Iraq legislation in the pipeline

As is currently being reported, Senate Democrats are trying to build support behind a proposal by Sen. Jim Webb that would require troops get as much downtime at home as they spend in Iraq (active-duty Army units today are on 15-month deployments with a promise of no more than 12 months rest. Marines who spend seven or more months at war sometimes get six months or less at home). Previously offered as an amendment to the defense authorization bill the Senate considered (along with other Iraq-related amendments) in the summer, it got 56 votes but 60 votes were necessary to overcome a GOP filibuster. It is believed they are near having 60 senators behind it, but it is not likely they have the 67 that would be required to override a certain presidential veto:

Gates was asked in broadcast interviews about recommending a veto to Bush should the proposal pass. "Yes I would," the Pentagon chief said.

"If it were enacted, we would have force management problems that would be extremely difficult and, in fact, affect combat effectiveness and perhaps pose greater risk to our troops," he said...

If Webb's amendment were enacted, Gates said it would force him to consider again extending tours in Iraq. He explained that the military commanders would be constrained in the use of available forces, creating gaps and forcing greater use of an already strained National Guard and Reserve.

"It would be extremely difficult for us to manage that. It really is a backdoor way to try and force the president to accelerate the drawdown," Gates said. "Again, the drawdowns have to be based on the conditions on the ground."

"We would have to be looking at gapping units where there would — a unit pulling out would not be immediately replaced by another," he added. "So you'd have an area of combat operations where no U.S. forces would be present for a period, and the troops coming in would then face a much more difficult situation."

Regardless of whether we can believe President Bush's defense secretary or not (and Gates seems like a fairly straight-forward guy, at least for this administration), it is clear Bush would veto the bill and, thus, it would not become law. So is this really the legislation Democrats should focus on? No doubt they believe it popular, which is why some Republicans will vote for it as well, but I'd argue that might give those Republicans political cover on their war support as much as it would help Democrats say they did something. Anyway, there are other avenues:

A separate proposal by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., seeks to restrict the mission of troops to fighting terrorist and training the Iraqi security force.

"The president has dangled a carrot in front of the American people talking about troop reductions," Levin said. "But, again, it is an illusion of a change of course and the American people are not buying it. My colleagues are not buying it."

"I think we have a good chance of getting to the 60 votes to call for a change in policy. I hope we get there in the next couple of weeks," he said.

As I wrote previously, it seems clear to me Democrats are not going to be able to pass a firm timetable to bring our troops home nor will they opt to cut war funding. But it is possible that they could get enough Republican support to limit the war to more narrowly-defined missions (and hopefully force more significant troop reductions than those called for by President Bush which will simply bring us to the pre-escalation level at best). I'm sure not sure how long it would take to get that support, but pushing and pressuring for it seems like a better use of Senate Dems' time than this honorable-but-doomed call for increased troop rest.

Ex-judge Mukasey now at top of list of Gonzales replacements

The AP is reporting that Michael Mukasey, a former U.S. district judge from New York who handled several high-profile terrorist cases and a current adviser to Rudy Guiliani’s presidential campaign, appears to be the administration’s top pick to replace Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General:

Conservatives on Saturday lined up for and against potential attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey, the man they believe has ascended to the top of President Bush’s list of replacements for Alberto Gonzales.

Earlier in the week, Democrats in the Senate threatened to block confirmation of another prospect — Theodore Olson, a longtime GOP ally and former solicitor general who represented Bush before the Supreme Court in the contested 2000 presidential election.

The behind-the-scenes battle over who will succeed Gonzales heated up over the weekend as the president, who was at Camp David, moved closer to announcing his choice.

I had previously been thinking that Olson's name may have been leaked in order to drum up the expected negative reaction from Democrats, only so Bush could nominate someone else (still a conservative) who'd look better by comparison and, thus, more easily confirmed. The article vaguely references possible opposition by groups on the right. And apparently, there is some early indicator of bi-partisan support:

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., previously recommended Mukasey for a Supreme Court vacancy.

In June 2005, the liberal Alliance for Justice put Mukasey’s name on a list of four judges who, if chosen for the Supreme Court, would show the president’s “commitment” to picking someone who could be supported by both Democratic and Republican senators.

But regardless of the nominee, Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy has vowed not to hold a confirmation hearing until the White House ceases withholding information subpoenaed by Democrats on U.S. attorneys and warrantless surveillance.

As for his record, Think Progress already has the skinny: While Mukasey issued the first ruling in the Jose Padilla saying “President Bush did have the authority to hold Mr. Padilla as an enemy combatant without charging him for a crime,” he also “ruled that the government must allow Mr. Padilla to see his attorneys.” However, in a recent WSJ editorial, he wrote that "terror trials hurt the nation even when they lead to a conviction."

Besides Mukasey and Olson, others being eyed for the post include former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger; 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge William Wilkins; and former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson, who is currently general counsel at PepsiCo.

UPDATE: It's official.

UPDATE II: Glenn Greenwald has an encouraging post about the nomination.

Dems make steady progress on domestic agenda

Congressional Democrats finally got some credit for moving through their legislative checklist from Bob Cusack over at The Hill this week:

The passage of the student loan bill on Friday is the fourth measure headed to President Bush’s desk from the Democrats’ “Six in ’06” campaign pledge. If Bush signs the education bill as expected, three of the Democrats’ high-profile legislative promises will have become law less than nine months into their majority.

“These are significant but modest bills,” Randall Strahan, a political scientist at Emory University, said, adding that the Democrats’ legislative accomplishments will help shield them from Republicans’ criticisms of a “do-nothing” Congress. Bolder bills could come in 2009, Strahan said, when Democrats hope to have control of Congress and the White House.

As it says, half of the "Six for '06" pieces of legislation have become the law of the land (the minimum wage increase, the remaining 9/11 commission recommendations to strengthen air cargo and port security, and the higher education bill slashing student loan interest rates and upping the Pell Grant limit), as has promised ethics/lobbying reform. Congress also overwhelmingly passed the stem cell research bill, but it was vetoed by President Bush and they couldn't override. A bill to make the U.S. government able to negotiate down prescription drug prices as part of the Medicare D program - created under the Bush administration and a GOP majority - was blocked by the Senate Republicans from even getting a vote (as was the Employee Free Choice Act to make it easier for workers to join a union). The sixth proposal, energy independence legislation, is still being worked out in conference between the House and Senate. Something should eventually pass as far as that goes, so Democrats will have a two-thirds success rate record.

Democrats are also working on reconciling between the two chambers an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, making changes to the "No Child Left Behind" law that is about to expire, and passing a hate crimes law and other bills to protect the rights of GLBT persons. And it looks like the Senate has just enough votes to avert a filibuster on a D.C. voting rights bill next week.

Overall, there's still work to do, particularly on Iraq of course. But Democrats in Congress deserve recognition for what they have accomplished so far. It's a hell of a lot better record than the previous Congress anyway!

Whoa, things look really bad for GOP in Senate races of '08

From the latest Evans-Novak Political Report: "The decision not to run by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) now raises to five the possible losses of Senate seats by Republicans. Democrats also are targeting Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) for a sixth seat. If 2008 turns into a Democratic landslide, Senators Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) and even Mitch McConnell (R-KY) could be in danger."

Stu Rothenberg agrees: "In 2008 election cycle, how bad is bad for Senate Republicans? A Democratic gain of five to seven seats is a serious possibility next year. For now, Democrats have every reason to hope for — and Republicans to fear — another terrific Democratic Senate year."

Republicans are playing defense on 22 seats, whereas Democrats are defending just 12 with only one in any serious jeopardy. Here's the skinny on the competitive races:

TOP TIER

Virginia - Now that former Democratic governor Mark Warner is in, this one is ours. The latest Rasmussen Reports poll shows him beating his two potential Republican challengers by insurmountable margins. Warner beats Jim Gilmore, another former governor and presidential candidate (he dropped out a little while back), 54-34. Against Rep. Tom Davis, Warner topples him 57-30! Warner could also help us win the state (which wasn't look that red anyway after Democrat Tim Kaine won and kept the governorship for us in 2005) in the presidential, as the same poll showed Hillary Clinton slightly ahead of Giuliani and Thompson there in a head-to-head match-up. Bill Clinton was the last to win the state. Should Warner win, we would have two Democratic senators from Virginia (the other is the ever-awesome Jim Webb, who won last year), a first since the 1970s. Sen. John Warner retiring was a godsend. The only downside is without Warner, there is no solid contender for the next governor's race right now, but I'd rather have another Senate seat.

New Hampshire - Sen. John Snunu is a Republican in what has become a solid blue state since 2004 when Kerry won it after Gore hadn't. In 2006, Democrats took over the state legislature and Gov. John Lynch won with 70% of the vote. So, at the start, Snunu is in trouble. But now that popular former governor Jeanne Shaheen has announced she will run in a rematch against him, he looks like a goner. Though Snunu narrowly beat Shaheen in 2002, a recent poll showed Shaheen would now best Snunu 54-38.

Colorado - I hate to be too cocky here, but this one just seems like it is in the bag too. Sen. Wayne Allard is retiring and the GOP has failed to recruit any top-tier candidates. Meanwhile, we have a great one in Rep. Mark Udall. Colorado has also been trending Democratic since 2004 when Ken Salazar won a Senate seat and we took over the legislature. In 2006, we took the governorship as well.

Nebraska - This race is very similar to the Virginia situation, though not as wrapped up. Sen. Chuck Hagel announced he was retiring this week, as he was facing a Republican primary challenge he might not have survived. Former Democratic senator Bob Kerrey had been heavily courted and said he might jump in should Hagel retire. An announcement of his plans is expected fairly soon, but should he get in, he'd be the favorite to win. It wouldn't be as guaranteed as a Warner victory in VA, but Kerrey is still extremely popular and the current state attorney general is the only one who'd be a good Republican candidate against him. As with Virginia, a victory there would give us two Democratic senators (the other being Sen. Ben Nelson) in a state that is even more traditionally Republican.

Oregon - Like Snunu, Sen. Gordon Smith is in the wrong party in the wrong state. This is one reason he has decided to support Democratic efforts to end the war in Iraq, unlike most of the rest of his colleagues right now. Unfortunately, none of the Democratic House Reps in Oregon decided to enter the race. The current two candidates running on our side are Jeff Merkley, the current Oregon House Speaker, and also grassroots activist Steve Novick. Political analysts agree that Merkley would be a formidable candidate. Smith is definitely very endangered and could be one of several blue-state Republicans who fall next year. John Frohnmayer, former chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts under President George H.W. Bush, announced he will run as an independent in the race. He could potentially draw votes from both disaffected Republicans and Democratic-leaning independents, but it is unclear how much of an impact he could really have as a potential spoiler for either of the major party candidates.

Minnesota - A new poll out today also bears bad news for Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican who won in this blue state solely because Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash a few weeks before the 2002 election (and he still only one by two points against former Vice President Walter Mondale). Al Franken, of "Saturday Night Live" and Air America Radio fame, is just five points behind Coleman now, whereas he was 20 points behind when he started running. Minneapolis attorney Mike Ciresi, the other Democrat running, is also only four points behind. Things aren't looking too good for Coleman.

Maine - The last endangered blue state Republican on the list in Sen. Susan Collins who isn't quite as popular as the other senator from there, Olympia Snowe. Democratic House Rep Tom Allen is running and will definitely make this competitive. It could the be the Rhode Island (in which moderate Republican Sen. Chafee lost simply because he added to the GOP's numbers in the Senate caucus) of this year. Like Snunu, Smith, and Coleman, Collins will fall if Democrats sweep these races where the majority of Democrats and independents are sick of the Republican Party and the Iraq war.

SLEEPER RACES

Alaska - Sen. Ted Stevens is under an FBI investigation for bribery and could be in serious danger, as new information keeps coming out. Tony Knowles, a Democrat who served as Governor of Alaska from 1995 to 2003. Knowles narrowly lost bids for the Senate in 2004 and for another term as governor in 2006. He or another candidate, especially Anchorage's popular mayor Mark Begich, could make this competitive.

Kansas - Sen. Pat Roberts approval rating hovers around the 50% mark and the state has grown more Democratic-friendly in recent years, as evidenced by Governor Kathleen Sebelius' popularity and easy re-election last year, as well as Nancy Boyda re-capturing Kansas' 2nd Congressional district seat for the Dems. The previous Democrat to hold that seat was former Rep. Jim Slattery who is considering running against Roberts next year. Slattery was a popular congressman and represented KS-2 for 12 years until '94, when he ran for governor and lost in the Republican tide of that year. Kansas hasn’t elected a Democratic senator in 75 years (read the great book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank), but historical precedents didn't stop Democrats in '06 so why should they in '08?

Kentucky - Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has lost a lot of popularity by leading an obstructionist Republican Party and is under 50% in recent approval polls. Democrats are already running hard hitting ads against him, in an effort to exact retribution for the ousting of former Democratic Minority Leader Tom Daschle in '04. A serious Democratic candidate could make this competitive and, as with a lot of these second tier races, Republicans will still be forced to spend money to defend a normally safe seat that they'd much rather spend on the big targets.

North Carolina - Like McConnell, Elizabeth Dole's popularity has taken a hit. She's the favorite right now, but polls suggest vulnerability. A January 2007 poll showed Democratic Governor Mike Easley defeating Dole, 44% to 41%. Unfortunately, Easley has indicated he is not interested in running. A Public Policy Polling survey showed Dole leading U.S. Representative Brad Miller 44% to 33%, with 22% undecided, though he also announced June 25 that he would not run against her. State representative and Afghanistan war veteran Grier Martin is apparently considering a run now. But even if we don't have the most optimal candidate, Dole is at risk enough that she could lose if 2008 is another Democratic-landslide year.

Texas - I dare put this here in the second tier despite the fact that Texas hasn't seen a Democrat hold a statewide office for a decade. Why? Because Senator John Cornyn is the most unpopular GOP incumbent running for re-election. The latest SUSA poll has him not only under 50% but also with a -1 net approval rating (meaning his disapproval rating is 1 point higher than his approval rating!). The two Democratic candidates include state representative and Afghanistan war veteran Rick Noriega and wealthy trial attorney Mikal Watts. Democratic primary voters will have to decide who is the best candidate for the job, but Cornyn's abysmal numbers and 2006 Democratic gains in the Texas legislature and in Dallas County suggest this race is going to be a lot more competitive than any statewide election we've had in awhile.

SAFE REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRATIC TOSS-UPS

Seats in Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Wyoming, are all third tier races for right now, but things could always change (which goes for any of these races, of course). For instance, New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici is connected to the U.S. attorneys scandals and Idaho would become instantly competitive should Sen. Larry Craig decide not to resign and run for re-election (should he survive a likely GOP primary battle); State senator Andrew Rice seems to be a pretty damn good candidate out in Oklahoma, as would 2006 Congressional candidate Gary Trauner in Wyoming or Rep. Jim Marshall, should he declare, in Georgia.

Republicans had originally targeted three Democrats for potential pick-ups, but with Sens. Frank Lautenberg and the recently-recovered Tim Johnson deciding to run for re-election (Johnson hasn't made a"final" decision yet, but it looks good), Republicans have little change in their respective states of New Jersey and South Dakota. However, Sen. Mary Landrieu in Lousiana is vulnerable, in part because of Katrina, but also because Karl Rove got popular state treasurer John N. Kennedy to switch to the Republican Party. If he gets in to challenge Landrieu, as expected, this race could be tough though I think Landrieu would edge it out in the end.

But still, having to only defend one seat while being on the offense against 22 Republican seats make for pretty good odds that we'll not only definitely keep our majority, but we are likely to substantially expand it (at least based on how things look now). Things could certainly change and will one way or another, but I'm pretty happy with the way things are shaping up right now. I don't think it could favor Democrats more.

Gubernatorial Outlook 2008

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza released his list of the most competitive gubernatorial races for both 2007 and 2008 over at his blog The Fix. Here's his take on his three picks for next year (the No. 1 ranked race is the most likely to switch party control):

5. Washington (Currently Democratic): Another month passes and this race remains totally static. Yes, we are close to certain that former state Sen. Dino Rossi (R) will opt for a rematch against Gov. Christine Gregoire (D). And yes, we are fairly certain this race will be quite competitive despite the Democratic lean of the state and the tough national environment for Republicans. And, finally, we did see the Elway Research poll in August that showed Gregoire with a (so-so 52 percent of people saying she is doing an excellent or good job and a whopping 46 percent rating her performance fair or poor. This will be a good race ... eventually. (Previous ranking: 5)

4. Indiana (Currently Republican): The two parties have vastly different viewpoints on the reelection chances of Gov. Mitch Daniels (R). Republicans believe that Daniels will benefit from presidential-year turnout in a still-red state and a less-than-stellar field of Democratic opponents. Democrats see Daniels's first four years in office as disastrous and full of campaign fodder -- particularly on the continued kerfuffle over rising property taxes. As for the Democratic candidates, establishment support in Washington and Indiana seems to lean architect Jim Schellinger's way, but former Rep. Jill Long Thompson has the name identification statewide to make the race interesting. We're not sure which side we believe just yet on this race, so we're keeping it in the No. 4 slot on the Line for another month. (Previous ranking: 4)

3. Missouri (R): Fundraising remains front and center in this contest between Gov. Matt Blunt (R) and state Attorney General Jay Nixon (D). After a mid-July decision by the Missouri Supreme Court that reinstated contribution limits for candidates for state office, the Missouri Ethics Commission followed up with a ruling earlier this week to send letters to the candidates to let them know they may be in violation of the law. A final decision on whether Blunt and Nixon will have to return contributions over the reinstated limits won't come until hearings are held on the matter. In the meantime, the two candidates are in limbo. Blunt has more -- literally -- to lose, as he would be forced to return nearly $4 million.; Nixon would have to give back a little more than $1 million. Blunt allies insist the governor is slowly-but-surely improving what was an admittedly poor political situation in 2006 and early 2007. The Blunt campaign recently passed along a poll that showed him trailing Nixon by 3 points -- not exactly a vote of confidence for the incumbent. (Previous ranking: 3)

(#2 and #1 were Louisiana and Kentucky, the '07 races I discussed at length in a previous blog.)

So Cillizza believes that Missouri is the one mostly likely to switch party control in '08, from Republican to Democrat. Indiana and Washington are races that are not yet competitive, but ones that Cillizza believes could become that way. In those races, one is held by a Democrat and the other by a Republican.

In sum, in 2007 it looks like we will trade-off and, in 2008, a possible net gain of one governor's seat right now.

Reid will move to block Olson if AG nominee

Majority Leader Harry Reid said today that Senate Democrats will block Ted Olson from succeeding Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General if President Bush nominates him:

"He's a partisan, and the last thing we need as an attorney general is a partisan," Reid, a Nevada Democrat, told Reuters in a brief hallway interview on Capitol Hill...

"Ted Olson will not be confirmed," Reid, D-Nev., said in a written statement. "I intend to do everything I can to prevent him from being confirmed as the next attorney general."

The comment gave weight to Republican warnings that Olson, a former solicitor general, would face brutal confirmation hearings and that the White House can't afford a fight now over who will head the troubled federal law enforcement agency.

"It would be unfortunate to nominate someone who can't be confirmed," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. and a member of the Judiciary Committee, said earlier in the day.

Ted Olson was Assistant Attorney General for President Reagan and defended him during the Iran-Contra affair. He was nominated to the Office of Solicitor General by President Bush in 2001 and was barely confirmed by the United States Senate, 51-47, after a long confirmation battle. He left in 2004 and was replaced by Paul Clement who is the current acting attorney general.

Olson would be a overtly partisan and spiteful pick. He was part of the infamous "Arkansas Project" which aimed to damage and end the presidency of Bill Clinton and represented Paula Jones in her sex harassment suit against President Clinton. In 2000, he represented George Bush in the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore, in which the Supreme Court handed Bush the presidency in a partisan, 5-4 decision.

Back in 2001, just two Democrats, Sens. Ben Nelson and the now departed Zell Miller, voted in favor of him as solicitor general. Democrats now control the Senate 51-49. But even if a few Democrats (or Lieberman) backed Olson, Reid could force a cloture vote and raise the same procedural roadblock requiring 60 votes that Republicans have used a lot this year to block Democratic legislation. So it seems pretty unlikely Olson would survive a confirmation battle, and that's if his nomination event gets voted out of committee.

Olson has apparently emerged as the favorite, but Bush has not yet made the final decision. Other possibilities include federal appeals Judge Laurence Silberman, former Deputy Attorneys General George Terwilliger III and Larry Thompson, and Paul Clement, the current solicitor general - all of whom stand a better chance of being confirmed. But if Bush doesn't nominate Olson, it will be because Senate Democrats oppose him.

Upcoming gubernatorial elections

Yes, there are some in November of this year, 2007. Currently, it looks like a Democrat will defeat a Republican incumbent in one race and a retiring Democratic governor will be replaced by a Republican in another.

First, the good news. In Kentucky, Democrat Steve Beshear is running 19 points ahead of the incredibly unpopular Republican Gov. Ernie Fletcher. Beshear has a 58-39 lead in the latest SUSA poll. This one is in the bag.

Now for the bad news. We're going to lose Lousiana. The current governor is Democrat Kathleen Blanco who barely won in 2003 and grew very unopular post-Hurricane Katrina. There was hope for a time when we thought popular former Sen. John Breaux would throw his hat in the ring, but he determined he couldn't adequately qualify for state residency. The main Republican candidate (LA elections are open-primary, so multiple Democratic and Republican candidates can all be on the same ballot) is popular U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal, who ran against Blanco in '03 whereas

Blanco, who was elected with 52% of the vote 2003 but whose approval ratings dropped sharply after what was perceived as her mishandling of Hurricane Katrina, has decided against running for reelection. In her place, former U.S. Senator John Breaux looks to be running. He left office in 2005 still very popular and can keep this race competitive. The main Republican candidate (elections in LA are open-primary so multiple Democratic and Republican candidates can run at the same time) is U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal, who is very popular in the state and is expected to win this time (he ran against Blanco in the close election of '03). There are two Democrats running (along with another insignificant Republican candidate), so the best case scenario is for them to get enough votes to keep Jindal under 50% and force a run-off election. Then, Jindal and the 2nd top vote getter (either one of the Dems) would be in a one-on-one match-up. A new poll has Jindal running at 51% currently, so it could happen (though 20% are undecided and some of those will likely vote for Jindal). However, in either scenario, Jindal will likely come out the next governor of Louisiana.

Oh well, a trade-off isn't too bad. LA has been trending Republican since Bush won it in 2000; a Democratic win in Kentucky could help us in next year's Senate race against Mitch McConnell.

On 9/11, Iraq, and the War on Terror

Today, the nation marked six years since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11^th, 2001 that killed nearly 3,000 Americans and left our country and the world shaken. The perpetrators were 19 (mostly Saudi) members of the Al Qaeda terrorist group lead by Osama Bin Laden who reappeared last week in another video (serving to remind us that he has not been caught and has reconstituted his organization in the tribal area of Waziristan).

After the attacks, the nation and the world (including the vast majority of Middle Easterners) stood behind the United States in a united front to root out and eliminate Al Qaeda from the globe. We invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban, who had harbored and allied themselves with Bin Laden. Unfortunately, this is where the battle against Al Qaeda ended. Bin Laden and his followers escaped to northwestern Pakistan and shifts in manpower and resources left an opening for Al Qaeda and a now resurgent Taliban to re-establish themselves.

The Bush administration had decided to focus its efforts on Iraq, a country which had been utterly broken by the Persian Gulf War and a decade of sanctions. Though Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party had remained in power (President George H.W. Bush and his then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney had deemed an occupation of Baghdad too risky a move), they represented a threat to only their own people and, indeed, had destroyed their weapons of mass destruction by 1994. The administration, however, insisted Iraq constituted a significant threat to the U.S. and was a part of the “war on terror,” despite internal protests from the intelligence community and military leaders. Because patriotic spirits were still high so soon after 9/11, the nation ultimately trusted President Bush was taking the right course of action.

The invasion was successful in swiftly toppling the Iraq government, but the occupation was not so easy. By failing to take into account the sectarian divisions that make up the British-created artificial state of Iraq and by failing to send enough troops, along with disbanding the Iraqi army, the groundwork was set for an insurgency and civil war that rages on as political reconciliation seems less and less likely. As the war continues on in its fifth year, troop casualties and civilian deaths continue to mount as the violence and chaos engulf the country. Even a troop “surge” has done nothing but escalate the conflict.

Unfortunately, there is no easy exit from the Iraq war. Worse still, the war has hurt the global war against terrorism by making it easier for Bin Laden to recruit new members as the standing of the U.S. in the Middle East and around the world has suffered greatly. Al Qaeda has now become more of a banner than a centralized organization (though both have unfortunately grown), making it that much more deadly and harder to destroy.

But it is not too late to turn the tide. By lowering our profile in Iraq and refocusing our troops and resources back into Afghanistan and along its border with Pakistan, we can counter Al Qaeda’s rise. Four and a half years after we took our eye off the ball by going into Iraq, we can once again pick up the fight against Bin Laden and his extremist followers.

If we do not, 9/11 will not be the last or worst attack perpetrated against the United States or around the world. We owe it to the innocents already lost to keep that from happening.

Poll: Americans continue to support Democratic view on Iraq

Despite talk of "progress" in Iraq from the White House and Republicans recently, a new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows wide public skepticism for the forthcoming report from General Petraeus:

Only about four in 10 said they expect the general to give an accurate accounting of the situation in Iraq. A majority, 53 percent, said they think his report will try to make the situation in Iraq look better than it really is.

While there was an increase in those that think the situation has improved, most don't think it is enough to matter:

Only about a third believed the United States is making significant progress toward restoring civil order in Iraq, most said the buildup has not made much difference, and a majority said they do not expect the troop increase to improve the security situation over the next few months. Just one-third were confident the Iraqi government can meet its political and security goals.

Furthermore, an unchanged majority from previous polls, 55 percent, support legislation that would set a deadline of next spring for the withdrawal of American combat forces. Overall, a new high of fifty-eight percent said they want to decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.

Most Democrats and independents also continue to believe Iraq is not important to the larger "war on terror" and has not contributed to U.S. security. The public trusts Democrats over Republicans to handle Iraq by an 11-point margin, but this is down from their highs in previous polls, likely because of their thus far failed attempts to force change in President Bush's war policy.

Beyond current policy, the war has clear implications for the 2008 presidential race. More than a third identified Iraq as the campaign's single most important issue. The war received nearly three times as many mentions as the next most frequently cited issue, health care, at 13 percent. Nearly half of Democrats called Iraq the single most important issue, as did a third of independents and 28 percent of Republicans.

Looks like Republicans of all kinds would rather this issue just go away.

UPDATE:

In the latest AP poll, "59 percent said they believe history will judge the Iraq war as a failure, including 28 percent who said it would be viewed as a complete failure. Asked if the U.S. made a mistake going to war in Iraq in 2003, 57 percent said yes, about the same number who said so in April."

According to the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, "a record 60% say the United States should set a timetable to withdraw forces 'and stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq.'" Asked about the testimony to be delivered by General Petraeus today, "53% of those surveyed say the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq will deliver 'a biased report that reflects what the Bush administration wants the public to believe.'"

The American people are firmly on the Democrats' side on this. Will they use the popular support they have to end the war?

Hagel to retire

2008 continues to look like a horrible, no good, very bad year for Republicans as we learn Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican of Nebraska, will announce in a press conference Monday that he will retire from the Senate and will seek no other office in 2008. According to the report, he has informed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of his decision.

Much like with Warner's retirement in Virginia, Nebraska is a major pick-up opportunity for Democrats if their top choice - former senator Bob Kerrey - decides to jump in the race. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns, a former two-term governor, is a possible Republican candidate for the Senate seat with state Attorney General Jon Bruning already in the GOP race. Kerrey left the Senate after two terms in 2001, but has recently expressed interest in running again if Hagel should retire and would be favored to win (as I said, much like with former governor Mark Warner in Virginia). Adding to the five already most endangered GOP seats next year, these two Democratic candidates getting in their respective races would greatly increase our chances of expanding into a solid majority that could override Republican obstructionism.

Sen. Hagel also now finds himself in a similar boat as retiring Virginia Sen. John Warner in regards to the Iraq war. Both have been frustrated with our lack of progress in Iraq, and Hagel recently sided with Democrats on withdrawal legislation. Warner has indicated he may do the same in future votes. Now that the 2008 elections are not an issue for them, they may push more strongly for a change of course from Bush's war policy.

No. 2 Dem in Senate says he won't support war funding without limits

Sen. Dick Durbin - the Majority Whip of the Senate - says he can "no longer vote for funding the war in Iraq unless restrictions are attached that would begin winding down American involvement there."

From the AP:

"This Congress can't give President (George W.) Bush another blank check for Iraq," said Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin, who has always opposed the war but until now voted to fund it.

"I can't support an open-ended appropriation which allows this president to continue this failed policy," he said in a speech at the left-leaning Center for National Policy.

Durbin, from Illinois, said he and Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin were working on limits that could be attached to the next war funding bill, such as limiting troops to conducting counterterrorism operations and training Iraqi security forces.

Sounds like what has been attempted before, but hopefully others will follow Durbin's lead on not voting for another supplemental with nothing attached.

However, Democrats are coming under fire from many in the blogosphere for seeking a "compromise" version of the next withdrawal bill, particularly Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for recent comments in support of this idea and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for allowing an upcoming vote on a non-binding measure that simply requires the Pentagon report on a plan to redeploy troops out of Iraq. Senator Chris Dodd, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, has already come out and said he will not vote for any bill without a date certain for completing redeployments. Likely many of his colleagues agree, as does the "Out of Iraq" caucus in the House.

But, I must ask, what is the point of putting up such legislation when it will be certainly filibustered or vetoed? It seems obvious to me that any legislation similar to the previous withdrawal bills will still pick up only a handful more Republican votes at best. Sen. Carl Levin's stated purpose in proposing a revised version of the Levin-Reed bill that would require troop withdrawals to begin but leave out a firm timetable for completion (just like what had been proposed by Rep. John Murtha a couple of months ago) is to get enough Republican votes so they can avoid a filibuster and, eventually anyway, a presidential veto. While it would not be ideal, such a bill would at least end the surge and bring some troops home for the time being.

Then, I believe, Democrats could safely prohibit the money for any future deployments of withdrawn troops (the crux of Feingold-Reed, essentially) without the political worries they have of doing so with troops currently in the field. Such a situation would be much more palatable, and thus politically doable, for the more hesitant Democrats and Republicans than simply cutting funding for the war right now (which there is obviously not anywhere near majority support for). So if we are looking at this situation pragmatically, it would seem to be that the new Levin-Reed bill makes the most sense at this point.

This is not to say I don't prefer a withdrawal bill like what has been passed before in Congress, but I don't see another retry that will have any impact on the war at all, given what happened back in May and the current political atmosphere (that is, Republicans aren't living up to predictions that they'd jump ship come September). The above scenario, even if it is not enough to bring the war to a close, at least has the possibility of getting a change of course in Iraq. In the end, isn't that what all this is about?

Perhaps my assessment is wrong, and if someone comes up with a better plan that achieves better results, I'd be happy to support it. But right now, I'm not seeing that from anyone.

Senate ups vet money, passes foreign aid bill that restricts cluster bombs, removes "global gag rule"

As part of a $34 billion measure funding foreign aid and U.S. diplomacy which the Senate passed yesterday by a 81-12 vote, provisions were included that forbid the transfer or sale of any cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than 1 percent that are responsible for many civilian deaths in war and also restrictions were lifted on family planning aid to overseas health organizations that perform abortions or promote the procedure as a method of family planning. The restrictions are from a Reagan-era executive order know as the "global gag rule" that was lifted by President Clinton only to reinstated by President Bush. Companion legislation passed the House in June, and the measure now heads to House-Senate negotiations over a final version. President Bush has threatened a veto, but the bill passed with a veto-proof majority.

Earlier Thursday, the Senate approved the Veterans Affairs Department's budget bill by a 92-1 vote with increases for medical care for veterans and construction at military bases. The bill rewards the VA with an almost 10 percent budget increase of $3.2 billion for its health care accounts next year, on top of $1.3 billion added for health care to the Iraq funding bill passed in May. Even though it breaks his budget by $4 billion, the White House has said President Bush will sign the bill as his earlier veto threat is unsustainable with the overwhelming margin of support.

Margaret Spellings to run for Texas governor? Kinky to run again as Democrat?

From U.S. News and World Report's "Washington Wispers" today:

If you think the presidential race takes too long, consider what's going on in Texas. Three years before the next governor's race, potential candidates are already dropping hints of getting in. The latest: Education Secretary Margaret Spellings. She's been toying with the idea ever since suggesting that she didn't plan to stay in the administration until its last day, Jan. 20, 2009. And now a blog that follows education—Eduwonk—has pushed that rumor out onto the Internet.

It's the talk in the Ed Department, where few aides are scrambling to shoot it down. She'd be a formidable candidate: Bush loves her, she's youthful and likable, and she's a major proponent of education programs from kindergarten to college. Of course, there are other political titans looking at running, including Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

And don't forget that popular Gov. Rick Perry, already in his second term, can run again.

I've no doubt that Gov. Perry will have some primary challengers if he chooses to run again and both Kay Bailey and Spellings would be very formidable ones.

On the Democratic side, perennial candidate John Sharp and Houston Mayor Bill White are early names being tossed around. And Kinky Friedman, who ran as an independent last time and got just 12% of the vote, has apparently decided to run again as a Democrat this time:

Kinky Friedman, the eccentric whose 2006 independent bid for Texas governor ended in fourth place, tells the AP he's considering another run in 2010, but this time as a Democrat.

Said Friedman: "I consider myself a Democrat in the mold of JFK, (former Texas Gov.) Ann Richards and (journalist) Molly Ivins."

Kinky thinks he would have won if he had run as a Democrat last time, but I don't think he would have survived the primary. He definitely won't this time. Many Democrats blame him for stealing votes from Bell. It's almost like if Ralph Nader ran for president as a Democrat. Thanks, but no thanks, Kinky.

Congress passes student loan bill that will become law

In what is the fourth major legislative victory for Democrats this year, the House and Senate today both approved with veto-proof margins a bill to cut federal loan interest rates and boost student aid by $20 billion.

Specifically, the bill will increase the maximum Pell grant, which goes to the poorest college students, from $4,310 a year to $5,400 a year by 2012 and will cut interest rates on federally backed student loans to poor and middle-class students from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over the next four years. The bill also sets up a loan-forgiveness program for college graduates who work for 10 years in public service professions, such teaching or nursing and caps annual payments for students at a percentage of their income.

President Bush had previously threatened a veto, but the White House said today he would sign it. The legislation will begin taking effect on October 1st.