Josh Marshall writes:

We're so far deep into this mess that sometimes I believe we're past the point of argument. You look at the evidence and you either see it or you don't.

Well, let's face it. It is not about seeing anymore. It is about admitting your grievous mistakes. And this applies not only to President Bush, Republicans and Iraq war supporters. It applies to pundits, the Media, bloggers, well everyone.

Because once the mistakes are admitted, the recriminations will REALLY start to fly on all levels. Think Vietnam.

All good things come to an end. Cindy Sheehan has tendered her resignation letter.

While I appreciate her service, I have thought for a while she needs to get her life back. As the mother of a son who would be of draft age if there was a draft, I can't imagine the devastation that she and the other mothers of the 3,500 soldiers killed in Iraq endure on a daily basis.

Cindy channeled her grief into a public cause to end the war that a majority of Americans now believe we should exit from. She deserves a lot of credit.

But she also deserves a life. I'm sure her son would want her to have one. The war is not going to end by demonstrations near Bush's ranch at Crawford, Texas, nor by Cindy continuing to be arrested at peace marches. Those days are over.

More...

To all who served in our wars, and their families, thank you for your sacrifice.

To our President: It's time to leave Iraq. We cannot win this civil war. We can only lose more precious lives.

Bring the troops home now.

Paul Krugman makes an interesting point, while missing a main one:

Democrats, still fearing that they will end up accused of being weak on terror and not supporting the troops, gave Mr. Bush another year’s war funding. Democratic Party activists were furious, because polls show a public utterly disillusioned with Mr. Bush and anxious to see the war ended. But it’s not clear that the leadership was wrong to be cautious. The truth is that the nightmare of the Bush years won’t really be over until politicians are convinced that voters will punish, not reward, Bush-style fear-mongering. And that hasn’t happened yet.

It seems true that politicians are not convinced that voters will punish Bush-style fearmongering. But that is not the Democrats' problem. The Dems' problems is precisely that they need to be convinced of that before they will act with political courage. And everyone knows this. The last few days I have been harping on the Democrats' central political weakness - that are believed to have no convictions they will fight for.

This is the type of thinking that will lead to poor Democratic results in 2008:

All the Democratic sorrow and Republican gloating of the past week came from the heart. With the passage of the Iraq funding bill, Democrats will be forced to watch a thousand more soldiers die, while Republicans can enjoy many more months of pretending they're good at fighting terrorists. But the political impact of the bill is exactly the opposite of what the partisans believe. The Republican Party just signed away its best chance to avoid catastrophe in 2008. As in 2006, Republicans will be left with total ownership of the Iraq War, and in voters' eyes, total responsibility for disaster. . .

In 2006, Democrats won because there was a belief that they could do something about Iraq. In 2008, if nothing else happens, that belief willbe shattered. Why indeed would non-Dems (or purity troll progressives to use the pejorative term for folks who distrust the triangulating Dems) vote for Dems on Iraq when they proved so spineless? This is just the type of thinking that could blow 2008 for the Democrats.

The latest tall tale on Iraq is from Dem apologists -- that even if Congress elected to not fund the Iraq Debacle, President Bush could unilaterally fund the Debacle through invocation of the Feed and Forage Act of 1861 (41 USC, Section 11.) This is the misconception of folks who simply do not understand how the Constitution and the law works. Let's consider the language of the Food and Forage Act:

(a) No contract or purchase on behalf of the United States shall be made, unless the same is authorized by law or is under an appropriation adequate to its fulfillment, except in the Department of Defense . . . for clothing, subsistence, forage, fuel, quarters, transportation, or medical and hospital supplies, which, however, shall not exceed the necessities of the current year.

Consider the implications of the interpretation being forwarded by some that this grants the President unlimited power to fund the war unilaterally. It would make the law plainly unconstitutional as it would violate the the express separation of powers, the statements of the Federalist Papers, uncontroverted by any and all writings by scholars, conservative or liberal. In short, it is an argument that is only made to excuse the inaction of the Democratic Congress. NO Republican I know of has made this argument. Only enabling Democrats. Very telling.

The White House has released the transcript of Dick Cheney's commencement address yesterday at West Point.

Scarecrow at Firedoglake takes issue with his statements.

BarbinMd at Daily Kos recaps and interprets Cheney's statements on how we are winning the war on terror:

Our government has used every legitimate tool to counter the activities of an enemy that likely has cells inside our own country. We've improved our security arrangements [dug a deeper bunker for me], reorganized intelligence capabilities [repeatedly broke the law], surveilled and interrogated the enemy [tortured], and worked closely with friends [Great Britain] and allies [Great Britain] to track terrorist movements.

Jon Alter, writing about the Dems' Iraq Supplemental disaster, says:

It isn't easy to make the case for capitulation and gamesmanship when human lives are at stake, but I'm going to try. That's because many Americans—especially on the left—don't understand why Democrats in Congress had no choice but to proceed the way they have this week on the war in Iraq.

I'm going to concentrate only on the politics of the situation here, let's leave the human lives at stake aside. Ahhhhhh. Just writing that sentence tells us what is wrong with this thinking. The POLITICS won't let us leave that aside. For this is the essential Democratic problem, they are viewed as standing for nothing. For having no principles. As Ruy Texeira and John Halpin put it:

The thesis of this report is straightforward. Progressives need to fight for what they believe in -- and put the common good at the center of a new progressive vision -- as an essential strategy for political growth and majority building. This is no longer a wishful sentiment by out-of-power activists, but a political and electoral imperative for all concerned progressives. . . . [T]he underlying problem driving progressives' on-going woes nationally [is] a majority of Americans do not believe progressives or Democrats stand for anything.

Alter's thinking is a reflection of this.

If you buy this one, the Times has a nice bridge to sell you:

The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate.

How many times have we heard that one? A lot:

"My commanders tell me that as Iraqi forces become more capable, the mission of our forces in Iraq will continue to change... We will increasingly move out of Iraqi cities, reduce the number of bases from which we operate, and conduct fewer patrols and convoys. As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists." 11/30/05, George W. Bush

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), who I support for the Democratic Presidential nomination, promises to keep fighting to end the Iraq Debacle:

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), our newest proponent of the not funding after a date certain option, learns that the GOP does not play nice, and strikes back very effectively:

More please Senator. And fight for the only alternative for really ending the Debacle, the not funding option.

Between, John Edwards, Senator Obama and my personal favorite, Sen. Dodd, we have three more leaders capable of leading on this issue. Senator Clinton's voice in this fight would be most welcome. Her recent votes are a good start, but I personally would like to see more leadership. I am confident she can deliver such leadership. Please step up Senator Clinton.

EJ Dionne's column, and I love EJ, is replete with many misconceptions and wrongheaded thinking, some of it his, some of it attributed to Democrats. I want to start with Speaker Pelosi's delusion:

Pelosi's case is that the war's congressional opponents have already helped move the debate by passing antiwar measures and by prying Republicans loose from the president's policy. "It is just a matter of time," she says, before Republicans can "no longer stay with the president.

This is a bad joke. Speaker, you pried no one loose and you never will. Until you get that right, you have no chance to effectively end the Iraq Debacle. This is quite dioscouraging to hear. Speaker Pelosi seems not to get it at all. The Republicans will never abandon Bush on Iraq. You must formulate your strategy accordingly.

Muqtada Al Sadr demanded US withdrawal from Iraq today in his first public appearance in four months:

The powerful Iraqi cleric Moktada al- Sadr surfaced in his home base of Kufa in southern Iraq today, delivering a sermon in a local mosque after what American intelligence officials called a four-month sojourn in Iran.

The cleric, addressing a large crowd amid heavy security, called for American forces to leave Iraq and for the Iraqi government to make sure that the Americans leave as soon as possible. He called for and end to fighting between his own Mahdi Army and Iraqi forces and police, asking his followers to conduct peaceful demonstrations instead.

. . . Mr. Sadr’s appearance came as the American military announced today that six more soldiers had died in Iraq, five on Thursday and one on Tuesday, according to Reuters. April was the worst month this year for the American military since the invasion, with 104 soldiers killed. About 90 have been killed in May so far.

Not a new position for Sadr, but the timing makes for an interesting development to say the least.