U.S. Republican meets Assad day after contentious Pelosi visit

Sic 'em, Bush. And just watch all the wingers jump on Issa.

A visiting U.S. congressman held talks with President Bashar Assad Thursday, a day after a congressional delegation headed by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sparked controversy by meeting the Syrian leader.

U.S. President George W. Bush has rejected direct talks with Damascus and criticized Pelosi for her visit.

Commenting on Bush's criticism, California Republican Darrell Issa [said visiting Republican] said the president had failed to promote the necessary dialogue to resolve disagreements between the U.S. and Syria.

And that ignores the visit, reported in the WaPo on April 1.

U.S. House members meeting with President Bashar Assad Sunday said they believed there was an opportunity for dialogue with the Syrian leadership.

The U.S. House members, who included Virginia Republican Frank Wolf, Pennsylvania Republican Joe Pitts and Alabama Republican Robert Aderholt, also said they had raised with Syrian officials the issue of stopping the alleged flow of foreign fighters from Syria to Iraq.

April 1 would of course be before Pelosi's visit. Hmmm.

Such hypocrisy on Bush's part is to be expected. Such hypocrisy on the winger's part is to be expected. So why am I posting about this? Its just business as usual, right?

MoveOn moves in with Pelosi

Sometimes it can be ridiculously difficult to ignore the siren's song. Perhaps MoveOn has found it impossible?

When Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org, looks at the Iraq spending bill that Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders are rallying to pass today, what he sees is a way to end the war. The bill commits $124 billion to fund operations in Iraq, but it calls for removal of American combat troops by the summer of 2008. The plan is not perfect, Pariser concedes. It does not require complete withdrawal. Still, this week, MoveOn signed on to Pelosi's supplemental funding bill, citing a poll of its members showing overwhelming support of the idea.

MoveOn's longtime allies in the antiwar movement, however, look at the bill -- and MoveOn's support for it -- and see something very different. Groups who call for immediate withdrawal argue that MoveOn's position is a betrayal of their cause, and that Pelosi's bill merely continues the war while allowing Democrats to say they've done something to oppose it. Cindy Sheehan, the "peace mom" who favors immediate withdrawal, describes MoveOn as supporting "the slow-bleed strategy of the Democratic leadership." Gail Murphy, of the group CodePink, says, "MoveOn has taken a compromised position -- in fact I think they were involved behind the scenes in creating a compromised position." Other peace activists call MoveOn's e-mail poll of its membership a sham. If MoveOn's millions of members knew the full details of the bill, they would surely oppose it.

And for Christ's sake, Cindy, quit spouting Cheney's talking point of "slow-bleed strategy". We aren't for that, never were and you know it. Don't feed the fire by perpetuating that terminology.

(read more) (registration required at Salon)

H/T Booman Tribune.

Bush seeks 8,200 more troops for wars

What's truly sad about this is Bush and probably the Dems view this as a cost thing. It is a cost thing, but it isn't about the money, its about the lives of our military people.

And as Bush continues to float in his own little bubble he seems unaware he is asking for resources the military just doesn't have.

President Bush asked Congress on Saturday for $3.2 billion to pay for 8,200 more U.S. troops needed in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of the 21,500-troop buildup he announced in January.

Bush wants Congress to fund 3,500 new U.S. troops to expand training of local police and army units in Afghanistan. The money also would pay for the estimated 3,500 existing U.S. troops he already announced would be staying longer in the region to counter an anticipated Taliban offensive in Afghanistan this spring.

In Iraq, most of the additional troops would help with the latest Baghdad security plan, which is getting under way in the capital. The money would pay for 2,400 combat support troops, 2,200 military police forces and 129 troops for reconstruction teams.

The budget revisions come as many lawmakers opposed to the buildup in Iraq are debating funding for the war. But in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Bush proposed canceling $3.2 billion in low-priority defense items to offset the extra money needed to support the additional troops.

And this at the same time the Pentagon Struggles to Find Fresh Troops

Military leaders are struggling to choose Army units to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan longer or go there earlier than planned, but five years of war have made fresh troops harder to find.

Faced with a military buildup in Iraq that could drag into next year, Pentagon officials are trying to identify enough units to keep up to 20 brigade combat teams in Iraq. A brigade usually has about 3,500 troops.

The likely result will be extending the deployments of brigades scheduled to come home at the end of the summer, and sending others earlier than scheduled.

Final decisions _ which have not yet been made _ would come as Congress is considering ways to force President Bush to wind down the war, despite his vow that he would veto such legislation.

In the freshest indication of the relentless demands for troops in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, commander of coalition forces in the north, told reporters Friday that his troops have picked up the pace of their attacks on the enemy in Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad.

"Could I use more forces? No question about it," Mixon said, adding that he had asked for more.

(pic via Shakespeare's Sister)

Pelosi: Bush lacks power to invade Iran

Finally! Pelosi and Murtha are asserting themselves.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that
President Bush lacks the authority to invade Iran without specific approval from Congress, a fresh challenge to the commander in chief on the eve of a symbolic vote critical of his troop buildup in Iraq.

Pelosi, D-Calif., noted that Bush consistently said he supports a diplomatic resolution to differences with Iran "and I take him at his word."

At the same time, she said, "I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."

Pelosi spoke in an interview in the Capitol as lawmakers plowed through a third day of marathon debate in the House on a nonbinding measure opposing the administration's plan to increase troop strength in Iraq — and as Democrats readied a more provocative challenge to the president.

That included drafting legislation to require the Pentagon to meet certain standards for training and equipping the troops, as well fixing the time that military units must be given at home between deployments. "That stops the surge (in troops) for all intents and purposes, because ......they cannot sustain the deployment," said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, who said he would attach the conditions to legislation providing nearly $100 billion for the military.

BTW, I hate that headline. That's a challenge to Bush to go ahead. I hope this is an anomaly and other news outlets won't use such phrasing.

(read more)

Preparing for failure on SURGE™

Could this be thought of as a self-fulfilling prophecy or just monumental skepticism?

Deep within the bowels of the Pentagon, policy planners are conducting secret meetings to discuss what to do in the worst-case scenario in Iraq about a year from today if and when President Bush's escalation of more than 20,000 troops fails, a participant in those discussions told me. None of those who are taking part in these exercises, shielded from the public view and the immediate scrutiny of the White House, believes that the so-called surge will succeed. On the contrary, everyone thinks it will not only fail to achieve its aims but also accelerate instability by providing a glaring example of US incapacity and incompetence.

The profoundly pessimistic thinking that permeates the senior military and the intelligence community, however, is forbidden in the sanitized atmosphere of mind-cure boosterism that surrounds Bush. "He's tried this two times - it's failed twice," speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi said on January 24 about the "surge" tactic. "I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?' And he said, 'Because I told them it had to.'" She repeated his words: "'I told them that they had to.' That was the end of it. That's the way it is."

Of course the SURGE™ will fail. That's precisely the reason it should be stopped before it happens. Telling the military it has to work is hardly useful. Its nothing more than wishful thinking and that's a hell of a poor way to conduct foreign policy.

(read more)

Will this kill the Pelosi Plane issue?

It would have been nice had this guy written his letter a little faster. That particular gem was booted around almost long enough to become an urban legend.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not request a larger plane for personal use to travel cross-country without stopping, Bill Livingood, the House sergeant at arms, said Thursday.

Livingood said the request was his, and he made it for security reasons.

"The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable," Livingood, who has been at his post for 11 years, said in a written statement.

(read more)