Senator George Aiken famously said about Vietnam "declare victory and get out." Is President Bush about to employ the Aiken Solution in Iraq?

President Bush raised the possibility Monday of U.S. troop cuts in Iraq if security continues to improve, traveling here secretly to assess the war before a showdown with Congress. . . . Bush said, "when we begin to draw down troops from Iraq, it will be from a position of strength and success, not from a position of fear and failure." . . . "I am more optimistic than I have been at any time since I took this job," said Gates. . . .

I'll believe it when I see it, but whatever ends the Iraq Debacle is fine by me. Let Bush declare victory. Just end the Debacle.

Atrios writes:

I've been saying for along time that Bush's Iraq policy is "staying."

He says Dems are afraid of "Karl Rove." Are they? What will the Dems do about Iraq? September is here. What say you Dems? Will you capitulate again?

Paul Krugman:

In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell, addressing the United Nations Security Council, claimed to have proof that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He did not, in fact, present any actual evidence . . . [b]ut many people in the political and media establishments swooned: they admired Mr. Powell, and because he said it, they believed it.

. . . The administration, this time relying on Gen. David Petraeus to play the Colin Powell role, has had remarkable success creating the perception that the “surge” is succeeding, even though there’s not a shred of verifiable evidence to suggest that it is.

. . . [T]he usual suspects [say], General Petraeus is a fine, upstanding officer who wouldn’t participate in a campaign of deception — apparently forgetting that they said the same thing about Mr. Powell.

. . . So here we go again. It appears that many influential people in this country have learned nothing from the last five years. And those who cannot learn from history are, indeed, doomed to repeat it.

One thing Krugman does NOT say is this - where are the Democrats? So, I will. Where are the Democrats?

In 2005, the Democratic Party wanted to avoid taking a strong stand on Iraq. The Democratic base and the Netroots strongly criticized people like Rahm Emanuel for not standing strongly on Iraq, particularly on ending the Iraq Debacle. In 2006, the Democratic Party got religion, brushed off Karl Rove's summer 2006 "cut and run" nonsense and went on to a smashing victory in the 2006 elections, because of the contrast on Iraq.

Now in 2007, Matt Stoller writes:

As Glenn Greenwald has noted, the Iraq war debate is lost until Bush leaves office.

On Meet the Press this morning, Bob Shrum and James Carville sounded very much like Stoller and Greenwald. If the Democratic Party listens to Shrum, Carville, Stoller and Greenwald on Iraq, and runs on the idea that nothing can be done about Iraq until 2009, Democrats will suffer politically. Shrum, Carville, Glenn and Matt are wrong. Iraq will not go away until 2009. It will be the leading issue from now until November 2008. And Democrats need to fight as hard as they can on Iraq NOW.

This is poor punditry and poor activism and implicit bad advice from Carville, Shrum, Matt and Glenn. If the Democratic Party, the Democratic Presidential candidates and the Democratic base and the Netroots follow the views espoused by Matt and Glenn, the Dmeocratic Party will suffer. Moreover, for folks who do not care about ending the war in Iraq as soo as possible, acting as if nothing can be done about Iraq except as a political issue in 2008 (as Move On seems intent on doing), then the political issue will be blunted. Their approach is self defeating, even when viewed cynically.

Luckily, Atrios, FireDogLake and Daily Kos, three of the leading progressive sites, are not taking the tack Stoller implicitly recommends. And I am thankful for that.

Thanks Duncan [and Jane too]:

[W]hile the Senate Leader is technically Harry Reid, the real leaders of the Democratic party at the moment are Senators Obama and Clinton. They can get press (if not always fair and accurate press) any time they want. They have a prominent platform and a large megaphone which they could use not simply to inspire voters but to browbeat their colleagues, plot a course of action, enlist their supporters into helping push through a legislative agenda, etc. They could, you know, lead instead of campaign. The former might even help the latter.

And they might even see how leading might help campaigning when folks like Move On, Duncan and Markos start pointing out how they are failing to lead on Iraq.

The debate (and the "capitulation?") starts. Bush remains as shameless as ever:

President Bush, appearing confident about sustaining support for his Iraq strategy, met at the Pentagon on Friday with the uniformed leaders of the nation’s armed services and then pointedly accused the war’s opponents of politicizing the debate over what to do next. “The stakes in Iraq are too high and the consequences too grave for our security here at home to allow politics to harm the mission of our men and women in uniform,” Mr. Bush said . . .

Will the Democrats remain as cowardly as ever?

“What we’re hearing is a pretty consistent message of failure on the political front in Iraq,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, a Democrat, who visited Iraq in August. . . . On Friday, Mr. Durbin expressed hope that more Republicans would join in forcing the president to begin withdrawing American forces from Iraq.

Durbin, Obama's man, is sounding very cowardly to me, hoping for Republicans to save the day. It echoes and reflects Barack Obama's entire performance on this issue. Hillary Clinton has been no better.

But September can be a time for redemption for Democrats. If they will demand a date certain for ending the Iraq Debacle; a date certain for NOT funding the Iraq Debacle. Will there be another cowardly capitulation? Let's hope not. And more, let's fight to make sure there is not one. Instead of planning the exploitation of the Iraq issue in the 2008 election, how about we pressure the Democratic Congress today? I am looking at you Move On, Daily Kos, MYDD, Open Left, etc. All you Netroots leaders. Fight to end the Iraq Debacle now.

Via atrios, Think Progress has the video of Iraq war "critic" and proven liar Michael O'Hanlon criticizing the GAO's Iraq report because it does not jibe with General Petraeus' conclusions:

“I have to be quite critical of the GAO. . . . Gen. Petraeus just gave an interview, I think yesterday, to an Australian paper, in which he said that there could be a 75 percent reduction in sectarian killing since the winter time. Now let’s allow for the possibility that Petraeus’ data isn’t quite right. . . . I hope it’s a flaw in the draft that will be improved in the final result.

Michael O'Hanlon is a dishonest person.

He says he supports Hillary Clinton. She needs to immediately disavow any connection with Mr. O'Hanlon.

I have been extremely careful in not labelling General David Petraeus as essentially becoming a political hack for the Bush Administration's Iraq policy. I have argued that he will deliver a soldier's report, one intent on shoring up support for a mission he believes in and feels he can accomplish. I have always argued he can not be, by definition, an honest evaluator of his own strategy and performance. That just seems common sense to me. But it is becoming increasingly clear, for even someone like me that really does not want to believe it, that General Petraeus and his operation have chosen to become political hacks doing the bidding of the Bush Administration and Republicans. This story in the Washington Post provides damning proof of what Petraeus has become:

The sheets of paper seemed to be everywhere the lawmakers went in the Green Zone, distributed to Iraqi officials, U.S. officials and uniformed military of no particular rank. So when Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) asked a soldier last weekend just what he was holding, the congressman was taken aback to find out.

More...

Chris Bowers thinks Bill Richardson has the right focus now on Iraq. I think he has a selfish and unproductive focus now. Richardson says:

All the major Democratic candidates say they are eager to end this war, and they all say they don't believe there is a military solution in Iraq. Why, then, do they maintain that we must leave an indefinite number of troops behind for an indeterminate amount of time to work hopelessly towards a military solution everyone says doesn't exist? It is time to get a straight answer from all the other candidates: how many troops would you leave behind? For how long?

Excuse me Governor Richardson. Excuse me Chris Bowers. Some of us want the candidates to focus on the REAL issues of September, which are not Richardson's self-serving question. The real issues for September, indeed for the rest of the Bush Presidency, are how we get out of Iraq and how can a Democratic Congress accomplish this.

The real question for September Governor Richardson is who will insist on a date certain for ending the Iraq Debacle DURING the Bush Presidency. Who will say 'this will be last funding for this Debacle President Bush?'

The reactions and views of Representatives Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) and Brian Baird (D-WA) concerning Iraq are instructive and important.

Rep. Tauscher was a supporter of the Iraq Debacle. Now she has pledged to no longer vote for funding the Debacle. In an interview with ThinkProgress, she said:

[T]he American people don’t want to see some kind of Saigon-like helicopter liftoff trying to remove people out of Iraq,” 2) they don’t want to see “ethnic cleansing and devastation of Iraqis” after we leave, and 3) they “don’t want the status quo.”

Tauscher was criticized, yes by me too, for some statements she made and some views she held. Rep. Tauscher has listened. The DC Establishment will call that pandering. I call that representing. I believe Rep. Tauscher listened to her constitutents, reviewed the facts and came to the right view on Iraq. This is what our representatives are supposed to do. More.

Via e-mail from Matt from Dodd's campaign:

Reporter: "Senator, there were reports this morning that President Bush will ask Congress for $50 billion more dollars for the Iraq war. What do you have to say about that? Dodd: "Well, I'm not surprised and I'd be very resistant to that request. I think we've, as I said we're spending well over now half a trillion dollars in this conflict. And again, it's a civil war in Iraq. This is the middle of a civil war and those who have understood this issue have argued from the very beginning that there was never going to be a military solution to the civil war in Iraq. And so I'd be very resistant and I intend to fight any efforts here, I'll do whatever I can to support whatever our troops need to have a safe and secure withdrawal from Iraq. But I don't intend to continue to fund the war over there that I think has no end. As long as we're there, I think the Iraqis are not going to come together as a people it's about time we wound down our military presence there."

(Emphasis mine.)

The Bush Administration will request the Congress exercise its Spending Power and increase the funding for the Iraq Debacle:

President Bush plans to ask Congress next month for up to $50 billion in additional funding for the war in Iraq, a White House official said yesterday, a move that appears to reflect increasing administration confidence that it can fend off congressional calls for a rapid drawdown of U.S. forces.

The request -- which would come on top of about $460 billion in the fiscal 2008 defense budget and $147 billion in a pending supplemental bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- is expected to be announced after congressional hearings scheduled for mid-September featuring the two top U.S. officials in Iraq. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker will assess the state of the war and the effect of the new strategy the U.S. military has pursued this year.

. . . Most of the additional funding in a revised supplemental bill would pay for the current counteroffensive in Iraq. . . . The decision to seek about $50 billion more appears to reflect the view in the administration that the counteroffensive will last into the spring of 2008 and will not be shortened by Congress.

I believe this request provides Congress another chance to set an end date to the Iraq Debacle. The Congress must set a date certain for ending funding for Iraq Debacle operations. If they lack the political courage to say no to this funding request, the Congress must insist that this is the LAST request and that there will be no more funding for Iraq Debacle operations after a date certain. I suggest March 31, 2008. The Reid-Feingold framework: