as the equally ludicrous "surge". It may be that there is just enough margin of opposition to block the War Party. There certainly is more organized and vocal opposition to them than at any time in the last 6 years. I am still not sanguine that the forces arrayed against them are sufficient to block, let alone flank, this administration. There are tactical moves being made in opposition, but not a strategic understanding of what we are up against. Or if there is, there is little or no organizing around a strategic alternative.

The overriding reality that few grasp and fewer are willing to discuss in public, is that we sit on the precipice of a blow-out of the world's financial system. It is very close to happening and only an orientation to solve this crises can avert the 100 Years War the neocons have planned.

I copy from my post from last September:

What I ache to see is a return to first principles, or at least those that built the party into one of a longstanding majority – FDR’s commitment to the “forgotten man” and the general welfare. Let’s make a stark moral and policy differentiation between ourselves the Repugnicans right now, and leading into 2006.

-Repudiate this rotten, immoral and illegal war in Iraq. First, apologize to the world for our hubristic arrogance and monumental error in invading. Then, our policy should be to withdraw our troops from the Iraqi urban areas and commence regional talks aimed at garnering true sovereignty and security for Iraq and its neighbors. We have crushed the Iraqi state and it remains to be seen whether it can ever be made whole again. This will take many years to resolve itself. In the meantime, withdraw from the obvious role as occupier and enforcer. Just as important, withdraw Halliburton and Bectel, the private armies, the cronies sucking down the filthy lucre and give the work to the Iraqis. Strongly commit to no permanent military bases and to the sovereignty of the Iraqi oil resources and whatever government they themselves decide upon.

-Repudiate the Bush Doctrine and restate our commitment to the ideals of the Atlantic Charter. Namely, non-interference in the affairs of other states, their right of self -determination, to say nothing of our (now) supremely arrogant presumption to the right to effect regime change. Stop at all costs a new war on Iran.

-Overturn Globalization/Free Trade Imperialism. This is the key area where the Dems have gone so terribly wrong. Are we going to continue to be GOP-Lite? How do you gain the support of the forgotten man when you stab him in the back by exporting his job, destroy skill levels and wage rates, de-industrialize the country and reduce living standards? Yes, the GOP is and has been driving this agenda, but the Dems share some of the blame. From Nixon scuttling FDR’s Bretton Woods system, the de-regulation of transportation and energy systems, the dis-investment in infrastructure, the slow dismantling of collective bargaining rights, NAFTA and CAFTA – we have disemboweled practically the entirety of FDR’s reforms that got us out of the depression, defeated fascism and built the greatest agro-industrial economy ever seen. Dems should have been up on their hind legs to defeat this suicidal shift in our national economic philosophy. They should be up on them now to reverse these policies, just as they (finally) got the gumption to defeat Bush’s plan to loot Social Security.

-US and world TVA style Marshall Plan. The Katrina fiasco has brought into sharp relief that the shift from an industrial to a consumerist, “service” economy has bankrupted our country and leave us in danger of becoming a third world banana republic in short order. We need to make massive investments in infrastructure to begin to make up for the dis-investment of the last 35 years. Investments in rebuilding our dams, locks, levees, ports, railroads, invest in Maglev, bridges, hospitals, water sanitation, etc. These investments will create millions of new high-paying jobs and millions of new Democrats. Lefty Dems have got to get on board with nuclear power. It’s the only way to build a bridge to the future nuclear fusion and hydrogen economy. Sorry, but windmills, ethanol and solar by themselves won’t do anything but further reduce living standards. It’s a sin to just keep burning petroleum-based products as fuel. This resource is need for so many other uses. And it’s a sin to continue to fight wars and waste blood and treasure to keep the oil coming.

If we make this investment today in rebuilding our economy, make a promise of non-interference and actively work for treaties and trade deals to bring more and more of the world into a new anti-imperial and pro-development world order of sovereign states committed to the general welfare of ALL peoples, we’ll have more allies than we can shake a stick at. We’ll be much better prepared to the defeat the back-to-the-Forteenth century crowd, whether they be feudalistic bankers, or Islamic or Christian fundies.

UA

Now you've just said that Dodd, Biden and Clark have all articulated ideas in opposition to Bush.

But what I see you doing, is complaining that the two mainstream candidates that the media has shoved on us --- Hillary and Obama --- haven't done the same.

So you appear to be using this platform to exhort them to "change their spots." To become something different from what, perhaps, they are.

Is that really the best way to get the kind of candidate that you want? To ask a celebrity candidate to embrace your ideas?

Here's my suggestion:

We refuse to let the mainstream media pick who our candidates will be 2 years before the election and instead find those who already do embody our values and get behind them.

If we do that, by the time the general election rolls around, we genuinely will have a Democratic message and candidate to be proud of.

This decline of the U.S. as the "sole superpower" has been clearly occurring since the 1960's with the rise of Germany and Japan is clear economic competitors.

Except the US wasn't the sole superpower even before the rise of Germany and Japan. There was this little thing called the USSR. When were you born, 1991?

I consider this post -- as well as the many excellent comments upon it -- a good beginning-of-the-end of our current national nightmare. Still, we should not lose sight of two important dynamics that need to change. (1) Commentators should get over the bad practice of labeling Deputy Dubya Bush as "bold" and "resolute" when the words "reckless" and "woodenheaded" so much better capture the vanishingly small "essence" of Sheriff Dick Cheney's propaganda-catapulter. (2) Democrats need to remember with pride the mid-1970s instead of haplessly buying into the Republican Party meme (or "narrative") -- developed assiduously and successfully over the past thirty years -- that snatched a revisionist reactionary "victory" (in the form of the misnomer "syndrome") from the very real defeat in Southeast Asia of the Nixon-Kissinger Fig Leaf Contingent in which I served and have never forgotten. These regrettable and reprehensible dynamics show themselves nowhere more glaringly than in the following recent comments by Democratic Party Senator Joseph Biden:

"We should not exaggerate the ability of the United States Foreign Relations Committee or the Congress to get a president to act in a manner in which the Congress thinks is more rational or more appropriate. There's nothing the United States Congress can do by a piece of legislation to alter the conduct of a war that a president decides to pursue.

"This is President Bush's war."

Absolutely false. Only the Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war and the previous Republican Congresses -- now turned out of office -- "sort of" did "something" "almost" the "equivalent" of that. The President of the United States has no "enumerated" power to declare war and so relies in fact on Congressional willingness to fund war regardless of what "resolutions" Congress may have passed for or against war. The President has only the delegated authority to direct the armed forces to achieve such political objectives through war as the Congress directs he shall pursue, no more no less. Senator Biden seems blissfully unaware of this Constitutional truth.

Specifically in the present instance, the Congress can (1) revisit and revoke the so-called "authorization of force" (i.e., "Gulf of Tonkin II") resolution against Iraq, now clearly and universally recognized as obtained by President George W. Bush through concerted, fraudulent, and consciously duplicitous mendacity. Congress can also (2) agree to fund only the withdrawal of American military forces from the territory and airspace of Iraq, refusing to fund any other military operations in Iraq that obviously endanger the troops and which in any event accomplish no recognizable political goal consistent with the true interests of the United States. Failing co-operation by the Executive branch in carrying out these Congressional mandates -- the Law of our Land -- Congress can impeach and remove from office the Vice President and President who refuse to "faithfully execute" those laws of our land that Congress has written. So, Senator Biden's ridiculous misunderstanding of the American Constitution to the contrary, Congress can most certainly do all three of these things, as Congress did to its eternal credit in the mid-1970s. In fact, Congress must do these three things. As Alexander Hamilton said: Congress "is not at liberty" to divest itself of its enumerated powers vis-a-vis the other two branches of government.

The United States of America has a carefully crafted tri-partite system of government where each branch has adequate and effective means at its disposal to protect its own sources of political power as well as thwart the overreaching excesses of the other two branches. In short, and despite Senator Biden's blubber-mouth pandering to the so-called "imperial presidency," Congress has all the means necessary to compel an end to George W. Bush's private vendetta war in Iraq: a needless conflict absolutely contrary to the best interests of the United States. That Senator Biden ostentatiously proposes to hold hearings while simultaneously pronouncing their effective value negligible begs the question of why America even has a Congress in the first place if it won't do the job of NOT DECIDING ON WAR WHEN APPROPRIATE that the framers of our Constitution envisioned. Letting a single man decide to have his own war to squander our nation's blood and treasure purely in the political interests of himself and his party may appeal to Senator Biden, but such a dejected and defeatist attitude on the part of a member of Congress hardly befits the office he holds -- obviously an impotent one by his own estimation.

The Democrats need to (1) understand that a "Credibility Chasm" has opened between the propaganda catapulter and his citizen targets. No one cares anymore what Deputy Dubya inanely repeats of what Sheriff Dick whispers in his ear after performing voodoo sacrifices before his bunker/crypt shrine to Richard Nixon. America has tuned out the Cheney/Bush co-presidency and will not tune back in. America now wants somebody else and better to manage the nation's affairs. And finally, (2) Senators like Joseph Biden need to stop imagining themselves as the next "commander in briefs" and just do their jobs as Congressmen first: protecting and exercising the enumerated powers of their own co-equal branch of government.

I strongly disagree. Americans are dying every day in Iraq for absolutely nothing.
This isn't about message, it's about life and death.

Isn't it something to see Gerald Ford in death way ahead of Hillary on this war? No way I'm going to forget that in 2008.

Bush is leaving office, but they have to run again on his record, and live with the damage he creates.

My point is that we have to tie them to his record. Don't let them distance themselves, especially the 21 senators who are up in 08. This is not Bush's war. It's a Republican war.

How would you ever get the idea that Congress can't exercise the power of the purse?

My point is that THIS Congress cannot use the purse to control this president. Any veto will be sustained.

The Congress exercises the power of the purse both by appropriating moneies, and by refusing to pass requests for appropriations.

As any number of Democratic elected officials have made clear, they will not vote to defund the troops. Kucinich's approach is a good one. His bill is essentially an up or down vote on withdrawal, and doesn't require any new expenditures. It will be an interesting test of the House leadership to see whether that bill makes it to the floor.

The use of the funding resolutions is made more complicated by the gutting of the legislative process by the Republican majority, and their leaving so much unfinished business.

So, sure, in principle, Congress could do something. In practice, it will take broad support among the Republicans. I agree that defections are likely to increase. We've already got Sen. Smith (R-OR) and more will follow. My point is that we should make it as uncomfortable as possible for the supporters of this Republican war.

Oh, and one other thing. If we do successfully establish (the entirely accurate) narrative that this is a republican war, it will be more difficult to implement the stab in the back rhetoric that followed Vietnam. The goal is to have the neo-cons direct that rhetoric to Republicans who caved, rather than Democrats who were powerless.

I'd say that in 1945 America WAS the sole superpower, and the first real threat to that position was when the Soviets blew first the A-bomb and then the H-bomb. I'll skip over the Berlin blockade and the North Korean invasion of South Korea as those were just local threats.

While true, the above is an after the fact justification of what I wrote. You read the original post the way I was thinking when I wrote it, although I put the phrase "sole superpower" in quotation marks to show that it wasn't completely correct. I just didn't take the time to correct it. You properly caught my laziness.

FYI , as a result of the election democrats now hold a 16% lead in state representatives (returning to the approximate split after the the Bush/Gore election).

The absolute numbers are dems: 3989; GOP: 3426
dem lead of 563. (they also gained governors and lead there as well)

In comparison they were tied in state representatives after 2004 when they actually made a little noticed 60 seat pick up while Kerry was losing the nationwide popular vote.

In the 2002 "security election" the GOP gained approximately 500 seats when the national dems were losing in both senate and house.

The current 563 dem edge clearly reflects a more liberal coloration than 2000's similar alignment since that included a much more sizeable "dixiecrat" element. So it is reasonable to conclude this 2006 result reflects a more liberal underlying sentiment than when
Gore was achieving his 500K nationwide lead in the popular vote . A guess which is reinforced by the 2006 vote for the "Pelosi House" as opposed to 2000's vote for what can best be called the Delay one.

Put another way , the dems now have what is almost certainly their strongest support since Monica.

Which probably says something about how we
should deal with Steve's questions but that's above my grade of pay..

So describe a path that will end the war that does not involve shifting the narrative, and forcing republicans to confront the political consequences of leaving Americans to die every day in Iraq.

As I said above, if you can do that, I'll be first in line.

I assume from your screen name that you are from Missouri. Do you work for Ike Skelton? Because your account is filled with typical beltway bullcrap.

Americans might not want "immediate and complete" withdrawal. But they are fed up with this war, and want the Congress to get to work on getting us out of Iraq. That's what they voted for, and that's what polls continue to show.

As much as you try to weasel out of it with your doubletalk about the surge being "manned by current force levels", the fact is that this surge will require some soldiers to be deployed earlier than originally planned, and others to stay longer than orinally planned. Some guys who would otherwise have avoided getting killed are going to get killed as a result. Ike Skelton is trying to weasel out of his campaign position on this issue, since during that campaign he called for decreasing troop levels. But no matter how creative you are in juggling the books, a surge is not a decrease.

Pay as you go!? Who came up with this latest politician's dodge? Americans want Congress to start working on ending the war. Paying the bills for the war is an important but secondary matter. Here's an idea: less war = smaller bills! Are Congressional Democrats planning on leading on national security, or do they only aspire to lead the national accounting department? Perhaps the gamble is that Bush will not have the nerve to ask for increased revenues, and so Congressional Dems can force him to back out of Iraq wihout having to take any responsibility themselves for ending the war? Highly doubtful. Or is the idea that we can use the war to squeeze some additional revenues out of the public for other things? Hey, maybe we can provide school lunches by serving up the ground-up bodies of our soldiers!

I can't wait to see the campaign slogans in 2008: "Vote for Joe Democrat! Did nothing to end the war, but balanced the war ledgers!"

Democratic Ike Skelton will lead the committee in the new Congress and approves the increase. The reason? New strategies are needed to deal with new realities in the 21st century--failed states and the possible need to root out bad actors and then properly occupy the area.

Bunk. The United States has more than sufficient manpower and hardware to meet our legitimate defensive needs, so long as we stay out of asinine and militarily unnecessary adventures like the Iraq War. Soldiers are like tax revenues to a politician. Give them the revenues and they will spend them. Give them the soldiers and they will kill them. There will never be enough soldiers for all the Washington defense strategists and defense industry pimps and go-betweens, because they will never tire of dreaming up fanatic projects for America's military. As long as there is someone, somewhere, who has not been Americanized, they will say we need more weapons and more soldiers. Well, it is time for the public to start starving the beast, because that is the only way to get fanatics to stop. No to force level increases!

Politically, these increased manpower targets are all about giving politicians some sort of cover to look "tough" and "pro-military". Or maybe if in the end they have to yank the war-related spending away from DoD, they can at the same time raise throw some money their way for recruiting purposes. It's a scam. America does not need a bigger military!

I wouldn't bet my life (or anybody else's life ) on that.

Tom

Are you counting the Iraqi deaths?

As long as Bush is CIC our soldiers will die in
Iraq whatever the size of the force . And in greater numbers than under a competent CIC.

Bush blew the opportunity to implement a low casualty mission -which would have required overwhelming force a la Powell or Shinseki- when he opted for a macho go-it-alone strategy . That foreclosed any possibility of attracting allies in sufficient numbers to assemble a force of the required size- say 500,000 troops . We simply don't have that many ourselves.

(BTW this is not an after the fact rationalization- I marched against the war
in Feb 03.)

My point , admittedly hair splitting , is that the surge per se is not the issue , it's the mission which will follow.

My guess is that Bush embraces the surge
since he's been told that's the only way to attack the Mahdi Army . In which unfortunately he'll now be encouraged by the success of Ethiopia vs the Islamic Courts .

For all I know it may work: defeat Sadr and put someone- Maliki , Sciri , whoever- in firmer control. Temporarily. But it will certainly be a blood bath and therefore you and DanK are right that a surge which facilitates that reckless mission will kill many of our guys.

At a deeper level the underlying problem is not
the particular mission . It's that it will not be a rationally chosen strategy but rather will reflect the frivolous whim of an inadequate individual , desperate to avoid going into the history books as a failed president , and consequently willing to gamble countless lives in the vain hope of avoiding that . Sick.

No. Of course I should , but I didn't.

I now have a better understanding of what Steve was trying to accomplish.

The election of Democrats in 2006 was just the FIRST STEP in ending the Iraq misadventure. Even though Michael Murray wants to believe that Congress can stop things because they have the "power to declare war", that didn't stop Vietnam or Korea or Clinton's Balkan efforts. It will not stop Bush in Iraq.

Right now, pressure is being applied on Bush to end Iraq. The Iraq Study Group applied pressure. The midterm election results applied pressure. Public opinion polls applied pressure. The budgetary maneuvers and a return to "pay as you go" apply pressure as the costs of the Iraq War are made clear to the public. Massive public protests can apply pressure--although it didn't work with Nixon and didn't work with Bush prior to the Iraq War starting.

Bush is CIC. The military follows his orders and not the orders of Congress. The only real way to stop Bush and the GOP is removal from office--along with Cheney unless one has decided that Cheney is a dove on Iraq.

You, Dave, are trying to convince me that Congress can actually stop Bush and that somehow this has morphed into a Democratic War. It is not. It is Bush's war. It is the GOP war. There were Democratic enablers who may pay a price in the future--Senator Clinton is one who may pay the price.

Steve is right that some of you are expecting miracles from a solidly Democratic House and a knife-edge lead in the Senate. Won't happen. Bush has to be swayed by the pressure he's getting. If he's not and insists on continuing even if he ends up with only Laura and Barney supporting him, then our only constitutionally sanctioned option is impeachment.

Practically, the Democrats can stop Bush by funding only the safe departure of our troops from Iraq. Depending on John Warner is a recipe for 25 more months of death and destruction.

Tom

Congress doesn't even try to reign in the president.  They claim to be big boys, but they are always playing with the tinker toys (earmarks).

Step one.  Defund OMB.

Step two. Defund the OFFICE OF the Vice President.

Step three. Forbid the President and the Vice President to "Borrow" staff from agencies.

Step four. Defund all staff positions in the White House.

Step five. Invite the president over to negotiate. 

A couple of observations:

First, I'm just struck by the fact that conservatives complain about the same things in "liberal" papers like the NYT. The point is that most people seem to think that objectivity means telling the story from their side and any narrative that deviates from that is "biased".

Second, these failures, if they are failures, are errors in news judgment and have very little to do with ownership structure.

Third, many of the issues you cite are a result of what I was talking about before.  Conservatives are more disciplined about their message.  They have also been so loud and consistent about how the media is "biased" that they have to some degree intimidated the editors of some publications.  The LA Times, most famously, has explicitly told its journalists to be on the lookout for biased writing.

Defound the Office of Management and Budget?

Yes, OMB's essential role is to provide analytic service to the President. The government functioned for 130 years without it. If Congress wants to play tough, it takes the President's toys away.