David Brooks, as always an apologist for the GOP, writes:

To simplify a bit, roughly 20 senators, led by John McCain and Joe Lieberman, believe in Gen. David Petraeus and the surge. There are roughly 30 Republicans, led by Dick Lugar, John Warner and Lamar Alexander, who believe that the U.S. should scale back its mission and adopt the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations. There are roughly 30 Democrats, led by Carl Levin and Jack Reed, who also want to scale back and adopt the study group’s approach. And finally, there are roughly 20 Democrats, led by Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold, who just want to get out as quickly as possible.

(Emphasis supplied.) If it is true that "[t]here are roughly 30 Republicans . . . who believe that the U.S. should scale back its mission and adopt the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations[,]" then where is their proposal? Are we to expect the Lugar-Warner proposal today to do this in a meaningful fashion? I won't hold my breath. More.

Watching the Iraq Debate in Congress, I noticed that there are still some GOP "dead enders" who argue the Debacle is going well. For the most part, these arguments are rightly ignored as foolish inanity. Indeed, it seems clear that in the country, and even in the Beltway, such arguments are dismissed as silly.

The new argument is, as mcjoan discussed the other day, we can't leave because even worse things will happen. Predictably, Fred Hiatt and David Ignatius and all the "Very Serious People" at the Washington Post and in the Beltway, who have gotten it wrong on every single issue regarding Iraq (I kid you not, look it up, wrong every time), are now mouthing the latest Bush talking point. Hiatt, writing for the Post Editorial Board, states:

Conditions in Iraq today are terrible, but they could become "way, way worse," as the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker, a career Foreign Service officer, recently told the New York Times.

Way, way worse. Sure it is possible. Not very likely. But possible. The question is then what is the force of such an argument? Keeping things from getting "way, way worse" at the tune of thousands of American soldiers' lives and $120 billion a year is not a strategy. More.

Update [2007-7-12 18:31:2 by Big Tent Democrat]: The House just passed its Iraq withdrawal bill, 223-201. 4 Republicans voted for the bill. 10 9 Blue Dogs and Kucinich voted against it.

C-Span 1 and 2 are covering all Iraq all the time in the Congress today. And this is as it should be. Indeed, it saddens me that the Left blogs are not as comprehensive in their coverage of the most important issue of the day. And the Democrats are doing important political work on this issue. And who knows? Maybe this will help "ratchet up the pressure" and get us a veto proof majority soon.

I do not believe so. I believe nothing going on in these two weeks of scheduled debate is going to end the Debacle. but perhaps it will convince Democrats that there is only one way to end the Iraq Debacle -- setting a date certain when a Democratic Congress will no longer fund it.

Via The Gavel (blog of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi)As we wait for President Bush's report to be released today that will lower expectations for Iraq, here's a graphic from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. CRS reports that since the President's escalation began, the cost of the war in Iraq has increased to $10 billion per month.

In 2007, so far, our Government has spent $27 billion on the War on Drugs.

No wonder our Government can't provide us with adequate health insurance.

As most know by now, the Republican caucus in the Senate blocked an up or down vote on Jim Webb's amendment on troop readiness. The vote was 56-41.

I did not devote much time to the debate in the Senate and, frankly, I won't, as the Republicans will not vote to buck Bush and change course in Iraq, much less vote to end the war.

I respect what Reid and Co. are doing -- they are making sure Republicans can not play this 'talk the talk but not walk the walk' game. But that does nothing to end the Debacle.

My friends (in the rhetoric of the Senate), we all know there is only one way to end the Iraq Debacle, set a date certain when the Democratically controlled Congress will no longer fund the Debacle. Until the Democratic leadership fully embraces this strategy, the Iraq Debacle will not end.

The AP reports that Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sparred on Iraq today. AP reports that Obama said:

It will be enormously difficult to invest in jobs and opportunity until we stop spending $275 million a day on this war in Iraq . . . I believed then and still do that being a leader means that you'd better do what's right and leave the politics aside, because there are no do-overs on an issue as important as war.

Fine to toot your horn but will it obfuscate the more important message? I think what Clinton said is the important message now:

Our message to the president is clear . . . It is time to begin ending this war — not next year, not next month — but today.

More.

The New York Times in an editorial today says we have to begin redeployment of troops from Iraq and end the war.

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

It's a sobering piece. The Times opines it's not as simple as just coming home. Logistics won't be easy and we may need to use other country's bases to effectuate it. It's a process that will take months. Which is why the Times says we have to set a date now.

The Times is justifiably harsh in its criticism of Bush:

More...

In a very good post, MissLaura discusses Harry Reid's determination to end the war in Iraq, as reported by the NYTimes:

Democratic voters are not the only ones bitter over their party’s failure to use new Congressional power to force a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Senator Harry Reid, the occasionally obstreperous Democratic leader, is upset as well. “We haven’t done enough,” said Mr. Reid, a onetime moderate who has evolved into one of the party’s most fervent critics of the war.

That view captures not only Mr. Reid’s sentiment but also the shifting political dynamic on the war, as public frustration remains high, the conflict dominates the presidential campaign landscape and senior Republicans have chosen to break with President Bush even as the administration has urged patience.

Sensing momentum from the new Republican defections, Mr. Reid and other leading Democrats intend to force a series of votes over the next two weeks on proposals to withdraw troops and limit spending. Democrats are increasingly confident they can assemble majority opposition to administration policies.

There is political gamesmanship in Reid's words here. I do not imagine he expects Republicans to rally to the cause of ending the Debacle, as his comments regarding Pete Domenici made clear, but he must invite them to join Democrats in the drive to end the Debacle.

The news today from Iraq:

Suicide bombings across Iraq killed nearly 150 and injured scores, including a massive truck assault in a northern Shiite village that ripped through a crowded market, officials said Saturday.

The violence came as the U.S. military on Saturday reported the deaths of eight American soldiers over the past two days, all killed in combat or by roadside bombs in Baghdad and the western province of Anbar. A British soldier was reported killed in fighting in southern Iraq.

The worst carnage unfolded in the Shiite Turkoman village of Amarly, 50 miles south of Kirkuk, when a suicide bomber rammed a truck laden with explosives into the central market, which is near a police station, officials said. The attack killed at least 115 people and wounded at least 210, according to district and hospital officials, adding that they expected the death toll to rise.

[More importantly, will they vote to remove President Bush from office . . .]

Reacting to Sen. Pete Domenici's new words on Iraq, Harry Reid said:

Senator Domenici is correct to assess that the Administration's war strategy is misguided. But we will not see a much-needed change of course in Iraq until Republicans like Senators Domenici, Lugar and Voinovich are willing to stand up to President Bush. . . . Beginning with the Defense Authorization bill next week, Republicans will have the opportunity to not just say the right things on Iraq, but vote the right way too so that we can bring the responsible end to this war that the American people demand and deserve...."

Iraq votes next week? Who cares, we have an impeachment to dream about . . .

Update [2007-7-6 18:54:31 by Big Tent Democrat]: John Aravosis cares. My new favorite blogger. Sorry digby.

Via mcjoan, retired General William Odom says:

. . . Congress clearly and indisputably has two powers over the executive: the power of the purse and the power to impeach. Instead of using either, members of congress are wasting their time discussing feckless measures like a bill that "de-authorizes the war in Iraq." That is toothless unless it is matched by a cut-off of funds....

To force him to begin a withdrawal before then, the first step should be to rally the public by providing an honest and candid definition of what "supporting the troops" really means and pointing out who is and who is not supporting our troops at war. The next step should be a flat refusal to appropriate money for to be used in Iraq for anything but withdrawal operations with a clear deadline for completion.

The final step should be to put that president on notice that if [he]ignores this legislative action and tries to extort Congress into providing funds by keeping U.S. forces in peril, impeachment proceedings will proceed in the House of Representatives. Such presidential behavior surely would constitute the "high crime" of squandering the lives of soldiers and Marines for his own personal interest.

Tom Friedman writes:

It’s too early to pronounce the U.S. military’s surge in Iraq a failure. It’s not too early to say, though, that there’s no sign that it’s succeeding — that it’s making Iraqi politics or security better in any appreciable, self-sustaining way. At best, the surge is keeping Iraq from descending into full-scale civil war. At best we are dog paddling in the Tigris. Which means at least we should start to think about what happens if we have to get out of the water.

If, Mr. Friedman Unit? But he at least accepts it is time to leave:

The first choice for many Shiites is a pro-Iranian, Shiite-dominated religious Iraq, where Sunnis have little say and little power. . . . In short, our first-choice soldiers are dying for Iraqis’ second choice. That is wrong, terribly wrong. It has to stop.

That is progress of a sort from Friedman. He blathers on about Kurdistan and other silliness but the important point is this: Tom Friedman says it is time to get out.