(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

The big news today comes from the Big Enchilida of the Beltway himself, Bob "The Commanders" Woodward. You see, it turns out Bush really is a liar, according to Woodward:

The White House ignored an urgent warning in September 2003 from a top Iraq adviser who said that thousands of additional American troops were desperately needed to quell the insurgency there, according to a new book by Bob Woodward, the Washington Post reporter and author. The book describes a White House riven by dysfunction and division over the war.

You know, I know it is not politic in the Beltway to discuss this, but there were bigger warnings on Iraq ignored by, not only Bush, but by the Beltway. It is oh so fashionable for the Ignatiuses. Broders, Finemans, Friedmans and Brookses to try and pretend they did not support and cheer on the Iraq Debacle - to pretend that the problem was "execution" not the Debacle itself. Ignatius pretends no one told him about it. Let's put it this way, Bush is not the only liar in Washington, DC.

by TChris

Among those who believe that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is making life less safe -- most Iraqis.

About three-quarters of Iraqis believe U.S. forces are provoking more conflict than they are preventing in Iraq and should be withdrawn within a year, a survey released on Wednesday showed. ...

That poll found a strong majority of Iraqis wanted American forces to leave immediately. It asked whether people favored U.S. troops leaving immediately, staying until the government asked them to leave or saying until the violence stopped.

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

WaPo columnist David Ignatius pens a column entitled The Big Question the Dems are Ducking:

This should be the Democrats' moment, if they can translate the national anger over Iraq into a coherent strategy for that country. But with a few notable exceptions, the Democrats are mostly ducking the hard question of what to do next. They act as if all those America-hating terrorists will evaporate back into the sands of Anbar province if the United States pulls out its troops. Alas, that is not the case. That is the problem with Iraq -- it is not an easy mistake to fix.

Here is David Ignatius' problem, his support for the Iraq Debacle in 2003:

My own gut tells me that this is a war worth fighting. But I'm bothered that America still hasn't had the kind of broad national debate that would provide a solid foundation of public support for sending U.S. troops into battle.

No credibility. More on the flip.

On September 22, an updated report by the Congressional Research Service was filed with Congress, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11. From the introduction:

Through FY2006, Congress has appropriated a total of about $437 billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans' health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) covering Afghanistan and other Global War on Terror (GWOT) operations, Operation Noble Eagle (ONE) providing enhanced security at military bases, and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Iraq.

In the last week of September 2006, the House and Senate are slated to consider the conference versions of the FY2007 defense appropriations bill, H.R. 5631, and the national defense authorization bill (H.R. 6122/S. 2766), both of which include an additional $70 billion for war costs. .... The Administration is expected to submit a FY2007 supplemental for additional war costs some time next year.

If the FY2007 defense appropriation bill passes, total war appropriations for all three operations would reach about $507 billion. Another $2 billion is included in other appropriations bills for foreign and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and VA medical costs. In its July 2006 mid-session update, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates that war funding in FY2007 will total $110 billion, including bridge funding. Based on this OMB projection, cumulative war funding for all of FY2007 would reach about $549 billion. OMB also assumes a $50 billion bridge fund for FY2008.

In an about-face, President Bush today declared he will declassify the judgments of the NIE.

Once again, there's a leak out of our government, coming right down the stretch in this campaign, you know, to trade confusion in the minds of the American people, in my judgment, is why they leaked it. So I told the DNI to declassify this document. You can read it for yourself. We'll stop all of the speculation, all the politics, about someone saying something about Iraq, you know, somebody trying to confuse the American people about the nature of this enemy. And so John Negroponte, the DNI, is going to declassify the document as quickly as possible, declassify the key judgments for you to read yourself and he'll do so in such a way that he'll be able to protect sources and methods that our intelligence community uses. And then everybody can draw their own conclusions about what the report says. Thank you.

Really? As Glenn Greenwald writes at Salon,

by TChris

Remember when we were told that the war in Iraq would be an in-and-out job, over before we knew it ("It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months"), and that post-war reconstruction would be largely funded by the newly liberated country's oil revenues? It hasn't worked out that way.

In the latest sign of pressure on troop strength from violence in Iraq, the Pentagon said Monday that it has extended the combat tour of 4,000 U.S. soldiers, the second time in as many months that an Army brigade has seen its yearlong deployment lengthened.

Many share responsibility for the lies. Yesterday, the spotlight focused on the Secretary of Deceit, Donald Rumsfeld.

"I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the administration did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq," retired Army Maj. Gen. John R.S. Batiste told a forum conducted by Senate Democrats.

Via Josh Marshall,

We're hearing that Sen. Rockefeller, ranking member of the Senate intel committee, has just come out for declassifying and releasing the April NIE. We're trying to confirm.

Late Update: Confirmed.

Later Update: Hillary just came out for it too.

David Corn has more in his Nation column on why the NIE should be declassfied.

The L.A. Times reports:

The Army's top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders last month after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding.

The decision by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is believed to be unprecedented and signals a widespread belief within the Army that in the absence of significant troop withdrawals from Iraq, funding assumptions must be completely reworked, say current and former Pentagon officials.

The Army's budget this year is $98,2 billion. Next year Schoomaker projects it will need a 41% increase to $138.8 billion. That's way too much money and just another reason we should start bringing troops home and let the Iraqis deal with their civil war. Without our unwanted intervention, they'll figure it out. Let's use the $98.2 billion budget money for reparations resulting from damage we've caused to Iraq and its citizens and for the medical, mental health and vocational benefits our returning vets surely will need instead of continuing to wage an unnecessary, futile war and cause more damage.

When do we admit Bush's vision of democracy in Iraq was a bad acid trip?

by TChris

Responding to prosecutors' complaints that the chief judge was "soft on Saddam," Iraq's prime minister removed the judge from Saddam Hussein's trial. But wait, you say. What kind of democratic government allows the executive branch to control the judicial branch, to the point of removing a judge during a trial because prosecutors want a judge who will side with them more often? The kind that has emerged in Iraq. The kind that cares more about assuring convictions than providing fair trials. The kind of government that is, by rational standards, a joke.

The change could revive complaints that the government is interfering in the tribunal trying Saddam and his regime members to ensure a quick guilty verdict.

The judge who presided over Hussein's first trial resigned midway through the trial in response to complaints that he, too, was "soft on Saddam." American prosecutors must envy the power of the Iraqi government to toss out any judge who isn't sufficiently pro-prosecution.

by TChris

Earlier this year, some political speculators predicted an administration push to draw down the number of troops in Iraq before the November elections as proof of "progress" in its nation-building effort. If that was the administration's hope, reality has intruded:

The top American commander in the Middle East said the more than 140,000 soldiers now in Iraq are likely to be needed there at least until next spring because of continuing sectarian violence and the effort to secure Baghdad. "I think that this level probably will have to be sustained through next spring, and then we'll re-evaluate," General John P. Abizaid told reporters at a breakfast roundtable. ...

The surge in violence over the last six months, especially in Baghdad, has forced American commanders to increase troop levels by around 20,000 since last June and scrap plans made by General George W. Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, to reduce the number of combat brigades to 12 by this month.

The President of Iraq , Jalal Talabani, arrived in Aspen yesterday, a guest of the Forstmann Little conference. Today he spoke with PBS moderator Charlie Rose at the Maroon Creek Club.

Talabani spoke hopefully about the prospect for peace in Iraq and estimated that the U.S. military would be needed for approximately one more year before violence abates to a level that Iraqi forces can handle it on their own, according to an attendee who requested anonymity because all discussions at the Forstmann Little conference are meant to be confidential.

What kind of security was required for Talabani?

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

So the question is will Iran stand up so the U.S. can stand down?:

In his first state visit to Iran, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki today discussed the security situation in Iraq with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and asked for Mr. Ahmadinejad's support in quelling the violence that threatens to fracture this country.

"We had a good discussion with Mr. Ahmadinejad," Mr. Maliki said at a news conference in Tehran, the Iranian capital, after the two met. "Even in security issues, there is no barrier in the way of cooperation." Mr. Ahmadinejad said that "Iran will give its assistance to establish complete security in Iraq because Iraq's security is Iran's security."

For Mr. Maliki, the visit was a kind of homecoming, since he had spent a part of his exile years during Saddam Hussein's rule living in Tehran. Many members of Mr. Maliki's Shiite political group, the Islamic Dawa Party, fled to Iran to escape the wrath of Mr. Hussein's security forces. Iranian leaders are close to Dawa and other religious Iraqi Shiite parties, because Iran is governed by Shiite Persians.

Iran wins. So what about that Axis of Evil?