Opponents of the president's desire to keep a substantial number of troops in harm's way in Iraq (much less to increase their numbers) have differed in their proposals to bring the troops home. Sen. Russ Feingold began a hearing today before the Senate Judiciary Committee, entitled "Exercising Congress’s Constitutional Power to End a War," with this statement, in which he calls upon the legislature to exercise its power to defund the war.

Excerts:

Tomorrow, I will introduce legislation that will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a specific deadline, Congress can force the President to bring our forces out of Iraq and out of harm’s way. ...

We are here to find out from [expert witnesses] not what Congress should do, but what Congress can do. Ultimately, it rests with Congress to decide whether to use its constitutional powers to end the war.

The answer should be clear. Since the President is adamant about pursuing his failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to stand up and use its power to stop him. If Congress doesn’t stop this war, it’s not because it doesn’t have the power. It’s because it doesn’t have the will.

The war isn't in Vietnam, and it isn't 1967. But a bad war and bad government have again engendered protest. Some of the faces are familiar, although the slogans have been updated.

Tens of thousands of anti-war protesters, energized by fresh congressional skepticism about the war in Iraq, were demanding a withdrawal of U.S. troops in a demonstration Saturday featuring a handful of celebrities such as Jane Fonda and Susan Sarandon. ...

Other demonstrators on a clear, sunny day carried signs to the National Mall that said "Make hip-hop not War," "The surge is a lie," and "Clean water speaks louder than bombs."

Not that the president will notice ... or care.

Council for a Livable World has put together a compendium, with links, of the various bills introduced in Congress seeking to limit President Bush's plan to increase troops in Iraq.

Think Progress reports that Sen. John Warner will introduce his legislation opposing the troop increase today.

The American Constitution Society has Streaming video of a panel discussion of Congressional power to limit the President's ability to escalate the Iraq War.

More troops, more death. The BBC reports:

More than 3,000 US troops have arrived in Baghdad, the first deployment of extra forces promised for the Iraqi capital by US President George W Bush.

As the deployment began, the US military said four soldiers and one marine had been killed in the restive western province of Anbar.

It took to 25 the number of US deaths in Iraq on Saturday - one of the worst days for US troops since the invasion.

David Ignatius has a remarkable quote in his column today:

"Over the years, he got tired of suffering fools," says one longtime Cheney friend. "He thinks it's all BS."

BS? I'll show you some BS:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.

You want BS? Here is some BS:

(Videotape, March 16, 2003):

MR. RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree, yes. And you’ll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community, disagree.

And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong.

More?

VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

More?

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. . . . We learned . . . that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s . .

More?

(Videotape, March 16, 2003):

MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.

More?

[September 14, 2003] I still remain convinced that the judgment that we’ll need “several hundred thousand for several years” is not valid.

More BS:

I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

And the piece de resistance:

[Iraq] will be an enormous success story.

I think the whole country is tired of the damned fools that pretend to run it - the worst Administration in history.

Huh?:

Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq, said today that the additional troops being sent to Iraq could begin to be withdrawn by late summer if security conditions improve in Baghdad. “I believe the projections are late summer,” General Casey said, adding, “I think it’s probably going to be late summer before you get to the point where people in Baghdad feel safe in their neighborhoods.”

Ah. IF security conditions improve. Well, since they won't, that means when pigs fly. Casey has played this game before:

Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early [2006].

Come to think of it, BushCo has been promising withdrawal since 2003:

According to a March 3, 2003, CNN report, "Rumsfeld said the post-war troop commitment would be less than the number of troops required to win the war. He also said 'the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces, I think, is far from the mark.'" Specifically, Pentagon officials announced a plan in the weeks following the fall of Baghdad to lower U.S. troop levels in Iraq to 30,000 by the fall of 2003.

The worst Administration in history.

Barack Obama will propose legislation on Iraq:

It now falls on Congress to find a way to support our troops in the field while still preventing the President from multiplying his previous mistakes. That is why I not only favor capping the number U.S. troops in Iraq, but believe it’s imperative that we begin the phased redeployment I called for two months ago, and intend to introduce legislation that does just that.”

The thrust of Obama's statement is good. Indeed, the emphasis on withdrawal is exactly right. But Obama falls into the trap of believing the Congress can order withdrawal, phased or immediate. As I wrote a week ago:

The bottom line is clear. WHETHER the United States enters war or CONTINUES at war is the exclusive decision of the Congress. Bt the CONDUCT of that specific war, subject to Congress power of military rulemaking (on torture, the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions, etc.), belongs exclusively to the President. The Congress' power here seems clear to me. IT can END the Iraq war. But it can not dictate how it is conducted on military questions. That power belongs to the President.

My plan is this:

[T]o set a date when funding ends, say October 30, 2007. Announce it NOW. Vote on it NOW. Then it is up to Bush to have the troops out by then. If he does not, then he is the one endangering the troops. He has 9 months to get them out. This is the only policy and plan left. And it is good politics. The American People will support such an action. In fact, I bet at least a third of Republicans in the House and Senate vote for it.

Lawrence Korb slices Reuel Gerecht into little pieces at TNR:

I applaud your work on the consequences of failure in Iraq. It is good that, after four years, conservatives have finally started thinking about the implications of failure in Iraq. But critics of the war don't need to be lectured on the consequences of failure. We have understood the consequences of failure from the beginning, and many of us opposed the invasion on these very grounds. We were aware that, as Ray Takeyh and Nikolas Gvosdev note, Iraq was "an incongruous collection of sectarian groups cobbled together by the British Empire and then sustained by Sunni terror"--and that an American invasion "has irrevocably unraveled that arrangement." As a result, the empowered Shia, the embittered Sunnis, and the secessionist Kurds would have little incentive or desire to cede power to their foes.

It's ironic that, when you describe the consequences of failure, you are describing the present, not the future. We are witnessing the consequences of failure right now in Iraq. Today, Iraq is immersed in a deep sectarian civil war (sorry, Reuel, it is what it is), where 7 percent of the country has fled (Jordan estimates that there are more than 750,000 Iraqis now in Amman and that about one million have fled to Damascus), millions more have been internally displaced, sectarian militias and death squads roam the streets, more than 100 Americans and many thousands of Iraqis are being killed each month, and our ground forces are being degraded to the point where we lack a realistic deterrent against countries like North Korea and Iran.

Ouch. More.

Chris Dodd proposed legislation imposing a cap on troop levels in Iraq:

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) announced legislation today capping the number of troops in Iraq at roughly 130,000, saying that lawmakers should take an up-or-down vote on President Bush's plan to send additional troops to the country and not settle for the non-binding resolution several Senate leaders prefer.

Well, I do not think this is Constitutional or practical. I also do not think it is good politics or policy.

Kevin Drum gets this one right:

[T]hese moves by Dodd and Clinton actually strike me as the worst of all possible worlds. Legislation to get us out of Iraq would be a fine idea. Legislation to reinstitute the draft and send 200,000 more troops to Iraq would be a horrible idea, but would at least have some internal consistency. But legislation that essentially locks in place the status quo? That really makes no sense at all. If there's anything we can be absolutely sure of, it's the fact that the status quo isn't working. Democrats should either go the political route and pass a nonbinding resolution, or they should pull up their socks and support legislation that defunds the war and sets a timetable for withdrawal. There's really no way to triangulate out of this.

For those who wonder, my plan is to set a date when funding ends, say October 30, 2007. Announce it NOW. Vote on it NOW. Then it is up to Bush to have the troops out by then. If he does not, then he is the one endangering the troops. He has 9 months to get them out.

This is the only policy and plan left. And it is good politics. The American People will support such an action. In fact, I bet at least a third of Republicans in the House and Senate vote for it.

Kevin Drum asks:

Question: [Re:] the primary critique among the anti-war left, has the Iraq war vindicated them?

Well, my quick answer as to my primary critque of the Iraq Debacle is - for the same reasons Bush pere did not go to Baghdad at the end of Desert Storm. But my long answer relies on the Congressional testimony of General Wesley Clark in September 2002:

GEN. CLARK: I've been concerned that the attention on Iraq will distract us from what we're doing with respect to al Qaeda. . . . I think, as a minimum, that when one opens up another campaign, there is a diversion of effort. The question is whether the diversion of effort is productive or counterproductive. I really -- it's -- there are forces operating in both directions at this point. You can make the argument, as General Shalikashvili did, that you want to cut off all sources of supply. Problem with that argument is that Iran really has had closer linkages with the terrorists in the past and still does, apparently, today, than Iraq does. So that leads you to then ask, well, what will be the impact on Iran?

More.

Check this out about U.S. officials' treatment of Nour al-Khalm an Iraqi translator/fixer who almost lost her life trying to protect that of American journalist, Steven Vincent, who was kidnapped, beaten, and killed by insurgents in Basra in August 2005. The journalist's widow, Lisa Ramaci-Vincent,testified about it in the Senate hearings today.

If Nour's story spreads maybe she will be granted refugee status protections in the U.S. She sounds like she's deserved it.

A key line of testimony: When Vincent's widow lobbied American bureaucrats to extend refugee status to Nour, she says,

"I have been told she does not qualify for refugee or asylum status because Iraq is now a democracy, hence there should be no reason she would need to flee."

Absolutely gruesome:

...as the trapdoors swung open, they dropped and the rope severed the hooded head of Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, Saddam's younger half-brother and former intelligence chief.

Government officials said they had decided not to distribute any part of the film to the public.

Iraq says the beheading was caused by a hangman's error "in setting the noose or the length of the rope."

They showed the video to journalists because there was no possibility of a cover-up...the bodies were being turned over to families for burial.

Here's a video of a BBC journalist describing the hanging video.