This upcoming week is going to be perhaps the most important week of the 110th Congress. General Petraeus will give his report, Ambassador Crocker will likewise report; and the debate on what to do next in Iraq will begin in earnest.

So why are Democrats seemingly admitting defeat -- before the argument has even begun? Why are you essentially taking what should be a position of strength, and (by buying into the White House's spin) turning it into a position of weakness? Do you really think this is the best way to end the Iraq war, or (for that matter) the best way to convince voters to vote for Democrats in 2008?

Read Complete Article »

If Basra goes up in flames, look for Republicans in Congress to bludgeon Democrats with the following: "See?... SEE?!?... We TOLD you this would happen if the coalition pulls out too early! This is what's going to happen to the WHOLE COUNTRY if we withdraw now, right when we're on the verge of success in Iraq."

If Basra remains calm and the Iraqi forces contain things well enough to keep chaos off American network news television screens for a few weeks, look for congressional Democrats to use the opposite argument: "See?... SEE?!?... We TOLD you that all your fears of utter chaos are unfounded because OUR PRESENCE in Iraq is the main cause of all the violence. Once you remove the coalition from the field, things will improve in Iraq. Our success depends on us getting out as fast as possible."

Read Complete Article »

Once again, there was a flood of excellent entries, making it extremely difficult to pick winners out of the field.

As always, winners receive absolutely nothing, other than bragging rights. A big thanks to everyone who entered, and without further ado, here are the top three winners in each of the following categories: Best Chant, Best Anti-Bush Slogan, Best Slogan To Influence Middle America, Best Slogan To Influence Congress, Funniest Slogan, Most Subtle Slogan, and Best Obscure Reference.

At the end, five awards for Most Profane / Tasteless (because of overwhelming interest in the category), and my five picks for Best Overall Slogan.

Read Complete Article »

I heartily salute both organizations in their efforts. I have been saying since the beginning of this year that the anti-war forces need to keep the pressure on the politicians in Washington with a show of numbers in order to convince weak-willed congressmen from both sides of the aisle that the anti-war stance is actually wildly popular among their constituents. Even in red states.

Read Complete Article »

We continue today looking at the Democratic candidates for President, and what they would do about Iraq. Part 1 of this article ran yesterday, and covered Richardson, Obama, Kucinich, and Gravel. Continuing in reverse alphabetical order, today we examine Edwards, Dodd, Clinton, and Biden.

Read Complete Article »

Iraq is someday going to truly be both sovereign and independent of the United States military. When that happens, they not only have to deal with security within their country (which they haven't even been able to handle yet, obviously), but they will also have to deal with their country's regional security. Iraq is next door to some neighboring countries which already have some sophisticated military equipment, so they're going to have to have some level of parity -- or else they're likely going to get wiped out when we leave. Instead of Iraq taking over Kuwait, maybe Kuwait will take over Iraq (for instance).

Read Complete Article »

Some may call me crass (or even worse names) for addressing just the "framing" or "spin" of these issues. I strongly disagree. Republicans have been winning these framing victories for years now, and the only way Democrats can counter this tactic is to co-opt the framing game. Democrats need to agree on one phrase to use in order to ridicule the other side's position -- and then repeat that phrase ad nauseum. "Ten words or less" should be the golden rule.

Read Complete Article »

The White House even tried to stop Petraeus from testifying before Congress in the open (as opposed to a secret hearing), until they noticed that the law specifically said that he would be made available to Congress for testimony in both "open" and "closed" settings. The White House quickly backpedaled on that one, thankfully, which means that both Petraeus and Crocker will indeed be answering Congress' questions in public, in open hearings.

I'm actually kind of surprised President Bush didn't try to claim executive privilege, which seems to be his knee-jerk reaction to anyone testifying before Congress. Even if Bush thought he'd eventually lose in court, it would take months if not years to resolve, just like all his other executive privilege claims

Read Complete Article »

. . . The military, meanwhile, is apparently beginning to plan for a withdrawal from Iraq. Yes, that's right -- beginning to plan. From the AP article: "The military has not yet developed a plan for a substantial withdrawal of forces next year."

Hmm... that's strange, considering Hillary Clinton's war of letters with the Pentagon not too long ago. She politely asked, you will recall, to see the Pentagon's withdrawal plans for Iraq. The Pentagon responded that she was aiding the enemy by even asking for such a thing. Then the new Secretary of Defense apologized to her and told her that of course the Pentagon had plans for withdrawal, since they plan for every contingency (ignoring the fact that we're still stuck in Iraq precisely because they failed to plan for such a contingency as an insurgency).

But now the Pentagon admits that they haven't yet developed a plan for withdrawal? So which is it? And did the Secretary of Defense lie to Senator Clinton?

Read Complete Article »

The irony is that whoever wins the upcoming September battle in Congress will likely lose in next year's elections, because the American public will not like the outcome -- no matter which political party wins the debate in Congress.

Read Complete Article »