This election is going to be decided primarily on the war in Iraq. It seems most Americans are either fed up, angry, or just want the whole mess to go away. It won't go away, it is a mess and all the Republican pundits in the world aren't going to sell this endless civil war. The President, Vice-President, Republican candidates, Congress people, Senators can't sell the endless dead and wounded. They can't even sell it to the military and then they call the soldiers phony. The response to Rush has come from the field

Apparently anyone in the military is above criticism as long as they agree with Rush's brave belief that we should be in Iraq "as long as it takes." And I use the term 'we' loosely, as I believe the closest Rush has ever gotten to combat was watching We Were Soldiers with surround sound.

Please link to this blog because the pictures and captions are very good. What is not being taken into account in this war is the military viewpoint. There are a number of retired generals who have spoken out, many who lead our troops in Iraq. There are large numbers of soldiers serving in Iraq who are speaking out. These are brave, honorable soldiers serving their country, doing the best they can, being labeled as phony. Don't take my word for it, but take theirs.

Enough is enough. Those who want our youth to fight their war should not be labeling those they send as phony (especially when they got a deferment for ingrown hair-really that's what Rush did). We can and must get out of Iraq even if it takes a year. Start somewhere.

More details are emerging from the investigation into Blackwater's role in the deaths of over 20 civilians in Iraq on September 16. According to the New York Times, American investigators have learned that the incident began when a bomb went off near a meeting of U.S. officials. What followed was a chaotic, poorly managed evacuation, in which Blackwater employees fired upon anything in their path. That included a woman and her infant, who were among those killed.

As many commentators have noted, one disturbing thing about farming out security in a war is the lack of accountability that private companies face. Witness the follow-through on recent threats by the Iraqi government to kick Blackwater out of Iraq. Outsourcing war, while filling in troop gaps, has disturbing consequences.

On the surface, it would seem that the firms and the U.S. military would be working toward the same end: to secure the country. Yet, as we've seen with Halliburton, these private companies are not beyond overcharging and fraud. And, as Robert Gates pointed out earlier this week, we have big problem with losing highly trained soldiers to companies like Blackwater. Why? Money.

Yes, the war is a huge windfall to select group of private companies. When it comes to loyalty, our military is a direct representation of the United States government, yet private security firms work for the highest bidder. That may mean a Sunni sheik one day, and a resurgent Shia politician the next. By every Pentagon calculation, the longer the war drags on, the fewer troops we'll be able to rotate into the country. Therefore, we will become increasingly reliant on contractors like Blackwater in the coming year. That means, of course, that those companies stand to make a lot more money from a protracted war. What was that Doobie Brothers refrain? "Old black water, keep on rollin."

A few hours before last night's Democratic Presidential Debate in New Hampshire, the Senate overwhelmingly passed Joe Biden's non-binding resolution declaring that Iraq should be divided into three separate regions. The Hill newspaper is calling it a major boost to Joe Biden's campaign for the Vice-Presidency (oops, Presidency), but it's only a boost to those who don't understand: 1) that being non-binding it's meaningless; 2) it can't be implemented, so it's meaningless; and 3) if it ever were to happen it would plunge the region into a more serious war, so it's dangerous in addition to being meaningless.

There is an argument to be made that not only Iraq, but the entire nation structure of the Middle East, was botched when it was originally set up by the Allies after World War I. (For an excellent accounting of how the modern Middle East was created, I encourage anyone who is interested to read David Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace - it will astound you.) But we have to deal with the countries as they exist today, imperfect as they are. If we were to separate Iraq into more autonomous regions, the time to have done it would have been when we were occupiers. Now we're not - the Iraqi Government (another imperfect entity) is in control. So Biden's about four years too late for this suggestion to be meaningful.

But it raises a good point. Why didn't we do this in the first place, as people like Rich Lowry of National Review was suggesting at the time? I believe that it's because it would have created, almost immediately, a larger regional war. Turkey would have tried to claim the Kurdish north, at the same time the Turkish Kurds would attempt to secede from Turkey to create an independent Kurdistan. Iran would have moved to claim the Shiite south. And the Sunni middle would have been ripe pickings - they'd control Baghdad and Tikrit, but would have little natural resource wealth. Eventually, the Shia/Iran south would attack the Sunni middle to enact revenge for what the Sunnis did to the Shia during Saddam's reign. We'd be in the middle of all of it.

Thankfully, that is not going to happen. The article in The Hill does have a good quote from a Republican aide which shows just how empty Biden's victory was:

One GOP aide went further, saying that most Republicans decided against opposing Biden's plan after revisions made clear that it would not force any decisions on Baghdad. "What is the Iraqi government going to do [in response]? Say, 'thanks for the input, but we're fine'?" the aide said. The aide described Republicans' perspective as: "This doesn't really do anything, and why not let [Democrats] have it, for practical reasons."

Considering what we've been talking about this is probably the most significant story from the latest Democratic Debate held last night. None of the top three candidates, apparently, will guarantee an Iraq exit should they be elected:

Obama: "I think it's hard to project four years from now."

Clinton: "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting."

Edwards: "I cannot make that commitment."

Richardson, Dodd, Biden and the others did step up to make a commitment, but I find it the weasel wording here very telling. We're not leaving Iraq, not for a long time. It does not matter who is in the White House. The circumstances in the Middle East will essentially force their hand. An Iraq that devolves into a stateless area like Somalia would be a disaster for everyone in the region, and us as well. So it's not going to happen.

This doesn't mean that the Democrats won't continue to wax rhetorical about how Bush needs to start the withdrawal. Why not take him and the Republicans down a few notches? It's an easy target. But as far as doing the practical things to force a withdrawal? As everyone can see with their own eyes, the Democrats have had the majority for nine months now and it hasn't happened yet. The leading candidates won't commit. Connect the dots.

Joe Biden, former plagiarist and Senator from the not-so-great, yet first state of Delaware has succeeded in accomplishing nothing and is elated about doing so:

In a strong rebuff to the Bush Administration on Iraq, the Senate overwhelming approved a plan by Biden that essentially calls for breaking Iraq into three sections: Kurd, Sunni, and Shia. While the amendment is nonbinding, it's the first measure to pass, (vote was 75-23,) that goes against the administration's war strategy.

Biden's chief co-sponsor was Brownback. Fellow candidates Clinton and Dodd also supported the plan. Obama and McCain did not vote. (bolding in original)

Wow, I'll be beating a path to the Biden for President headquarters in the morning. I'm entirely sure that President Bush felt "rebuffed" by this huge victory that is er, nonbinding. It's good to know that fellow candidates Hillary, Chris Dodd and Sam Brownback aided in passing this momentous bill that actually means nothing. It's a microcosm of the new Democratic Senate, is it not? Ineffectual, meaningless and proud of it as is made entirely too evident by this statement:

Republican Senator John Warner, instrumental and influential in almost all things related to Iraq, called the vote an "extraordinary moment because it marks the high-water mark of all the many debates and resolutions we've had in terms of bipartisanship."

The high-water mark? Bipartisanship? Jeez, the "influential" Senator is crowing about a nonbinding resolution that will have no effect on anything.

I have less faith in both sides of the Senate than I did just five minutes ago. Please tell me this is satire on MSNBC. Please tell me that correspondent Domenico Montanaro is really John Stewart and this whole thing is make believe.

Sadly, I fear it's not and with the day MSNBC has been having, this is probably the highlight of Dan Abrams day.

France has been making some serious noise about military action against Iran to prevent their developing, possessing and using a nuclear warhead. The rhetoric almost makes the French sound manly but until they actually fight I'll withhold judgment. They've backed off the talk recently but still sound as if they have at least half estrogen and half testosterone coursing through their foie gras clogged arteries, which is a huge improvement from when Chirac was at the helm.

Anyway, back when the US invaded Iraq, the liberals and assorted other inane folks on the left screamed that we were acting "unilaterally" even though we had numerous nations allied with us including, but not limited to: Spain, Britain, Australia, Poland, Honduras, Nicaragua, Ukraine and Japan. The hand-wringers always said that France wasn't involved so it wasn't really a coalition and didn't give damn that they were disparaging those who actually were allied with us in liberating Mesopotamia.

Well now that the French seem to have morphed into a testosterone-fueled beast ready to take on the mad Mullahs, will those who called our coalition a sham support an invasion? Even though it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Chirac was protecting cronies who were working in concert with Saddam to enrich themselves and didn't want the Oil for Food spigot turned off, they still screamed that idiotic unilateral screed. Will those wretched folks now support an invasion of Iran because the French do? I guess we'll soon see.

Iran is a major problem, they are fighting us in a proxy war in Iraq as is Syria. Should they get nukes, the Straits of Hormuz will be a constant battleground and we'll have to invade to keep it open as a huge amount of oil flows through that thin body of water. The fact that the French are rattling, well maybe not sabers but silverware is a testament to just how important this issue is.

According to Rasmussen:

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 58% disapproved. Those figures include 12% who Strongly Approve and 42% who Strongly Disapprove.Self-identified liberals were evenly divided-45% approve and 39% disapprove. However, only 19% of moderate voters approve while 62% disapprove.

Forty-seven percent (47%) of all adults say that "stunts like the MoveOn.org ad" hurt the cause they believe in. Only 12% believe they help the cause while 17% say there is no impact. Twenty-four percent (24%) are not sure. Again, political liberals are divided with 27% saying they help and 32% taking the opposite view. Fifty percent (50%) of moderates and 57% of conservatives say that these sorts of events hurt the cause the group is trying to promote.

Of course this seriously smacks of all the polls on negative political ads. The ones where folks are asked how much they hate negative ads, and they say "A lot!". But they listen to them and vote according to negative ads anyway.

HT to Captains Quarters who had this to say:

It's an amazing sweep. MoveOn managed to unite most of the country -- against MoveOn. Eli Pariser planned on making this into a series of ads, but he'd do better by burying the Betray Us theme and hope everyone forgets about it -- and quickly

Let's recap, it did absolutely nothing to help Democrats on Iraq, or to stop the war, but it did embarrass a lot of Democratic candidates who were put in a tight spot of having to renounce the organization that has been a major source of funds. Well done!

I received several comments to this post expressing disagreement with my definition of a Neocon. I find it amusing that those on the political left throw the word Neocon around without having even an iota of a clue what one is. I know -- as does most of the country -- what a Liberal is and use it accordingly when describing those that subscribe to that once-proud tenet. That word to has been bastardized and forces one to clarify it with Paleo-Liberal as it applies to folks like Christopher Hitchens, who seems astounded at times what has happened to the ideology that he espoused. The Neo-Liberals are those who believe in the ideology of Kos, MyDD and others on the left side of the blogosphere who have changed the ideals through a perverse pretzel logic. They've taken the liberalism of Truman, FDR and Kennedy and made it the anti-American, anti-military and pro-despotic belief system we see represented by the aforementioned on a daily basis. To prove my point, read this vomit-inducing, puppy dog love letter written to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at DKos penned by a "lesbian Jew" who admits that the Iranian leadership would probably "have her killed" but hey, he's better than George W. Bush (in case Kos actually gets some sense and deletes it, it's available here).

Anyway, what is a Neocon? A Neocon is someone who once believed in liberalism and were in fact themselves Liberals. They saw what happened to the liberal movement and went to the right realizing that the liberal mindset they once believed was replaced by the anti's I described above. Neocon see theocracy and despotism and believe that American might and will should crush it. When homosexuals are stoned to death or raped women are sentenced to death by Shariah courts, the greatest country in the world should step in. We also believe that democracy is in fact paramount when it comes to social and religious freedom. Anyone who has read me on any type of regular basis knows that I am a centrist on many social issues. They further know that I am not an "Evangelical" or even a practicing Christian, although I am a Christian. For a great example of what Neoconservatism is not, here's a highly simplistic, inane description that was written by someone with less than a grammar school education.

Let's explode one or two myths about Neocon thinking, shall we?

Hillary Clinton spent some time on Fox News Sunday and told us that she would rather not be talking about MoveOn.org:

WALLACE: Senator, you have refused to criticize the MoveOn.org ad about General Petraeus. And in fact, this week you voted against a Senate resolution denouncing it.

President Bush said that you and other Democrats are more afraid - his word - afraid of irritating the left wing and MoveOn than you are about insulting the American military. Does he have a point?

H. CLINTON: No, he doesn't. But I think it's clear I don't condone attacks on anyone who has served our country with distinction and with honor, and I have been very vocal in my support of and admiration for General Petraeus.

I did vote for a resolution that made it clear I do not condone and do condemn attacks on any American, impugning their patriotism, and that includes people like Senator Max Cleland and Senator John Kerry.

I think we need to call a halt to any kind of attacks, from wherever they come, that would go after anyone based on their service to America.

Pretty standard so far, but at this point she does a perfectly disciplined Jane Hamsher pivot and attack.

But you know, this is not a debate about an ad. This is a debate about how we end the war in Iraq. That's the debate that I want to be participating in, and I think a lot of people on the other side don't want us to have that debate.

Nicely done!

The latest numbers on Iraq will give even a hardened economic analyst like Alan Greenspan a panic attack.

The war is costing $720 million a day or $500,000a minute, according to the group's analysis of the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes. The estimates made by the group, which opposes the conflict, include not only the immediate costs of war but also ongoing factors such as long-term health care for veterans, interest on debt and replacement of military hardware.

This is known as full-cost accounting which is what the IRS does when it says it costs 40 cents a mile to operate a typical car. This is what it is costing to run this war all piled on an already bloated national deficit that is becoming untenable. Like a sub-prime mortgage gone bust, we can't even afford the interest on the national debt. This war, which the leading Republican candidates fully support as a permanent war, coupled with Bush's fiscal insanity, has rendered our country the debtor nation of all time. We're in hock up to and including the White House.

This war, which is decimating the military, leaving tens of thousands of our youth crippled for life has already cost almost a trillion dollars. $720 million a day. What could we be doing?

The money spent on one day of the Iraq war could buy homes for almost 6,500 families or health care for 423,529 children, or could outfit 1.27 million homes with renewable electricity

That's just a start. It's a question of priorities and what safety really means. Ask yourself: would we be safer if we had not invaded and occupied Iraq for the past 4.5 years? If we had supported the UN instead of going it alone and invaded would we be spending our treasure and youth today? Perhaps O.J., Britney, and the other celeb trash would be alone in the headlines and we could be building a better country.

I originally wrote about Blackwater back in April, "Outsourcing the War: Blackwater USA". Based on the comments I received at the time, no one seemed to have a big problem with these mercenaries (versus loyal Americans willing to fight for $30,000 a month) operating below the horizon in Iraq (and New Orleans, post-Katrina) . Fast forward five months....

Blackwater is now being investigated by just about everybody for this, that and the other thing. Little things like selling arms to terrorists (as in our weapons, traced through serial numbers, ending up in the hands of terrorists in the Middle East).

One could make a good argument that they were simply doing their job when they killed the 11 (or 20) Iraqi terrorists (or civilians) after the State Department convoy they were guarding (under their lucrative 3/4 billion dollar contract with the U.S. State Department) was attacked. I've heard people say that by definition, our volunteer army is, in fact, a mercenary army. I know or know of many military people, those who have chosen to devote their careers to serving their country, like my brother, and those who volunteered to serve after 9/11 out of patriotism, the sons and daughters and husbands and wives of people I know. Not one of them is in it for the money.

The Iraqi government has said as many as 20 civilians were killed by gunfire from Blackwater USA contractors who were guarding a U.S. diplomatic convoy. Iraqi officials dispute the U.S. claim that the guards were responding to an attack. The Blackwater employees involved in the incident are still in Iraq, but those who fired weapons -- about a third of the guards -- were "standing down," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

Outside experts may be brought in to help review the "protective service details" in Baghdad, McCormack said. Such details usually have 15 to 20 guards. The "full, complete review" would look at rules of engagement and overall operations, with consultation with lawyers over what authority contractors operate under, he said.

Sunday's shooting has created new tension between the U.S. and Iraqi governments. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed regret about the incident in a phone call to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and promised an open and transparent probe into what happened.

The problem with outsourcing government services is that private firms are in business to make money, not serve the greater good. When billions of dollars are being loosely thrown at no-bid contracts (those would be our tax dollars at work, thank you) that will be administered by private firms whose only purpose in life is to make a profit, contracts awarded without competitive bidding, without any oversight afterward or accountability by or to the American people, the end result is pretty much predictable.

As an aside, one could also make a comment about how safe conditions have become in Iraq since the surge was implemented. Just a stroll in an Indiana open marketplace. Not only were Blackwater operations suspended after this incident, but all non-military personnel were forbidden to leave the so-called "safe" Green Zone. As of Saturday, all Blackwater "services" have been resumed, so it is now okay for our congressional delegations to venture out so they can return home to tell us how wonderful everything is over there.

"The Baghdad of today is different from the Baghdad of yesterday."

So were the words of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon after a meeting in New York where the two discussed a possible future role for the UN in Iraq as a means to aid economic and political reforms. The Washington Times reports that al-Maliki has assured the Secretary-General that Iraqi Security Forces will be more than capable of protecting UN Delegates while in Baghdad citing that levels of violence in the city have decreased.

To be sure, political reconciliation remains the most difficult goal to be achieved and the UN's ability to be successful in a role designed to facilitate reconciliation can be somewhat questionable. (The United Nations has not proved itself very successful on a number of issues in recent years) However, it is still a very positive area of contention to note levels of violence in Baghdad have reduced greatly. If anything could be pointed at as being the major obstacle impeding political reconciliation it would be the violence in the capital. Hopefully, as the violence diminishes – along with political corruption in the Iraqi government – the goals of stability are attainable.

It's apparently a slow news day because the wire services are trying to manufacture a controversy:

In a speech defending his administration's Iraq policy, Bush said former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's brutality had made it impossible for a unifying leader to emerge and stop the sectarian violence that has engulfed the Middle Eastern nation.

"I heard somebody say, Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas," Bush, who has a reputation for verbal faux pas, said in a press conference in Washington on Thursday.

So it's not the most artful way to get the point across, but Warner Houston at Newsbusters makes it clear that Bush was using Mandela as a stand in for a generic peacemaker, and not saying anything specific about Mandela himself or his current body temperature.

Could it be any more obvious that Bush is saying that there aren't any Iraqis filling the same sort of role in Iraq that Nelson Mandela filled in South Africa? Could it be any more clear that Bush was saying that Saddam "killed all the Mandelas" of Iraq?

Another Iraq withdrawal proposal has failed in the Senate due to the fact that it lacked the required number of votes necessary for moving it forward. The vote was a plan that would begin to move a significant number of troops home from the region within 9 months. According to the Washington Times, the failure of the bill marks a very bad week for Democrats as they were unable to press forward with their anti-war platform leaving them somewhat stymied. The bill was stalled at 47 -47. The votes were basically on party lines although Republicans were joined by Joseph Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor and Christopher Dodd. (Dodd, a presidential candidate, wants nothing less than rapid de-funding of the war) Democrats were joined by GOP members Olympia Snowe, Gordon Smith and Chuck Hagel. It would require 60 votes (two thirds majority) in order to break a Republican filibuster. It does not seem likely that mustering 60 votes on any anti-war legislation will be possible unless more and more Republicans join the fold.

It does not seem that this type of gridlock will change unless the violence security levels in Iraq get worse or there are decided political failures or deterioration in the Iraqi government. So, for the foreseeable future the Democratic leadership in Congress can do very little to end the war.

Republican Senator John Cornyn offered a Sense of the Senate Resolution this afternoon, requiring a three fifths majority, decrying the personal attacks that we've witnessed over the past two weeks on General Petraeus and his troops' integrity. As General Petraeus was confirmed to his position as head of Multinational Forces in Iraq unanimously by this same august body, one would assume that this resolution would also be unanimous, or close to it. Especially when you read the entire text:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

That's it. No hidden language, nobody specifically mentioned. Just 47 words. A good time for the Senate to unite in a bipartisan way in support for the commanding General currently in combat in Iraq. It passed, 72 to 25, with three Not Voting. The "Nays" consisted of 24 Democrats and 1 Independent. The 3 "Not Voting" were all Democrats.

NAYs ---25 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Clinton (D-NY) Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Levin (D-MI) Menendez (D-NJ) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 3 Biden (D-DE) Cantwell (D-WA) Obama (D-IL)

Ah, true profiles in courage. Well, at least the troops know who their friends are - who has their back up on the Hill. And al Qaida knows who their friends are, as well.