And so we enter Phase IV of the Iraq war. Where "special groups" are now the enemy, and both Petraeus and George W. Bush will have all the time they need... at least until January 20th of next year.

President Bush gave an address today, to back up the congressional testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. The most telling quote from the entire thing was:

General Petraeus has reported that security conditions have improved enough to withdraw all five surge brigades by the end of July. That means that by July 31st, the number of U.S. combat brigades in Iraq will be down by 25 percent from last year.

Beyond that, General Petraeus says he'll need time to consolidate his forces and assess how this reduced American presence will affect conditions on the ground before making measured recommendations on further reductions.

And I've told him he'll have all the time he needs.

Continue Reading »

Could the recent firing (or, more accurately, recent demotion) of Mark Penn, architect of Hillary Clinton's campaign, save the party's chances in the general election? Has he, in other words, been designated at the official scapegoat for the campaign's viciousness? And will he serve this position well, becoming the lightning rod for Democratic voters to vent their anger and frustration on, rather than the eventual nominee?

Call him a scapegoat, lightning rod, whipping boy, or even sacrificial lamb (choose your own metaphor, in other words), but no matter who the nominee is, will he give sufficient cover so this eventual nominee can unite Democratic voters to produce a win in November?

Continue Reading »

I rarely dip into the realm of fairy tales to describe politics, but sometimes trying to figure out George Bush's logic on Iraq demands it. And so today we will try to explain the current military logic on troop levels using Goldilocks' terms: "too few," "too many," or "just right."

Some facts, first. American troop levels in Iraq a little over a year ago stood at about 130,000. President Bush decided the level of violence was unacceptable and suddenly decided there were "too few" soldiers in Iraq. His answer was the "surge," which was originally supposed to be 20,000 troops, but somehow (hey presto!) turned into 30,000 because of "additional support personnel." This raised the total to somewhere around 160,000 (which was supposed to be "just right"). The "surge" troops are now rotating out of Iraq, having spent a 15-month tour of duty there. They are scheduled to be gone in July, although somehow 10,000 support troops will stay, leaving America with 140,000 troops this summer (again, which is planned to be "just right" -- even though it was "too few" before the "surge").

Continue Reading »

Last Wednesday I wrote an article called "Questions For Petraeus," which I thought would be adequate to begin discussion of how to approach the upcoming congressional testimony by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker -- in particular, what Democrats on the committees should be asking them. But events in Iraq have been moving quickly, so I offer this column as an addendum to the earlier one. Because after what happened in the past few days, more questions need to be asked.

Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has just made a bold move, which needs to be addressed, as it could have far-reaching consequences in Iraq and in the region. A lot depends on just what Maliki is up to, and what the consequences will be within the power structure (such as it is) in Iraq.

Continue Reading »

Since the campaigns of both Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama have seemingly taken my advice earlier this week, and are both concentrating on attacking Senator John McCain rather than each other, we have the luxury of getting away from the campaign trail this week and focusing on a few other things -- the biggest of which is the upcoming testimony before Congress by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on the situation in Iraq. More on that in a moment.

But while the two candidates didn't rise to the level of a Most Impressive award, they do deserve to be commended for a week in which they both campaigned respectfully and admirably. Obama was noted early in the week for attacking McCain on the stump, and Clinton followed up later with a new cut of her "3:00 A.M." campaign ad which focused on McCain (and not Obama) this time. Add to this the banter between the campaigns over Barack's bowling ability (Hillary called for a bowl-off to decide the race, on April Fool's Day, and Barack jokingly accepted on a morning news show), which was a welcome lighthearted note from both campaigns. Just last night, Hillary Clinton appeared on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno and was charming, personable, and actually pretty funny -- an excellent appearance, all around.

So I have to give both campaigns a big pat on the back for running the kind of campaign people actually like to see this week, instead of endless sniping over he-said/she-said stuff that really turns voters (for both candidates) off in a big way.

Continue Reading »

While much attention has been paid to the newly-released 81-page memo written by John Yoo which defines torturing prisoners in U.S. custody as "self-defense," within the memo is reference to another secret Yoo memo, one with even further-reaching consequences for the Constitution. According to Yoo (and the Bush administration in general), because we're "at war," the United States military is allowed to completely ignore the Fourth Amendment -- on U.S. soil.

Bush and everyone around him have consistently shown such disregard for the Fourth Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) that it shouldn't really come as much of a surprise, but sadly, it does. As far as they're concerned, because we're "at war," some Army guy could bust in and search your house, and it would be perfectly legal for them to do so.

Continue Reading »

General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will be back in front of Congress next week (scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday), to give their half-yearly report on what is going on in Iraq. So today, as a public service, I'd like to provide the questions I feel would be a good idea to ask the two of them. Democratic committee members, please feel free to use any or all of these yourselves.

Of course, Petraeus and Crocker will be attempting to put a big smiley face on Iraq once again, and they must be kicking themselves for being blindsided by Maliki's recent Basra fiasco. If only Maliki had waited two or three weeks, they could have testified that everything was hunky-dory in Iraq, and then gotten out of Washington unscathed.

Continue Reading »

[Before I begin, I just want to point out that this is Hillary's joke, not mine. This really happened.]

Hillary Clinton, today, speaking to the press:

This has been a very hard fought race. We need to do something so that our party and our people can make the right decision. So I have a proposal: today I am challenging Senator Obama to a bowl-off. A bowling night right here in Pennsylvania. Winner take all. I'll even spot him two frames.

It's time for his campaign to get out of the gutter and allow all of the pins to be counted. And I'm prepared to play this game all the way to the tenth frame. And when this game is over the American people will know when that phone rings at 3:00 A.M. they’ll have a president who's ready to bowl on day one. So let's strike a deal and go bowling for delegates. We don't have a moment to spare.

Because it's already April Fool's Day. So happy April Fool's Day everyone.

Continue Reading »

I heard a great idea on one of the blathering pundit shows this weekend, but I must admit I can't remember which one, so I can't credit it properly (apologies to whomever uttered the idea in the first place). In a nutshell: Obama and Clinton should declare a cease-fire between the two camps, and then try to convince the remaining superdelegates (and remaining voters) to vote for them -- based on how effectively they can beat up on John McCain.

That is the "prize" they're both fighting for, remember -- the chance to face off against McCain in the general election. So why not compete with each other on who is the best candidate to do so? And why shouldn't this competition show each candidate's strategy for doing so now, instead of later?

Continue Reading »

We haven't done a contest here in a while, so I'm going to open the betting window today on the outcome of the Democratic race. To play, just post a comment with the date and the outcome you predict will happen.

As an example, here is my entry: Hillary Clinton does great in Pennsylvania, but loses both North Carolina and Indiana, and drops out the next day.

Continue Reading »