PS FAQ:  What has changed in US Politics since November 2006? (until July 2007)

Also see "When Might US Troops Come Home?" FAQ. and see "US Politics 12/05-11/06"
and "US Politics Since July 2007"

Election day was Tuesday, November 7. The day was much awaited. Democrats took back the House, for the first time since 1994, under Bill Clinton. Nancy Pelosi (at left) was very likely the next Speaker of the House. The Senate was closer. It came down to Montana and Virginia, and by noon after election day we weren't sure who would win. Then, only Virginia was the difference maker, and Democrats controlled both Houses.

Voters and pundits often said that the key issue was the Iraq War. The Tribune's Michael Tacket, began his front page article, "Americans finally got to vote on the war. They want change." Republican Sen. Arlen Spector thinks that Presidential adviser Karl Rove "misread the anger of the American people about Iraq." Republican "Iraqi is drifting sideways" Warner feels that the American people "have spoken with regard to their deep concern about the loss of life, the loss of limb, the enormity of the expenditures, and credibility of our country." He wants to wait for the Iraq Study Group before "rushing to conclusions." It appears that this Iraq Study Group has become the next in a long line of lights at the end of the tunnel. Will this light, unlike elections and constitutions, bring more peace to Iraq?

Some questions for post-election day were:
--Would President Bush change course on Iraq, given the election results?
--Would Democrats investigate war-related issues?
--Would Democrats vote to start withdrawing troops?

At noon on the day after the election, the top story became the resignation of Rumsfeld. For much more on the Secretary, see the Post-Saddam FAQ, "Will/Should Rumsfeld (and Tenet) Resign?"

Every pundit and politician had their interpretation of how important the war was to the Democratic victories. 11 term Republican Christopher Shays of Connecticut said that Iraqis must start doing "the heavy lifting." This is a twist on the long-held "Iraqization" policy discussed in detail in other parts of this site.

Post writer Michael Grunwald feels that the election was much more than "a referendum on the war, but bad news from Baghdad gave Democrats a powerful argument for change, and a metaphor for a 'rubber-stamp Congress' that wants to 'stay the course' in America as well as Iraq." He recalls that Republicans used Iraq successfully in 2002 and 2004, "portraying Democrats as "too wishy-washy to stay the course, accusing them of coddling Saddam Hussein and emboldening terrorists. But in 2006, as more Americans lost confidence in the war and the country's direction, 'stay the course' became a line of attack for Democrats. They portrayed their GOP opponents as defenders of the status quo...."

Who are the likely candidates for President in 2008? On this page, it is hard to separate political action from early campaigning, as eventually, there were over 20 candidates for President. It is the first "open" election since the 1950s, with neither the current President nor Vice-President among the candidates. Among Democrats, Mark Warner of Virginia was widely rumored to be a strong candidate, but he decided not to run. Then, just a day after the November elections, the Governor of Iowa, Democrat Vilasek (at left) was the first to declare. On Iraq, the Iowan feels that "we must act, take our troops out of harm's way and allow the Iraqis to begin providing their own security." (Citing money problems, Vilasek dropped out a few months later).

A few days after Vilasek announced his candidacy, Russ Feingold Senator of Wisconsin, announced that he has decided not to run. Among the leading Democrats in late 2006 could be Governors Bayh (Indiana) and Bill Richardson of New Mexico, as well as Senators Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, and, of course, Obama. Al Gore is rumored to be considering another run, after the close election of 2000. Edwards was touring with his new book.

Evan Bayh tried to emphasize that Republicans had lost a national referendum on Iraq. Elected Governor of Indiana at age 32 in 1988, he was chosen by President Clinton in 1996 to be the keynote speaker at the convention in Chicago. Seen as a centirst, Bayh father was Indiana Senator and ran in the Democratic primary of 1976, won by Jimmy Carter. Bayh said bye, and surprised many in mid-December by announcing that he would not be a candidate. The Indiana Senator felt his hopes were too remote.

Dennis Kucinich, who ran for President in 2004, was second to announce in mid-December that he would run again. A Progressive who hopes to establish a cabinet level Peace Department, Kucinich may have been encouraged by Feingold's decision not to run. Kucinich wants to vote to cut off funds for the war, unlike Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Levin, and Obama. Howard Kurz, who writes an online column for the Post, at first reacted with "a big yawn" to Kucinich running again. But then he "reconsidered" because Kucinich's "fringe" position on the war in 2004 had now become much more accepted, even the majority position. He could put pressure on Hillary Clinton "with Democratic primary voters being more anti-Iraq war than the population as a whole."

News analysis from the Times in late November looked at Democrats with an eye toward 2008, "have dropped talk of a race for the exits, in favor of a brisk stroll" also labeled "cut-and-walk." Biden and President Clinton are both against firm timetables. Biden and Edwards became the third and fourth Democrats to announce in early January 2007. Both have run previously, Edwards in 2004, when Kerry made him his VP candidate, and Biden in 1988, when Dukakis received the nomination. Yet Sen. Reid feels that "redeployment has become the consensus view" excepts for inside the White House. "The debate is at what pace."

See "Will US Troops Come Home?" FAQ.

Obama, darling of the media is December as he considered a run, realizes his lack of experience could be an issue in the campaign. He responded in a lengthy Tribune interview, "The test of leadership in my mind is not going to be what's on a paper resume." Cheney and Rumsfeld "had the best resume on paper of nay foreign policy team and the result has been what I consider to be one of the biggest foreign policy mistakes in our history." Obama announced an exploratory committee, and gave us February 10 as the date, in Lincoln's home of Springfield, that he would offially announce his candidacy.

On Hillary Clinton, Kathleen Parker (Tribune, 12/20/06) faults her for the "if I had only known then" arguments. Edwards (11/05) and Kerry admitted that their 2002 votes were wrong, but Clinton waited much longer to do so. "It's been interesting to watch formerly pro-war leaders distance themselves, one by one, as conditions have deteriorated in Iraq. As always, timing is everything...When to declare oneself anti-war has been a trick of politics and prudence." After Obama received a great welcome in New Hampshire, Parker feels Clinton was motivated and said, "Obviously if we knew than what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote...and I certainly wouldn't have voted that way."

With Obama's all-but-official annoucement in mid-January, the declared Democrats were now 6: Senators Edwards, Biden, and Dodd, Gov. Vilsack, and Rep. Kucinich. Those Democrats still "considering" were Clinton, Gov. Richardson, Wesley Clark, Gore, and Kerry. Richardson joined the group on Jan. 21.

After much deliberation, Kerry decided not to run, and announced such on the Senate floor on Jan. 24. Concerned about the war, he said, "...What happens...in the next two year may irrevocably shape or terribly distort the administration of whichever candidate is next elected president. I don't want the next president to find that they have inherited a nation sill divided and a policy destined to end as Vietnam did." Kerry is a Vietnam veteran who returned to denounce that war. Voting in favor of the war in the fall of 2002, Kerry has since renounced his support, though it caused him many problems during the 2004 election.

Among Republicans the early favorite is John McCain, whose devout followers recall his 2000 primary battle with Bush and are sometimes called "McCainiacs". Other viable candidates seem to be former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, NY Gov. George Pataki, former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. Brownback, of Kansas, and others. Often rumored Bill Frist of Tennessee followed suit with Feingold on the Republican side after Thanksgiving to say he would not be a candidate. Others Republicans "mentioned" are Condoleezza Rice, Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and Former Wis. Gov. Tommy Thompson.

Other Republicans considering a run included Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska the Rep. Duncan Hunter, from California. Hagel is against the troop surge. After weeks of considering, Hagel announced in mid-March that he would not be running, "for now." "America is facing its most divisive and difficult issue since Vietnam. I want to keep my focus on helping find a responsible way out of this tragedy, and not divert my energy, efforts and judgment.." Hagel would have been the 11th Republican either to declare or be seriously exploring.

In late December "the great mentioner" also mentioned conservative Jim Gilmore and Frank Keating, both former Governors. Gilmore, who wants to be a candidate of the right, said of Iraq, that he does not want a timetable to withdraw and did not want to increase troop numbers. Among these, McCain has the most information in other sections/chapters of this site.

Brownback officially announced his candidacy in January 2007. The Kansas Senator is a rare Republican candidate against the surge of troops. Representative Duncan Hunter announced late in the month, joining Dennis Kucinich as the only sitting member of the House to be a candidate. Hunter, 58, is a 14-term Congressman who was Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Another Representative to join soon after was from Colorado, Tom Tancredo. Among former Governors, Mike Huckabee joined, the former Governor of Arkansas. At age 51, he is described, like Brownback, as a favorite of conservatives. Still more candidates included former Wisconsin Governor and cabinet member Tommy Thompson, and James Gilmore, former Virginia Governor. If one of the leaders stumpled, one of these early "dark horse" candidates could well surface. At this point in the primary four years ago, John Kerry was in single digits.

Guliani was sounding more like a candidate by late January. A supporter of the escalation from President Bush, he cautioned that it might not work. "We hope and we root for and we pray for a successful outcome in Iraq. But our ultimate victory is not going to be a military victory. Our ultimate victory against terrorism is going to be a victory of ideas." On Iraq, Guliani stands out (if Hagel does not run) in that he supports the adding of troops but is open about admitting that the plan might not work. This could provide him "cover". The former New York mayor has also said, "Success in Iraq means a more peaceful world for America. It means a victory against terrorists." On the decision to go to war, Guliani adds, "I would remove Saddam Hussein again. I just hope we'd do it better." Could Hagel win primaries if he suggests we start to withdraw?

Romney officially declared from Michigan in mid-February. He is seeking to become the first Mormon President. While he supports the surge of troops, Romeny adds, "The war has been poorly managed."

By one count, there were nearly 20 candidates by the beginning of February, 2007.

"They Told You So" is Paul Krugman's piece of Dec. 8, highlighting politicians who were worried about the war before it began, and how many have been proven correct. When the House debated the war in 2002, the Post gave "no coverage at all to those antiwar arguments that now seem prescient. At worst, those who were skeptical about the case for war had their patriotism and/or their sanity questioned...
-- What Al Gore rightly called 'the worst strategic mistake in the history of the US'...
-- Said Barak Obama, not yet US Senator: "What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt" by Perle and Wolfowitz and "other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the cost in lives lost and in hardship borne."
-- Russ Feingold had said, "I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time...When the administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the believe in tis urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justification has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the administration's motives."
-- Finally, Howard Dean called it "the wrong war, at the wrong time...Iraq is a divided country" with three factions "that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms."

Concludes Krugman, "We should honor these people for their wisdom and courage. We should also ask why anyone who didn't raise questions about the war--or, at nay rate, anyone who acted as cheerleader for this march of folly--should be taken seriously when he or she talks about matters of national security."

The Iraq Study Group, (ISG) also described in pre-November election FAQ, was set to report their recommendations in mid-November or early December. The study group was created by Congress at the urging of Republican Frank Wolf who grew alarmed during his visit to Iraq last year. James Baker and Lee Hamilton lead the group, with Baker, 76, being referred to as "Mr. Fix-It." It was leaked to the New York Times on November 30, 2006 of the three major recommendations the group would make, after about nine months of study. 1. The most unique ideas is to pullback most troops to bases, leaving about 75,000 for training; 2. No timetable for withdrawal; 3. Actively engage Syria and Iran, with active diplomacy

For more details on the Iraq Study Group, see "Will US Troops Come Home?" FAQ.

Among political reaction to the study group is news analysis from the New York Times who feel the real target is President Bush. The administration has several other reviews under way. The paper urges Bush to take the political cover of the ISG. "Iraq is so far gone that nobody expected the panel to come up with a breakthrough solution...There is no victory to be had...and however American troops withdraw, they will leave behind a deadly mess...If Mr. Bush has the capacity to serious reassess his Iraq strategy, he will need exactly the kind of political cover" the group was supposed to give him. "The world watched as Mr. bush painted himself into a corner and then insisted it was a strategic decision."

From the more conservative Chicago Tribune came a four part summary of the highlights:
1. Squeeze Iraq
2. Train and draw down;
3. Engage Iran and Syria:
4. What was not propsed included setting a timetable for withdrawal or partition the country, both bad ideas.
The lead editorial concludes that the ISG "offers a credible agenda that the White House, the Congress, and the American people should embrace."

The Wall Street Journal describes the report as "a strategic muddle" and the New York Post feels that Baker and Hamilton are "surrender monkeys."

Leading Catholic Bishops joined the debate after the US elections, much as they had before the war in 2002 and early 2003. They urge a "responsible transition" to build peace and bringing US troops home.

President Bush, in the week after the elections, again defined success as an Iraqi government that can "sustain and defend itself." Democracy is no longer a top goal. In early December he added, "My objective is to succeed. Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for your grandchildren...because we're now in an ideological struggle between extremists and people who want to live in peace." Spokesman Tony Snow elaborated, "The way out of Iraq is to have an Iraq that can sustain, govern, and defend itself."

The Commander in Chief visited Vietnam for the first time in mid-November 2006. He was asked about the lessons of the Vietnam War and how they might apply to Iraq. His answer was that "we will succeed unless we quit."

Anthony Cordesman, military expert, feels that the president "simply doesn't want to believe how bad things have gotten...If the president is in denial, his critics are in oversimplication. I don't know which is worse."

Joseph Wilson, former diplomat in Baghdad, said in mid-November that we need a President with "leadership" and a Secretary of State who is "engaged" to find "a political solution." For much more on Wilson, see "WMD/CIA leak" FAQ

Richard Perle, strong supporter of the war, said of the ISG, "You don't outsource the responsiblties of the commander in chief." Added Rush Limbaugh on talk radio, "This is cut and run, surrender without the words."

Polls after the election showed support for the war at an all time low. Just 31% approve of Bush's handling of the war. By mid-November the war was equally unpopular, with 60% believing the war should not have been fought and about half think we should be out in a year.

In mid-December polls, mostly from CBS News and the LA Times, showed that:

Long-term polling trends can be seen at this PEW site.

On NPR poll of mid-December concluded that the majority of Americans want US troops to start coming home in the next six months.

The Tribune article comments on Dec. 13 that the polls suggest that "the president and his staff are out of step with public opinion...The war appears to be thte top issue on Americans' minds," over 11% highest than issue #2, health care.

February polls from Gallup show that 63% do want want more troops added, and want a timetable to bring our troops home by the end of 2008.

Who do Americans trust on Iraq? Polls in late February show that Americans trust Congress more than the President, but that Bush has done better since his State of the Union address of late January.

Also see "When Might US Troops Come Home?" FAQ.

A political story from 2005 continued into November of 2006, with more reports of spying on and monitoring church and peace groups. The "Talon" anti-terrorist data base kept track of peaceful vigils and church meetings. One was "a church service for peace." These remained on the date base as possible security problems but now the Pentagon says the information should never have been collected in the first place. One antiwar group, Veterans For Peace, is skeptical that the military his ended this type of collection. "I don't believe it," he said.

Wiretapping, a huge issue beginning in December 2005 came back into the picture after the November 7 US elections. Rep. Senator Arlen Spector believes the President's spy program breaks the law from 1978. "We could've fixed this early on." One year ago Spector called the program "inappropriate" and said it "can't be condoned." However, after meeting with the White House he became more conciliatory and tried to work out a compromise to test the constitutionality of the program. As the Times reported, Spector has clashed with politicians both on the left and the right.

Wiretapping was one of the issues which upset the newly announced Democratic chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Silvestre Reyes named by incoming Speaker Pelosi, voted against the war in the fall of 2002 and is a Vietnam combat veteran. He secured the position of Rep. Jane Harman, who is more hawkish and a rival of Pelosi. Reyes has been combative toward the administration on issues such as Iraq, tribunals, and NSA surveillance. A few months ago, the Texas Congressman said that the failures in Iraq "cry out for oversight."

CIA and spying kep coming up in the news. In what may become a political issue, we learned in mid-January 2007 that the CIA and Pentagon are acquiring financial records of those they wish to investigate or those they wish to exonerate. Previously, this was done rarely, and by the FBI. Thousands of financial records have been obtained from US companies, such as banks and credit card companies. Usually, the FBI has played this role, only after obtaining warrants.

On other domestic related issues, the administration quietly agreed to allow the FISA Court to oversee domestic spying/surveillance. James Bamford wrote in his Times commentary (1/31/07) that "The President is not above the law." He reminds reading of Judge Taylor of Michigan ruling against the administration. Is the 13 month controversy over?

This controversial program is detailed in US Politics '06 FAQ

As we learned in 2005 and 2006, there were new revelations in 2007 of the Pentagon spying on anti-war groups. The FBI also took part. 186 antiwar protests have been monitored by the Pentagon, learned the ACLU, whose spokesman said, "This unchecked surveillance is part of a broad pattern of the Bush administration using 'national security' as an excuse to run roughshod d over the privacy and free speech rights of Americans." The groups include Military Families Speak Out, Veterans for Peace, United for Peace and Justice, and The American Friends Service Committee. The Pentagon feels the information should not have been collected and vowed that they have stopped monitoring peace groups. The ACLU is not confident that the spying has stopped because "we have only the Pentagon's word" of the "corrections."

In a similar story, it was disclosed in Feb. 2007 that those protesting the Republican National Convention in 2004 were treated unfairly. Because they were all fingerprinted, on Aug. 31 when 1000 were taken into custody in four hours, they were held an average of 32 hours before being able to see a judge. Usually these minor offenses results in merely a summons. Lawsuits have been brought for wrongful arrest, as some claimed to have been merely swept up with the crowd.

In late March we learned more. New York city police spied on peace groups before the GOP convention. According to the front page Times report of March 25, those who planned to attend the convention were spied on covertly and peace and church groups were infiltrated. New York city police "posed as sympathizers or fellow activists" across the US and in Montreal. "They made friends, shared meals, swapped e-mail messages and then filed daily reports with the department's Intelligence Division (ID)." This ID "chronicled the views and plans of people who had no apparent intention of breaking the law or groups which were not associated with the war. "In at least some cases, intelligence on what appeared to be lawful activity was shared with police department in other cities." The New York ACLU responded angrily: "The police have no authority to spy on lawful political activity, and this wide-ranging NYPD program was wrong and illegal." Even the satire group "Billionaires for Bush" was followed. Responded one, "If the police want to infiltrate and waste their time-well, it's a waste of taxpayer money."

Even protestors back in 2002 were improperly interrogated , as the Washington Post highlights in their editorial of 4/11/07, "A Black Mark." A lawsuit had been brought by some of the protestors against the FBI and DC police.

In early March came an overview editorial from the New York Times, entitled "The Must Do List". It would not surprise careful readers of this site that the editorial focused on torture, spying, and prisoner rights. The paper sees "an assault on some of the founding principles of American democracy" with five years of "presidential overreaching and Congressional collaboration" which continues "to exact a high toll in human lives, America's global reputation..." Congress should be forceful to "reverse the unwise and lawless policies." The 12 major goals on the list include restoring habeas corpus, stop illegal spying, "really" ban torture, close the CIA prisons, account for "ghost" prisoners, ban extraordinary rendition, and respect the right to counsel. The longest editorial in months closes, "Oh, yes, and it is time to close the Guantanamo camp. It is a despicable symbol of the abuses committed by this administration (with Congress's complicity) in the name of fighting terrorism."

The FBI apologized for abusing the Patriot Act in March, 2007. Predictably, the Times editorial was slow to accept an apology for what they see as a pattern of abuse of power. There was a pattern of spying without a court order.

How much is the government spying? The Times reacts in "Spying on Americans." to the early May administration actions which apparently go against their earlier promises.

With the further news that week of political firings of 8 US Attorneys, there were calls for the resignation of Attorney General Gonzalez. Gonzaelez was the author of torture memos, detailed at "Torture" FAQs. "Mistakes were made" about the firings, vaguely admitted Gonzalez while the story was on the front pages for another day. "Betrayed by the FBI", titled the Tribune editorial. The Times and Post called for his resignation, citing the firings as politically motivated. Senator Charles Shumer asked for his resignation on the basis of politicizing his office at the expense of the nation's laws. Said the Democrat from New York, "...He is no longer just the president's lawyer but has a higher obligation to the rule of law and the Constitution, even when the president should not want it to be so." The attorneys fired had allegedly investigated Republicans or not investigated Democrats aggressively enough.

Congress passed the Patriot Act, despite fears from civil libertarians that "the executive branch could be trusted to act responsibly." But an internal audit by the Department of Justice concludes that "national security letters" have been abused. These are orders for telephone logs, email logs, and financial records. But with the FBI not needing a judge's approval, the FBI "overstepped its bounds...More than 60% of investigations had violations of the bureaus' own rules." Though not found to be on purpose or criminal, the Tribune is still concerned that the Justice Department and FBI "put a terribly low priority on complying with the law and their own internal polices." Even leading Republicans like Sen. Spector are upset. FBI Director Mueller has "just about run out of time and trust," concludes the Chicago paper. Subsequently, both Republicans and Democrats warned the FBI that it could lose the power it was given if it did not swiftly correct these abuses.

The Tribune added "Gonzales on the griddle" on March 14. If the US attorneys were fired for political reasons, "and the answer to that...isn't clear", he should resign. "The emerging picture is of a colossal bungling...or much worse. And perhaps not unexpected." Gonzales took responsibly for his department's "slow footedness" in telling Congress and that the White House had been involved in discussions about the firings. In testimony for Congress, the Attorney General often used the refrain, "I don't recall." The Attornies have said they felt "muscled."

"Politics, Pure and Cynical" is the Times lead editorial of March 14. The firing of the US attorneys was "politically motivated." As a larger picture, the paper feels like "time and again....Bush and his team have assured Americans that they needed new powers to prevent another attack by an implacable enemy. Time and again, American have discovered that these powers were not being used to make them safe, but in the service of...Cheney's vision of a presidency so powerful that congress and the courts are irrelevant, or Karl Rove's fantasy of a permanent Republican majority." Those fired would be replaced "without Senate approval," at right which had "slipped into the 2006 expansion of the Patriot Act." The paper feels that Gonzalez "is willing to peddle almost any nonsense to the public."

Frank Rich Sunday Times columnist wonders about Bush's Machiavellian priorities. "When Will Fredo Get Wacked" (3/25/07) examines the President's "passion for protecting his power and his courtiers" which "far exceeds his passion of protecting the troops he's pouring into Iraq' civil war. But why go to the mat" for Gonzales? he asks.

The Washington Post ran a lengthy 3-part series on "the case against Gonzales."
In mid-May came "Mr Gonzalez' Incredible Adventure," a NYTimes editorial. It followed the news of more Justice resignations and testimony that Gonzales pressured then Attorney General Ashcroft while he was lying in intensive care.

There were calls by mid-May 2007 to censure Gonzales or to impeach him.

A top Justice Department aide, Monica Goodling, testified under a grant of immunity. She said she had "crossed the line" in considering the politics and campaing contributions of those desiring non-partisan legal jobs. Goodling also suggested that Gonzales had lied. Some hope to see Rove and Harriet Miers testify.

Reaction to Goodling came from the lead Times editorial of May 24. Her actions may have violated federal law while her "memory lapses were not credible" or consistent.

Turning to troops options, "While Iraq Burns" is Herbert's piece back in November 27, 2006 coming in the days after the Thanksgiving attacks in Sadr City, the new most deadly day of the war. "Americans are shopping while Iraq burns. The competing television news images on the morning after Thanksgiving were of the unspeakable carnage...and car bombs...and the long lines of cars filled with holiday shopping zealots...There is something terribly wrong with this juxtaposition" because the war was started by the US "but most Americans feel absolutely no sense of personal responsibility for it." Without a draft, Americans aren't paying attention and don't care, surmises Herbert. "With no obvious personal stake...most Americans are indifferent to its consequences." A college student of the U. of Conn, a history major says, "I get the feeling that most people at school don't even think about the war. They're most concerned with what grade they got on yesterday's test." Added a Sophomore at the University of New Hampshire, "None of my friends even really care about what's going on in Iraq." The widespread indifference "enables most American to go about their daily lives completing unconcerned about the atrocities resulting from a war being waged in their name. " Also see "Draft" FAQ and "Op-Ed" FAQ.

Bush and Maliki met in Jordan at the end of November 2006. Despite NSA Hadley's leaked memo expressing doubt in Maliki, Bush remained positive and confident in his leadership. The two agreed that Maliki would take over more security. One wonders exactly how Maliki can reign in the chaos and violence. Would he really try to dispand the Sadr militia, led by his ally? If political compromise is the answer, how is that possible? Would or could Secretary Rice get involved? Some groups are so splintered it is not clear with whom to negotiate? For much more on politics in Iraq and on Maliki, see "Iraq Politics '06" FAQ.

Asked about US achievements after nearly four years in Iraq, Bush replied that democracy is taking root in the Middle East. "You bet it's worth it in Iraq, and necessary."

The administration, its supporters, and even the first lady Laura Bush, tended to blame the messenger more often, blame the media. Laura Bush, according to NBC's Brian Williams, "placed the blame squarely on the news media....Mrs. Bush went on to say she hopes for what she called balanced coverage in the future. The recent report from the ISG, however, specifically found that there has been significant under-reporting of the violence."

A few days later, on the eve of the Iraq Study Group report being made public, Tony Snow added, that in the White House there is a sense of "urgency, not panic."

Robert Gates, asked by Bush to replace Rumsfeld, testified on December 5 for the Senate. The headline that day blared, "US not winning the war." Gates was approved by the Senate in a vote of 95-2 as next Secretary of Defense and sworn in on December 18.

When will President Bush announce his much anticipated new strategy? After the ISG was released, we assumed it would be a matter of days. However, on December 12, the President said he would wait until after the New Year to give a major speech. Hamilton urged Congress to be less "timid" in overseeing the war. The President admitted some small mistakes by saying, "You want frankness...I thought we would succeeed quicker than we did." But the President warned about "extremists" succeeding and feared that "History will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity and demand to know, what happened? How come free nations did not act to preserve the peace?" President Bush surprised many of us by revising his pre-election view that "We are winning, absolutely" to saying a week before Christmas, "We are not winning; we are not losing."

Maureen Dowd, ever critical of the President, writes that "W. would rather take a risk in Iraq [by adding troops] than risk being a wimp."

What are some of the options being weighed? Sources say Cheney want to support the Shiite majority, whereas Rice fears that would lead to perpetual Civil War. She hopes to woo centrist Sunnis. Also see "US Troops Home?" FAQ. Pelosi, after being sworn in during the first week of January 2007, commented, "The American people rejected an open-ended obligation to a war without end."

Reaction to the delay in any new plans came from both sides of the aisle, including a Republican who felt Bush was failing to show sufficient urgency despite months of escalating violence. Sen. Hagel (R) calls the delay "unpardonable..Every day that goes by, we are losing ground." Added DemSen. Reid, "Waiting and delaying on Iraq serves no ones' interests. "Without Deliberate Speed" was the Times lead editorial, which opened, "The claims of calm deliberation emerging from the White House...are maddening....We are more than eager for this White House to finally get something right on Iraq. But we find to chilling to imagine that Mr. Bush and his adviser have only now begun a full policy review...Mr. Bush has no more time to waste on 'listening tours' and photo ops. The nation is in a crisis, and Americans need to hear how he plans to unwind the chaos he has unleashed in Iraq. If the president is delaying because he is searching for a good option, he can stop. There are none. But Americans need to see that he is prepared to choose among the undesirable alternatives and clear the way for a withdrawal of American troops that does not leave even more killing and mayhem behind."

Reaction to a Presidential pre-Christmas press conference, as always, included the New York Times editorial page. "Rudderless in Iraq" (12/21/06) is disappointed with those looking for candor of "near total lawlessness" in Baghdad "despite repeated American vows to secure the capital." Looters and insurgents benefit from an average of less than 7 hours of electricity per day. A political strategy is the only hope "and even that may be too late."

The front page Times story alludes to a divide within the Republicans, worried about "winning" but trying to get troops out by the 2008 elections. Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR), for example, said: "I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldier patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that anymore." If the US is going to retreat "I would rather do it sooner than later." See above for Presidential candidates.

Columnist Bob Herbert (12/11/06) quotes McCain in the forward to The Best and the Brightest, about Vietnam: "No other national endeavor requires as much unshakable resolve as war. If the nation and the government lack that resolve, it is criminal to expect men in the field to carry it alone." Adds Herbert, "It is time to pull the troops out of harm's way." Before the President's speech, McCain suggested adding 30,000 troops.

In early January 2007, President Bush wrote a rare op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal about the new Congress and his priorities and hope for cooperation. On Iraq, the President wrote that the terrorists of 9/11 "are part of a broader extremist movement that is now doing everything it can to defeat us in Iraq. In the days ahead, I will be addressing our nation about a new strategy to help the Iraqi people gain control of the security situation and hasten the day when the Iraqi government gains full control over its affairs. Ultimately, Iraqis must resolve the most pressing issues facing them. We can't do it for them. But we can help Iraq deal with the extremists inside and outside of Iraq--and we can help provide the necessary breathing space for this young government to meet its responsibilities. If democracy fails and the extremists prevail in Iraq, America's enemies will be stronger, more lethal, and emboldened by our defeat."

As the nation and world awaited President Bush's major speech on Wednesday, January 10, he was set to announce a surge or escalation of about 20,000 troops. In anticipation of the speech, reaction was strong.

Would Congress refuse to give the President 100% of the funding he requests? The January 8 Chicago Tribune led with the banner headline from New Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi: No Iraq 'blank check.'" She warned that this time the President would not get a "blank check...for him to do whatever he wishes there." Responded McCain: "If these people are serious then they should vote to cut off funding."

In the Senate, Ted Kennedy proposed legislation to not allow for funding for an increase in troops. My mid-January it was not clear if this legislation would be binding financially, or just a "sense of the Senate" resolution. See below for more Congressional action and debate.

Polls showed that just 18% of Americans supported this escalation. Polls varied, oddly, because others concluded that about 2/3 of Americans were against the surge/escalation. Another poll after the speech finds 50% of Americans want Congress to block funding for an escalation. A CBS poll showed that 66% oppose sending more troops.

One of the mastermind's behind the Iraq review from the President is J.D. Couch II, deputy national security adviser. Known for his hardline and unilateralist positions, Couch also worked under Cheney and Wolfowitz during the Presidency of Bush's father.

While following Couch as Coach, Bush is also rejecting the main focus of the Iraq Study Group, advise of most of his generals, the public "mandate" from the November elections, and public opinion polls.

Highlights of the speech included: -- Increase troop size by about 22,000, to 57,000, mostly in Baghdad; "security" is the #1 priority. --The military goals is to quell sectarian violence and to "break the cycle of violence" --This speech called for "a new way forward"; --The enemy can't "run us out" and "intimidate us" -- Do not talk with Iran or Syria, but stop their assistance to those fighting US troops; --Urge Maliki to finally reign in or disarm militias and death squads, especially fellow Shiite Sadr;

--The risks of failure will lead to more chaos, a stronger and more threatening Iran, embolden enemies, and Al-Qaeda attacks on the US; the US can't afford to lose; More specifically, ""The consequences of failure are clear; Radical Islamic extremists would grow...in strength and gain new recruits...Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people
--How long will we stay? "America's commitment is not open-ended" and Iraqis plan to "take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November"
--Adding more troops will allow us to actually withdraw sooner; and victory "will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved.
There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship."
-- The mission is well defined
--We wish to "ensure the survival of a young democracy...a democratic Iraq will not be perfect."
--"Difficult choices and additional sacrifices" will be needed; progress will not come right away; violence will continue as "the year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve.

Though the President complemented the work of the Iraq Study Group, he chose not to follow most of their recommendations, including talks with Iran/Syria and start a gradual withdraw of troops within months.

It took the President little time to mention the "War on Terror" as he opened, "Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror...The situation is Iraq is unacceptable to the American people and it is unacceptable to me...Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me. It is clear that we need to change our strategy."

President Bush concluded with a broad brush: "It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burden of freedom, Yet times of testing reveal the character of a nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimist sand seen our faith in freedom redeemed." Sounding a bit like President Lincoln, he added, "Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail."

What is the strategy does not succeed?

Post-speech reaction included:
--Dick Durbin's brief speech that night emphasized that troops should start to withdraw, not be escalated; "The President's response...is to send more American soldiers into the crossfire of a civil war...The escalation of this war is not the change the American people called for in the last election."
-- A cold reaction from Senators in hearings the next day, including some Republicans;
-- Retired Gen. McCaffrey: "Victory is not a good word to use" because "it implies...a military outcome...that ends the violence, and that's not going to happen."
--McCain wanted a larger surge and wanted it three years ago, but he will support the President. Edwards calls the President's plan "the McCain doctrine."

The President further defended himself and explained himself on an interview at Camp David for 60 Minutes.

One of the biggest challenges to adding troops is that all signs are that the Iraqi government (and Iraqi people) don't want them. Rather, Maliki wants to US to focus on fighting Sunni insurgents. Depending on the Iraqi government, Shiite dominated, is a risk.

In the media, reaction to the President's speech came from every source in early January. The Chicago Tribune's lead editorial, "Squeezing Baghdad" points out that the President made three admissions: "I have not committed enough troops...I have not forced Iraqi leaders" to be less sectarian" and "There have been mistakes , and they have been mine." The Chicago paper is pleased that "he's not giving up on the Iraq mission" because American "cannot afford" to be "seen in retreat."

The New York Times feels it is "past time to get real" (1/9/07) because this time down the same road will not be different. The President repeats and promises "the same old set of failed approaches and unachievable objectives. Americans need to hear Mr. Bush offer something truly new-not more glossy statements about ultimate victory, condescending platitudes about what hard work war is, or aimless vows to remain 'until the job is done." The paper wishes Bush would focus on political solutions as much as military. Yet, We can't "turn our back" on Iraq after our troops leave.

Another Times lead editorial on Iraq from 1/11, called "The Real Disaster" opened, "President Bush told Americans last night that failure in Iraq would be a disaster. The disaster is Mr. Bush's war, and he has already failed. Last night was his chance to stop offering more fog and be honest with the nation, and he did not take it. Americans needed to hear a clear plan to extricate" troops. "What they got was more gauzy talk of victory in the war on terrorism and of creating a 'young democracy'...In other words, a way for the president to run out the clock and leave his mess for the next one...He described the failure of last year's effort to pacify Baghdad as if the White House and the Pentagon bore no responsibly." What the nation does not need if more threats toward Iran and Syria. The paper concludes, "We have argued that the US has a moral obligation to stay in Iraq as long as there is a chance to mitigate the damage that a quick withdrawal might cause. We have called for an effort to secure Baghdad, but as part of the sort of comprehensive policy solution utterly lacking...There is nothing ahead but even greater disaster in Iraq."

An overview Times editorial followed on January 14. The paper is concerned with the President's disconnect and America's "anguish over this unnecessary, mismanaged, and now unwinnable war...There are no really satisfying answers...since all of the remaining options are bad. Still, some are notably worse than others, and Mr. Bush has come up with possible the worst [surge]." Unlike the President, "our views have evolved as the evident realities on the ground have changed." Maliki seemed cold to the surge plan, and he should be "delivered an ultimatum....But even knowing all that, American cannot simply wash its hands of Iraq and go home." Congress should ask hard questions and get answers before providing more funds. "Congress has the authority to attach conditions to that money, imposing benchmarks and timetables on Mr .Bush." The "paper of record" concludes, "It's now up to Congress to...rescue this country from he consequences of one of its worst strategic blunders in modern times. History will surely blame Mr. Bush for leading American into Iraq, but it will blame Congress if it does not act to push him onto a more realistic path."

Though the Chicago Bears trip to the Super Bowl was the lead photo on January 22, the Tribune's editorial page examined "Congress's Challenge." It opened with the view that President Bush has refused to "come up with a serious policy" so Democrats will "have to goad him toward one." The paper of record desires benchmarks and deadlines to measure progress, or lack thereof. The Iraqi government must:
1. disarm militias;
2. share oil revenues with Sunnis; and
3. "reintegrate the Sunni middle class into Iraqi life."
A bipartisan resolution opposing the escalation should be passed "by the widest possible margin" as a "good first step...Funding limits that simply freeze the number of troops," the paper concludes, as offered by Kennedy, "are inadequate. The much more difficult challenge is to figure out ways to compel Mr. Bush to come up with a policy that has at least some chance of letting American troops come home without leaving total chaos behind."

Anna Quindlen examines the "mistakes have been made" line from the President's speech. In Newsweek of Jan. 8, which she wrote before the speech, she comments about the masculine tendency in our society not to apologize "because it indicates weakness." George McGovern has recently written that "Alien to Americas is the ida of making amends for our actions; we do not like ever to admit that we have been wrong." Quindlen adds that "if power means never having to say you're sorry, then the powerful miss the opportunity to truly lead." She quotes author Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential expert as noting, "They fear it suggests weakness to acknowledge error when in fact it suggest strength, self-confidence and the ability to learn and grow." The Newsweek commentator concludes with a Lincoln quote about changing his mind is fine because he hopes he is "smarter today than he was yesterday. That's certainly true of the American people on Iraq. It would be good to learn that it's true of their leader as well."

Frank Rich of the Sunday Times, wonders if neocon realize that after the surge Baghdad will have fewer US troops than there are police officers "in insurgency-free New York City." Frederick Kagan of the Weekly Standard had suggested up to 80,000 new troops in December. Rich writes, "I have long felt that it will be up to Mr. Bush's own party to ring (sic)-down the curtain on his failed policy" because even Sen. Brownback and Coleman "started backing away...It wasn't Democrats or the press that forced" Nixon to resign. He concludes, "A dangerous President must be saved form himself, so that the American kids he's about to hurl into the hell of Baghdad can be saved along with him."

Thomas Friedman associates the surge with a couple struggling with their marriage. The couple says, "'Hey, let's have a baby, that will bring us together.' It never works...Adding more troops makes sense only if it's to buy more time for positive trends that have already begun to appear on the horizon. I don't see them...As Saddam's hanging underscores, Iraqis are doing things their way. So maybe it's time to get out of their way." A few days later Friedman urged Democrats to push for a regional conference. Then they will have "a stronger case because we will truly have tried everything. But let's try everything: a surge of diplomacy, not just troops."

The US should have committed more troops at the start of the war, feels David Brooks. "Unfortunately, if the goal is to create a stable, unified Iraq the surge is a good policy three years too late. Brooks adds is his "The Fog Over Iraq" column that Democrats are partly to blame because their attitude can be, "We failed them, now they're on their own. Maliki had called on Nov. 30 for US troops to leave Baghdad

"Surging and Purging" writes Paul Krugman on January 19. Also see "Op-Ed FAQ" section for Krugman, Friedman, Krauthammer, and others.

Among those in Congress, about half of the Republicans and a couple Democrats still supported the President:
--Sen. Mitch McConnell: "I'm convinced the military can handle it and we'll be successful."
--McCain: "What is the option? It's catastrophe...The bloodletting will increase...We should make no mistake: Potentially catastrophic consequences of failure demand that we do all we can to prevail in iraq. A substantial and sustained increase ..is necessary to bring down the toxic levels of violence there."
--Sen. Lindsay Graham: "I would ask that...we not have a political stamped to declare the war lost when it's not yet lost, or to embrace strategies that would lead to defeat--because I do believe this is part of the overall war on terror."
--Sen. Lieberman: "I applaud the president for rejecting the fatalism of failure and pursuing a new course to achieve success."
--Cheney accused opponents are "micro managing" the war from the Commander in Chief: "You cannot run a war by committee."

Other Republicans defecting and "jumping ship" from their united front on Iraq. For example, usual Bush foreign policy and war supporter Mark Kirk (at right) , of Illinois' 10th District, is against the surge. Kirk represents much of the North Shore of Chicago.

Among the most vocal is Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who in January was still considering a run for the Presidency: "This is a dangerously wrongheaded strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at great cost." The Iraq war is "an absolute replay of Vietnam." Hagel was a enlisted private in Vietnam who says he saw that war "from the bottom up." The current plan is "the most dangerous foreign-policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it is carried out....To ask our young men and women to sacrifice their lives, to be put in the middle of a civil war, is wrong...It's morally wrong. It's tactically, strategically, militarily wrong." A few days later, Hagel added, "Either you support an escalation of American forces...or you don't. You can try and dance on the pinhead of technicality and wordsmithing all you want..."

Other Republican views include:
--Sen. Collins (R-Maine): "The fact that the strategy...in the past...did not work leaves me, and many of us, to ask questions about the president's new strategy."
--Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) issued a strong rebuke
--Voinovitch: "I am skeptical...Many of the generals...have siad they don't believe additonal troops will be helpful."
-- Those most likely to oppose the escalation are up for re-election in 2008.

Among Democrats:

-- Hillary Clinton: "The President's Iraq policy has been marred by incomeptence and arrogance." A few days later, back from a trip to Iraq in mid-January, the New York Senator expressed new opposition for the war, suggesting that funding for Iraqi forces be tied to certain benchmarks of progress. She would like to "begin to deploy out." Bush's policy, she said campaigning in Iowa, is "the height of irresponsibility." She wants a solution before the President leaves office in January 2009. The former first lady added, "I am not imposing a...certain withdrawal date" but she desires to cap troops at 130,000, from Jan. 1.

-- Sen. Dodd's new bill would cap troops levels. Dodd was "steadfasly opposed" to the plan, "sending thousands more of our nation's men and women into harm's way in a county in the midst of a civil war." The Connecticut Senator felt our troops were being used as "cannon fodder...A fool's paradise describes nothing as aptly as our Iraqi policy today...If the president did grasp...the sad extent of that failure, I sincerely doubt he would have ordered yet more troops..."
--Obama: "It is time for us to acknowledge that the president's plan has been flawed from the outset....The options are not either to withdrawl or a stay-the-course plus....At what point do we say 'enough?'...Essentially the administration repeatedly has said: 'We're doubling down; we're going to keep on going..because now we've got a lot in the pot and we can't afford to lose what we put in..."
--Former Senator Edwards: "The president is profoundly wrong. I think escalating the war is a huge mistake...If you are in Congress and you know this war is going in the wrong direction, it is no longer enough to study your options." The best way to pressure Iraqis "is for America to make it clear we are leaving Iraq and the best way to make clear that we are leaving is to actually start leaving."
--Levin, Chair of Senator Armed Services: "The reality behind the president' new rhetoric is that the open-ended commitment continues. More American military men and women would be sent into the chaos of Ira's sectarian violence without condition, without limitation."
--Robert Byrd: "At the outset of this war, the Bush administration believed, apparently, that democracy could be exported through he barrel of a gun. That belief was wrong then; it is wrong still today. Twenty thousand more guns, 20,000 more soldiers won't make it right."
--Biden: The new policy is "a tragic mistake...I fear" the plan "will make things worse."
--Senator Nelson of Florida, a previous supporter: "I have not been told the truth...over and over again by adminstration witnesses and the American people have not been told the truth."

Will Congress vote to cut funding? This could be the central question of January-February 2007. Pelosi signaled were the House leadership stood by saying that Democrats will "never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way, but we will hold the president accountable. He has to answer for this war. He has dug a hole so deep he can't even see the light on this. It's a tragedy. It's a stark blunder."

How should Presidential and Congressional power be balanced? Bush said to a Congressional challenge, "I've made my decision and we're going forward...I am the decider." Times Editorial observer Adam Cohen, recalls founding father James Madison, who wrote, "The constitution suppresses what the History of all Governments demonstrate that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it." Only Congress can declare war, which they have not done since the attacks on Pearl Harbor in December, 1941. Republican Senator Specter says, "I would respectfully suggest to the president that he is not the sole decider. The decider is a joint and shared responsibility"

Congress has pressured the President in war time, such as the War of 1812, the Civil War with Gen. McClellan, and even censuring President Polk for beginning the Mexican war "unconstitutionally." Today, if Congress passes a resolution to cut troops, the President will likely "resist through delay, redeploy of troops elsewhere or simply disregarding Congress," suggests one expert.

On Jan. 24, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted for a resolution condemning the escalation. A 12-9 vote was along party lines, with only Rep. Chuck Hagel voted in favor. On the front page of the New York Times, the vote was labeled "the most direct confrontation over the war" since it began. The non-binding resolution will move to the Senate, where early predictions are that about 8 of 49 Republicans will join all or nearly all Democrats in support of the resolution.

Russ Feingold is going a step further than a non-binding resolution. He and fellow Senator Kennedy have resolutions to actually cut funding. When would funding be cut? Under what circumstances? Feingold got specific in late January, wanting to end funding and have troops out in six months. The Wisconsin Senator feels that "since the president is adamant about pursuing his failed policy...Congress has a duty to stand up and prevent him."

Obama's new proposal is to start a "redeployment" no later than May and have all combat troops out by April 1, 2008, as suggested by the Iraq Study Group. By using the term "combat troops" Obama seeks some troops to remain for counter-terrorism and training of Iraqis. The Illinois Senator wants to halt the "reckless escalation" adding that "no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else' civil war, nor settle the grievances in the hearts of the combatants The time for waiting in Iraq is over. The days of our open-ended commitment must come to a close. And the need to bring this war to an end is here."

Biden's proposal from many months ago is now usually called "soft partition." Clarence Page of the Tribune calls it "not perfect" but "it's the best of many imperfect proposals."

Replies Republican Oren Hatch, "The message to our troops is that we no longer support them."

Secretary of State Rice was greeted harshly by the Senate in late January. She called the surge or escalation an "augmentation." With Rumsfeld gone as a target for Congress and other critics, Rice is taking more harsh criticism. As the Times reported on Feb. 4, "Despite her role at the heart of the Iraq war from its beginning [as National Security Adviser] Ms. Rice had, thus far, avoided the public pillorying that Mr. Rumsfeld received. Brookings Institute Ken Pollack feels that it is "no longer the case that Rumsfeld is the administration bad buy. People will look much harder at Condi 's role now, and Iraq is really going to rest on her shoulders."

Appearing in a lengthy interview with Jim Lehrer of The News Hour in mid-January, the President emphasized repeatedly that "success is vital." Success, he explained, generally means a stable Iraq which can defend itself. Earlier, he had termed the objective an Iraq which can "govern, sustain, and defend itself" and that "it's important for the American people to understand success...is vital for our own security." Democracy is sometimes mentioned among these priorities. Reacting to the UN estimate of 34,000 Iraqis being killed in 2006, (see "Deaths" FAQ) the President feels the lesson is that we must help the Iraqi government to stop the sectarian violence. Bush tended to emphasize al-Qaeda and terrorists more than he did the Shiite-Sunni-sectarian killing. Further, the President feels confident that history will vindicate him, even if it is after he leaves office. He is convinced that he is right.

On top of all this action in Congress, came the President's State of The Union speech on January 23. In this address his focus on Iraq was generally in the broader context of the "War on Terror." For example, he stated that "The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others." He asked Congress to consider his surge plan and "give it a chance...be patient" because "however you voted" in October of 2002 "you did not vote for failure." The President wanted to "keep America safe" and "stand by" our commitments to the Iraqis. We should not "abandon" our friends and must have the "necessary resolve." He has a plan that is "likely to succeed."

The President added that the sectarian violence "is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk." What must the Iraqis do? "The Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence...But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this one their own." Why is success so crucial? "If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides."

In the Democratic response, first time Senator Jim Webb of Virginia strongly urged a different course: "The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this was is being fought, not do the majority of our military, nor does a majority of our Congress. We need a new direction. Webb, a veteran of Vietnam whose son is now in Iraq, believes that "the president took us into this war recklessly" and disregarded warning from various military leaders. "We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable and predicted disarray that has followed." Webb suggests "an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq."

Columnist responses to Webb and others included David Brooks of the Times. He wonders if Webb's party "still talks piously about ending bloodshed in Darfur really want to walk away from a genocide the US is partly responsible for? Are US troops going to be pulled back to secure bases to watch passively while rivers of Iraqi blood lap at their gates? How many decades will America be fighting to quell the cycle of regional violence set loose by a trans-national Sunni-Shiite explosion? Brooks suggests an option that is based on the reality on the ground, the "soft partition" into three regions.

Robert Kagan feels that both parties are pretending that they can just make the war go away. In "Grand Delusion" (1/28/07, Post), Kagan writes that "Those who think they were elected sometiems to lead rather than follow seem to be in a miority." William Kristol of The Weekly Standard added, "The national Democratic Party has become the puppet of antiwar groups."

Charles Kruathammer, who usually agrees with Kagan, is frustrated by the "war of words" he sees from the Senate and the NIE. (2/9/07). The NIE said there was and was not a civil war, "verging on the comical." The debate in DC is more about words than about the war. Weeks of debate got nowhere. The Senate "ducked" a serious issue. "They negotiate language that provides precisely the amount of distancing a senator might need as political insulation should the surge either succeed or fail." On "surge vs. escalation", those who use escalation want us to think of Vietnam. "And the more Vietnam words you can use, the more you've won the debate without having to make an argument." Even "redeployment" is meaningless, the syndicated columnist feels, unless we know where the plan is the send the troops, bases in Iraq, Kuwait, the US?

For a little history on the civil war debate, we can turn to the March 18 Tribune. They recall that in August of 2006, Rice had said, "It's not civil war when 12.5 million people go out and vote for a government that bridges all of the sectarian groups. It's not civil war when...the Iraqis...form a unity government that is now trying to work both toward reconstruction and reconciliation It's not civil war when you have" a Shia Prime Minister, a Sunni Defense Minister, and a Kurdish president. That's not civil war."

By December of 2006 Bush put it this way: "Most of the country outside of...Baghdad...is relatively peaceful. Doesn't indicate a civil war as far as they're concerned."

What if the Iraqi government doesn't "step up"? Some Democrats were vague about their Plan B, while others became more specific in February.

In support of Bush, McCain said, "It took us a long time to recover from losing a war [in Vietnam]." Cheney chimed in, "We've have enormous successes in Iraq and we will continue to have enormous successes."

The Chicago Tribune lead editorials tend to support the President and criticize the Congressional leadership, but their Feb. 16 contributions criticized both. "A surge of rhetoric" (2/16/07) opens, "There's a good reason we don't have 435 commanders in chief." The House resolution "carries no practical impact and second-guesses a military decision that was made more than a month ago and is already being carried out." The paper cites USA Today/Gallup poll that about 60% of Americans oppose adding troops and want US out by the end of 2008, yet about 60% do not want to cut off funding for the additional troops. "A vote to cut off funds would make congress responsible for the outcome of the war. Big political risk there." The Chicago paper wants clearer benchmarks for the Iraqi government. "There will be consequences of a retreat, a US failure in Iraq. Like it or not, Iraq is part of a larger global struggle against terrorism. A stable Iraq is far less likely to become a haven for terroists than an Iraq left in disarray and chaos."

Announced the President three days after his State of the Union, "I'm the decision-maker on Iraq." Congress has not supported his escalation. He challenges others to propose a solution. There are actually alternative plans suggested by a variety those in Congress. The President urged Congress to "give the new plan a chance...People are prejujding the outcome." After General Patraeus was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate as the new commander to replace Gen. Casey, Bush commented, "This may become the first time in the history of the United States Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose his plan that is necessary to succeed in that battle."

Which proposal will make it to the Senate floor? Sen. Feingold wants to cut off funds six months after passage, with assurances that this will not hurt the troops. Obama officially announced his candidacy on Feb. 10 in Springfield, Illinois, home of President Abraham Lincoln. Obama wants an immediate troops cap and a withdrawal/redeployment to begin on May 1, with all combat troops out by spring 2008. Critics wonder if a troop cap is constitutional. Kerry's plan is to get troops out in a year. Feingold and Dodd plan to vote against non-binding resolutions. Then, in a compromise, the headlines read that Senators of both parties united behind a revised proposal by Senator John Warner, Republican and World War II veteran. It drops the language that the escalation is "not in the national interest." Democratic leader Reid agreed it would be used in place of the Biden/Hagel/Levin proposal, detailed above. Warner's non-binding resolution sates that "the Senate disagrees with the plan."

In the House, leaders agreed, but Pelosi added that she will also push for legislation to start bringing the troops home. Pelosi, returning from a visit to Iraq, describes the situation as "catastrophic...This plan is not working."

Hillary Clinton will vote for the new compromise but doesn't support all of it. "It makes the point, which is important. We're tying to get the attention of this president, to change course." Later she added, "If I had been president in October of 2002, I would not have started this war...If we in Congress don't end this war before January of 2009, as president I will."

Taking heat in New Hampshire for her vote for war in 2002, the New York Senator says she takes "full responsibility" for her vote but will not say "I'm sorry" or "It was a mistake" or "I was wrong." However, she added, "If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake then there are others to choose from." Clinton advisers wonder whether she should change course and utter these words. As a woman, she probably feels the burden to seems extra tough and firm on national security. "She is in a box" not wanted to be called a Kerry-like "flip flopper" though Edwards has seemed to come out unscathed for renouncing his same vote. One Kerry adviser can't figure out why she can't say, "I was misled, I made a mistake."

Back in 2002 (see pre-war FAQ for many details) Clinton said before her vote, "in the four year since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to build his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorist, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in...9/11...Because bipartisan support for this resolution means success in the UN more likely, and therefore , war less likely and because a good faith effort by the US, even if it fails, will bring ore allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded...that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation." The scrutinized vote, with a lengthy Times article included her other comments: "A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote for puts awesome responsibly in the hands of our president."

What was Clinton thinking of "first strike" and "pre-emptive" and "preventative" war? Back in 2002, she said, "My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption, or for unilateral ism , or for the arrogance of American power or purpose--all of which carry grave dangers for our nation."

Defending her vote in 2004 and 2005, she was quiet for many months. Clinton did say then, "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends...shared about WMD...I think that in the case of the adminstration, they really believed it. They really thought they ewer right....I do not regret giving the president authority..What I regret is the way the president used the authority.

In the past few months, she has said, "I take responsibly for that vote...The mistakes were made by the president, who misled this country and this Congress."

David Brooks defends Clinton (2/15/07) and feels she need not offer an apology. What she was saying before her October 2002 vote and before the war started was that she wanted to go back to the UN for approval and give inspections more time. (John Kerry made the same arguments in his 2004 campaign). After the war began, her goals was not to see the President disgraced but to succeed in Iraq. She was "trying to seek a balance" and "defer to the President" seeing problems as "complex....If she apologizes, she'll forget her integrity," concludes the Times columnist.

A few weeks later fellow Times columnist Frank Rich did not defend Clinton. He feels that not that she voted for the war, but rather her judgment, "then and now. Take her most persistent current formulation on Iraq" about "if I knew then what I knew now." It's fair to ask: Knew what then? Not everyone was so easily misled by the White House's manipulated intelligence and propaganda campaign Some of her fellow leaders in Washington--not just Mr. Obama out in Illinois, not just Al Gore out of power--knew plenty in the fall of 2002. Why didn't she?"

Obama criticized Clinton for not being more specific on Iraq. However, Obama made only one Senate speech about Iraq in his first year as new Senator, though he opposed the war before he came to Washington. In a speech just after declaring in Springfield, he was faced with anti-war protestors held signs, "Cut the Funding" and shouted, "Troops out now!" Obama doesn't want to cut funding for troops already there because they wouldn't get the equipment they need. As the Obama-Clinton rivalry heated up in February, Obama said, "In retrospect, a lot of people feel like they didn't ask hard enough questions" before the war vote. However, a front page Times article points out that in 2004 he said he did not "place blame" on Democrats who voted for war, because he had not seen the same intelligence.

Dodd also criticized Clinton in a Nevada appearance of late February. Clinton proposes capping troop levels and start withdrawing within 90 days. But Dodd is upset that she will not apologize for her 2002 vote. "There are two things that people in public life--tow responses people in public life never like to give, and I don't understand why: 'I made mistake' and 'I don't know.'"

The Obama plan of complete withdrawal by March 2008 does not go as far as Edwards or Kucinich, but was still criticized by Bush ally, John Howard, prime minister of Australia: "If I were running Al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats." Obama replied that it was "flattering that one of George Bush's allies...started attacking me the day after I announced." He suggested that Australia consider adding 20,000 troops or stop using "empty rhetoric."

Also that week, Obama said in the war 3000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted." Saying he had misspoken, Obama added that "sacrificed lives are never wasted." Just a week later, McCain, appearing on Letterman, had to express regret for saying, "We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives..." McCain said he should have used "sacrificed" instead of "wasted.." Obama came to the defense of McCain.

Critics of Obama feel it was safe for Obama to speak out as a State Senator and why he did not speak out against the war from the Senate floor for nearly a year after becoming US Senator. He responds that he was worried about his state seat because "it certainly didn't look like a cost-free decision when Saddam Hussein's statue was being pulled down...and the President's approval rating was at 60%. Once in the US Senate, Obama says he was trying to keep a low profile as a rookie Senator.

Presidential hopeful Sen. Chris Dodd added that his October 2002 vote for war was "a mistake ...I cast that vote and I can't change it." Now he is "deeply disappointed" that the Senate is not yet consider legislation with "more teeth."

Yet another proposal is Rep. Woolsey's HR 508, part of which asks Congress to rescind the 2002 war authorization. It had 35 co-sponsors when the House debate began in mid-Febraury. McGovern (MA) and Kucinich (OH) have similar proposals.

Bob Herbert adds to the Clinton/Obama "debate" (2/12/07) by agreeing with the Illinois Senator that the US will make "no progress at home until we leave Iraq." The Times columnist feels that Clinton "continues to dance on the war issue...We need to stop pretending that there is something sane about continued US involvement in this ruinous war." Herbert is shocked by Cheney's talk of "enormous progress" in Iraq, feeling that Cheney has "lost a zone of unreality...He may not have noticed that the last three months have been among the worst of the war."

Political commentary from Maureen Dowd criticized McCain for his pandering to the religious right. She feels there is "one huge group that he's not pandering to: Americans" who are "sick and tired of watching things go hideously backward in Iraq and Afghanistan, and want someone to show them the way out...Once the most spontaneous of campaigners," McCain is now "off balance" He's like a cat without its whiskers."

When Biden declared his intention to run, he wondered about Clinton's position. "The part that really baffles me is 'We're going to teach the Iraqis a lesson.' We're not going to equip them? OK. Cap our troops and withdraw support form the Iraqis? That's a real good idea," he concluded, sarcastically. Biden and Clinton voted for war (to authorize force) in 2002 but he has become a strong critic of the President ever since. Biden also ran for President in 1988.

Edwards has directly apologized for his October 2002 vote on Iraq. He feels the non-binding resolution should be shelved in favor of voting to cut funds. "This is not the time for political calculation. This is the time for political courage." Edward voted for war in 2002 but has strongly repudiated his vote.

Comparing the plans of Obama, Clinton, and Edwards was the Times of late February:

What motivates certain Senators? On the expected escalation vote, there are about 30 Senators up for re-election in 2008. Of those weighting their options or opposing the escalation, 5/9 are from states where Bush received less than 50% of the vote. However, of those who support the plan, Bush won every state and received 58% or more in 11/13 states. These are thus "safe", red states. Clearly, the November 2006 elections are impacting these Senators.

John Yoo, former deputy Attorney General, wonders "why are the pacifists so passive?" Congress can end the war "if it really wants to" by just not approing the next supplemental request. Yoo worries about consequences of "cutting" US troops in Iraq: slaughter, terrorism, emboldened terrorists. "The truth is that the Democrats in Congress would rather sit back and let the president take the heat in war than do anything else."

In a Senate stalemate with threats of filibuster, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate could not agree what to debate or what resolutions would be voted on, even Warner's plan, so in early February they agreed not to debate at all. The public was generally disappointed with the Senate. Democrats were afraid of being labeled "anti-troop" or "undermining the troops." One Democrat responded that to protect and support the troops it is best to bring them home. The Republicans had sought two competing alternatives more supportive of the President. Even Hagel voted with the Republicans. Democratic leader Reid said, "You can run but you can't hide. We are going to debate Iraq." Added Ben Nelson, "If not now, when? If now now, do we wait for more troops to die before we oppose the president's plan?" Durbin echoed, "We are witnessing the spectacle of a White House and Republican senator unwilling even to engage in a debate on a war that claims at least one American life every day and at least $2.5 billion dollars a week...We're going to stand by our soldier but we're not going to stand by a failed policy that exposes more of our soldiers to death and suffering."

The Times was upset with both parties. In "It's the War, Senators" (2/7/07), the paper of record opens, "It is not an inspiring sight to watch the US Senate turn the most important issue facing America into a political football and then fumble it."

Responded Lieberman, the proposal was "a resolution of irresolution" and sought more concrete alternative plans. McCain wants to debate a resolutions laying out 11 goals the Iraqi government should meet. It is not clear what would occur if the goals were not met.

Candidate Tom Vilsack authored an op-ed in the Washington Post entitled, "Congress Must Move on Iraq" (2/10/07). He called for an immediate withdrawal of troops. The Senate was in stalemate even about debate, at the time of his piece. Just two weeks later Vilasack, the first Democrat to declare his candidacy, announce that he would withdraw from the race. The Iowa Governor, 56, cited a lack of funds.

Campaigning John Edwards spoke of Martin Luther King's stand against Vietnam escalation in 1967, 40 years ago. "...There comes a time when silence is betrayal. I believe it is betrayal not to speak out against the escalation of the war...Being satisfied with non-binding resolutions we know this President will ignore is a betrayal. And shutting down debate [Republican plans] in the Senate...is worse than a betrayal. It's an outright denial of the people's will." On other related topics, Edwards continued, We are better than this. We are not the country of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo; We are not the county of secret surveillance and government behind closed doors. We are Americans, and we're better than that." Edwards, less hawkish than Hillary Clinton, wants a complete withdrawal in 12-18 months and is confronting Bush more directly.

Responded Tony Snow from the White House, "Osama bin Laden thought that a lack of American resolve was a key reason why he could inspire people to come after us on September 11. I am not accusing members of the Senate of inviting carnage on the US." Rep. Beohner (more below) feels that "If they're opposed to the president's plan, then they should step up and take real action opposing [it]...What is their plan?" (1/18/070.

Clinton would keep US troops after elected, thus changing her previous comments. In a lengthy Times interview of March 15, the former first lady wanted US troops to stay to fight Al Qaeda, protect borders, protect Kurds, and protect oil. She did not suggest how many troops would be left. They would stay off the streets of Baghdad. She feels violence goes to wherever US troops have left, like the game of "whack a mole." Though she says, "No one wants to sit by and see mass killings," The Times summarizes here position as focusing more on regional strife and less on Iraqi sectarian violence. Said Clinton, "I think the American people are done with Iraq. I think they are at a point where, whether they thought it was a good idea or not, they have seen misjudgment and blunder after blunder, and their attitude is, 'what is this getting us? What is this doing for us?"

Muslim on Muslim hostility and violence in the US is increasing, too. Some increased after the huge Baghdad truck bomb of early February 2007. A front page New York Times report of early February describes mosques with shattered windows in Dearborn, Michigan. Other problems occurs at Rutgers in 2006 when Sunnis started openly mocking Shiites. Sometimes, Shiites feel marginalizes as the minority. For example, some Sunnis "decry Ashura marches as a barbaric, infidel practice." Shiites at the University of Michigan get asked if they are "true Muslims." Says a 21-year old Poli Sci major, "To some extent, the minute you identiyf youself as a Shiite, it outs you. You feel marginalized." The article concludes, "Some Muslims worry that the friction might erupt in greater violence in the US. Others, in both camps, think the tension could prove healthy, forcing American Muslims to start a dialogue about Muslim differences."

With the Senate stalemated over procedural issues, the House decided to take up the measure in mid-February. The resolution reads simply: "Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the US Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honarably in Iraq" and "Congress disaproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional US combat troops to Iraq." The House debated the buildup all week, with each Representative getting 5 minutes to speak. How many Republican would vote with the majority Democrats? Some predicated 20, others guess more. Republicans sought an alternative resolution urging the President to follow the recomendations of the Iraq Study Group, which includes talks with Iran and Syria. Democrats did not allow this resolution to make it to the floor nor allow any Amendments. This represents Congress' most extensive discussions of the war since it began nearly four years ago. The front page Tribune article of Feb. 14 calls the vote "the strongest and most formal rebuke of the adminstration's conduct of the war."

A sampling of the comments:

Among the few dozen Republicans who voted in favor of the resolution was Florida Congressman Ric Keller: "Imagine your next-door-neighbor refuses to mow his lawn and the weds are all the way up to his waist, so you decide you're going to mow his lawn for him every single week. The neighbor never say thank you, he hates yo and sometimes he takes out a gun and shoots you. Under these circumstances, do yo keep mowing his lawn for ever? Do you send even more of your family members over to mow his law? Or do you say to that neighbor, you better step it up and mow you own lawn or there's going to be serious consequences for you."

Minority leader John Boehner had his floor speech published has a major op-ed in the Feb. 16 Tribune. He warns of chaos and of al Qaeda. Excerpts include: Because al Qaeda "cannot defeat American on the battlefield, Al Qaeda and terrorist sympathizers worldwide are tying to divide us here at home....We have an opportunity to show our enemies that we will not take the bait...This is not a question of fighting for land, for treasure, or for glory--we are fighting to rid the world of a radical and dangerous ideology. We are fighting to define all that is sacred to our way of life...Will we commit to defending the freedoms and liberties we cherish? Or will we retreat and leave the fight for another generation?...We know what Al Qaeda thinks when American retreats from the battlefield. They think we can't stomach a fight." Boehner looks at history and feels Al Qaeda began the war 22 years ago when Iran took US hostages. (Al Qaeda is Sunni and Iran is Shiite). "Do we really believe that if we pack up now--if we abandon Iraq and leave the country in chaos--that our enemies will lay down their arms and leave us alone?...If we abandon Iraq, regional stability will be jeopardized...If we abandon Iraq, the instability--coupled with the damning image of another American retreat [like Beirut and Somalia] will embolden Iran and Islamic militants and endanger Israel..If we abandon Iraq, those who seek WMD will know they have nothing more to fear from a fearful America...If we leave, they will follow us home. It's that simple." The Minority leader concluded with a call to resolve, fortitude, standing, and fighting. "As President Eisenhower once said: 'History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.'"

Boehner said a few days later that the Democrats have two choices. "They can either try to stop the president's new strategy and block funding for our troops, or they can join us in aggressively holding the Bush administration and the Iraqi government accountable for achieving success." Replied a Pelosi spokesman, "Where were the Republicans the last four years?"

The 45 hours of debate was twice as long as the October 2002 debate to give the President the authority to go to war. The House passed the non-binding resolution, 246-182, with 17 Republicans joining the majority and two Democrats in the minority. A "rebuke" of the President, proclaimed the front page of the Chicago Tribune and Washington Post.

The next step in the House may be to approve further funding with certain conditions attached, a move supported by Speaker Pelosi and Jack Murtha. The veteran political commentator Robert Novak writes of "Murtha in command." Conditions could include how often troops are deployed (limit National Guard to two tours) and the readiness of their equipment. The "Out of Iraq" caucus now has 75 members. Some Republicans will reply that the war is being "micromanaged." David Obey (D-WI) feels that a "real solution" will not come until "Republicans walk down to the White House and say, Mr. president, the jig is up, this a a bad direction and you need to rethink what you're doing." Biden and others want to revisit the October 2002 resolution. By late February 1/3 of House Democrats had joined the "Out of Iraq" caucus.

Response to the House vote came in the lead Times editorial of Feb. 17. "On to the Hard Part on Iraq" looks to necessary and harder steps now needed. As the paper has suggested in the past, Congress needs to link funding to Iraqi performance and must be prepared to cut off funding "if the Iraqis refuse." The editorial criticizes Murtha's plan which won't help contain the war or make US troops safer. "Instead of camouflaged troop squeezes, Congress needs to grasp the problem straight on and do what the administration won't do."

If restrictions to the supplemental are attached, the President would have to consider vetoing a bill which provides funding for the troops.

Meanwhile, the Senate held a special Saturday session, in which Senators had to interrupt their Presidential campaigning The Senate debated about whether to debate the same non-binding resolution which passed the House. They fell four votes short of having a debate. Republicans wanted to also vote on funding for the troops, in essence calling the bluff of some Democrats. What is next for the Senate? Democratic leaders plan to present binding legislation with will limit the mission rather than cut funds. They hope to modify or revoke the resolution they passed in October 2002. "It may be a surge, but I believe it is a plunge," remarked Sen. Levin. "A plunge into the sectarian cauldron, a plunge into the unknown." The arguments is that the 2002 resolution to not allow US troops to fight in a civil war. Dared Sen. Graham, "If you think we are in the middle of civil war, cut off funding." Counter Collins, "We've had four surges" and none have changes the situation, so she is very skeptical.

Benchmarks were again debated, a proposal supported by NY Governor Pataki, an ally of the Bush policy. In late February the back and forth continued with competing proposals and threats. Murtha is considering restrictions of financing. Some Democrats fear this is "micromanagment" of the war. Republicans complain that Murtha is sneakily cutting funding for the troops. By late February, still only the non-binding House resolution had come to a vote in either chamber. Some conservative House Democrats don't like Murtha's benchmarks because the fear the party will be accused of abandoning the troops.

As the Times summarized the divided Congress on the last day of February, Democrats were "divided over strategy" and "stymied by ideological divisions."

$100 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan was to be debated and voted on in March, 2007. As the Democrats tried to hone or unite their message and resolutions, one comment came from Democratic Sen. Feingold: "It's still George Bush's war, but we run the risk of gaining some ownership of it if we don't make it absolutely clear that we are the party that wants to get out of there." Added Illinoisan Durbin, "To those who say we would micromanage the war I say, isn't it time for somebody to manage the war?"

The elephant in the closet is Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who has hinted that he might leave the Democratic party and thus give the Senate majority over to the Republicans. Thus, the Senate might not push as hard as the House to reign in President Bush. All committee leadership would then be changed.

Rice made a surprise visit to Baghdad in mid-February, meeting with Maliki and talking about the temporary lull in violence. Sadly, the lull appeared to end on Feb. 18. Rice is concerned about Congressional "micromanagement." The military needs flexibility. If the military is not part of a civil war, Rice wonders "how do you possibly distinguish what is going on in Baghdad...from the fight with al Qaeda?" Replies Sen. Levin, "the responsibility--not just the power...to speak out and to change the course when you have a failing course." He speaks less of a surge and more of a "plunge...into the middle of a civil war." The Michigan Senator admits that "We're trying to tie the hands of the president and his policy."

Cheney spoke on his trip to Asia and Australia. "The American people will not support a policy of retreat," is how he labeled opposition to the war. "If we do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we'll do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy" which is "to break the will of the American poeple...then they win because we quit." Murtha, an ally of Pelosi and chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, called for an end to the war back in the fall of 2005. Murtha believes that Cheney is "striking out [at him] because they have no answers."

Cheney was hit hard by, among others, John Nichols in The Nation, by examining the number of instances that the Vice President statements and optimism were proved wrong. Nichols piece is "Cheney's New Front in War on Reality."

Author Rashid Khalidi, in a February 2007 interview on NPR's Worldview, with Jerome McDonald, discusses the US role in the Middle East and Iraq, especially since 1979. His book, Resurrecting Empire, examines how US policy is viewed from the perspective of the people of the Middle East. "The occupation has had terrible consequences...We have done something terrible in Iraq...We are creating another Lebanon...no good will come of that...We are helping to create a Sunni-Shia conflict...Sunni and Shia intermarried, worked together against the British [in the 1920s], and lived together", he explains. "It is dangerous...to foster the most extreme versions of Islam." We support two harsh "front" parties for Iran. Our planes helped kill anti-Iran Shia last month. Majority rule with no minority rights "is not democracy." "We did good" things in the Middle East but "it is outweighed" by the current damage.

In an update on polls above, a late February poll showed that the majority (53%) of Americans want a deadline to complete withdrawal.
24% want a withdrawal in 6 months and another 21% want with withdrawal within a year. 2/3 of Americans are against a troop increase. A similar NYTimes/CBS poll showed that with Bush's overall approval rating at just 29%, only 23% approve of his handling of the war. Are things going badly in Iraq? 3/4 say yes and 23% say no. A majority of Republicans now feel that there is not much the US military can do to reduce the sectarian fighting.

With legislation on Iraq stuck in mid-April, a PEW poll showed that there are few anti-war Republicans. 67% of Republicans feel the war is going well, compared to 36% of independents, and just 24% of Democrats.

What do Republicans want in the next President? Of March respondents, 58% want flexibility on staying in Iraq while 39% prefer a commitment to stay. In polls 11 months before the first primary, Giuliani has 50% favorable, followed by McCain at 32% and Romeny at 14%. Romney has the highest "haven't heard enough" numbers (57%).

Democrats prefer Clinton over Obama by just 3%, with Edwards at 40% favorable. Clinton's "haven't heard enough" numbers are only 3%, while Obama and Edward are 17%. Did Clinton make a mistake with her war vote in 2002? Among Democrats 41% say yes and 52% say no. In the first quarter race to raise money, Clinton barely beat out Obama, with Edwards, as expected third. On the Republican side, it was Romney, Guliani, and McCain.

Clinton criticized Obama, citing his "consistency on Iraq." Though he spoke out stongly at anti-war rallies as State Senator, he did not have to vote on the war in the fall of 2002. Later, the Illinois Senator said, "I'm not privy to the Senate intelligence reports...What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case [for war] was not made."

Are we facing "Iraq burnout"? With the news of Anna Nicole Smith and the Oscars dominating the news in late February, neither the Tribune nor the Post had an editorial or op-ed piece on Iraq on Feb. 27. This was the first day I recall this having occurred in months. (The Times did have one commentary on Iraq).

After Molly Ivins died in January 2007 (see Columnists against war), came the death of veteran historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. He started writing in the 1940s a won a Pulitzer at age 27. He was perhaps best known for A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House, which also won a Pulitzer. Schlesinger also authored The Imperial Presidency on Richard Nixon. In his last book (2004), he wrote against the Iraq War and called the invasion and aftermath "a ghastly mess." On the curbs President Bush has brought against civil liberties he felt that in retrospect we will say, "We hate ourselves in the morning."

In other US political news of the spring of 2007, the anti-war caucus became more bold. They are pushing for a debate on withdrawal. Beginning in 2005 with 50 members the "Out of Iraq" Congressional Caucus was inspired by Murtha troops reduction plan in the fall of that year. Now 1/3 of the Democrats have joined the caucus. Barbara Lee and Dennis Kucinich have co-sponsored the creation of a Department of Peace. Lee wants a "fully funded withdrawal" rather than "cutting off funding." The caucus is increasingly frustrated because now a majority of Americans support their goals. In March, the Caucus considered voting against the President's latest supplemental funding request of $100 billion. "It's time to draw a line in the sand...Nothing is going to happen unless we use the power of the purse," said one. Says Kucinich, "Democratic leaders want to fund the war while saying they oppose the war...We used the war to hlep us win control of Congress...But now we are giving Presietn Bush enough money to fight the war through the end of his term?"

Typical anti-war Democrat comments included: "All this bill will do is fund another year of the war, and I can't vote for that" and "I will not and cannot vote for another dollar or another dime to support this war." Adds Representative Rangel, the war is "morally wrong" and "goes even beyond the brutality of slavery and the lynchings." Jan Schakowsky, who has voted against war funding in the past, sees the bill as a "partial victory, not enough, but we're going to continue to fight."

Liberal Dems feared voting for another 18 months of war whereas conserviates didn't want to "tie the hands" of the president.

Anti-war Democrats gave their Speaker the "Crawford treatment" by camping outside her home in San Francisco. The group was Code Pink, a women's anti-war group. They feel Pelosi has not gone far enough to get the troops home.

Minority Leader Boehner opposes any measure that "restricts the president's ability to win the war..." In the Senate, minority leader McConnell feels it's all about "funding the troops...a successful mission" and "interference."

After weeks of negotiations, Democrats seemed the agree on a supplemental bill which would add a timetable with combat troops out in spring or summer of 2008, or earlier if Iraqis do not meet certain benchmarks, which would be political, military, and economic. Bush must verify progress. It includes readiness requirements for US troops, sought by Rep. Murtha. Speaker Pelosi, trying to bring in Democrats on the left and right, urged passage so the headline will not read "Congress gives President free rein" but rather "Congress is standing up to President Bush."

There were other non-Iraq items added to the House bill, such as spending and limits on the President's power to attack Iran. In negotiations, The Iran language was dropped, the timeline was pushed back, and spending was added. Yet, Bush still threatened to veto. What if there was no supplemental approved? They decided against repealing the 2002 original authorization. In the Senate, Democrats had trouble getting a veto-proof 60 vote help from Republicans.

Republicans, led by majority leader Boehner, will likely vote against any bill which, says the Ohio Congressman, "will inhibit" the ability of the troops "to win." Echoed a Senior White House adviser, "It would unnecessarily handcuff our generals on the ground." Others talk of "emboldening the enemy" and "hobble Americans commanders in the field." Rep. Pence of Indiana called the bill "retreat and defeat." "This supplemental is like a promise written in disappearing ink. It's designed to fail." (Akin, MO). Commented another, "This legislation is a political solution for Democrats, not a strategy for winning in Iraq." From Michigan, came Rep. Hoekstra, "Providing full funding to our troops standing in the breach in a war against militant radical Islam should be easy and it should come without strings attached. The bill before us today sends a terrible message to our brave men and women in the armed forces." Added Cheney, always on the attack, the proposed bills will "undermine the troops" and tell "the enemy to watch the clock and wait us out." The President contradicted his Vice President when he said the previous month, "I think you can be against my decision and support the troops, absolutely." Yet Bush feels any limit on the mission could lead the failure.

Bush had a tough week in early March, dealing with increases in violence in Iraq, the Libby conviction and the Walter Reed scandal. Soon came the Gonzales attorney replacement issue (see above).

Op-ed and Editorials in March 2007 included, "The Purse Isn't The Only Weapon" which Congress can use, explains a Times op-ed in mid-March. Lawyers and former Justice Department leaders feel that "the debate that Congress needs to have about the Iraq war is being hijacked by sound bite arguments" such as "cut off the funds for the troops." Sending "un funded troops" is "simply a false threat" and Congress is not limited to funding "all or nothing." The piece concludes about the argument "that even to debate our troops' mission in Iraq somehow undercuts and endangers them.. Surely this has it backward...We certainly owe those who put their lives on the line every day a renewed determination of whether their continued sacrifc3 is necessary for the national interest."

"Most Americans have one central question about the war in Iraq; When will it end", opens "The war's endgame." This lead Tribune editorial of March 11 continues, "President Bush insists that it won't end until there's modicum of security in the county and the democratically elected government can defend itself. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi say it will end no later than Sept. 1, 2008." The paper feels that Democrats would be wiser try to pass a bill that has a chance of becoming law. "Deadline or not, what the House plan won't do--can't do--is end US responsibly for Iraq" after the US troops start coming home.

March 22 brought the Times lead editorial, opening, "The House...now has a chance to lead the nation toward a wiser, more responsibility Iraq policy" and "impose benchmarks for much-need political progress on the Iraqi government--and link them to the continued presense" of US troops. "The bill also seeks to lessen the intolerable strains on American forces." The "long overdue" bill should be passed by a "overwhelming, bipartisan margin." The paper continues, "Given Mr. Bush's failure, Congress has a responsibility to do all it can to use Washington's remaining leverage to try to lessen the chaos that will likely follow an American withdrawal--no matter when it happens." Benchmarks should include steps against Shiite militias and toward national reconciliation. "If Mr. Bush were wiling to grasp Iraq' horrifying reality, he would be the one imposing benchmarks, timetables and readiness rules. He will not, so Congress must. American troops should not be trapped in the middle of a bloodbath that neither Mr. Bush not Iraq's leaders have the vision or the will to halt."

That same spring day brought an op-ed from a Columbia journalism professor and author. Thomas Edsall feels that Democrats who "really want to play a role" in the debate should look at proposals by McCain and Giuliani, who focus on blaming Bush more than on coming up with a solution. To be politically effective, Democrats should "keep attention focused on Mr. Bush's responsibility for the catastrophic state of the Iraq war."

The Senate voted against any drawdown in troops, in a close 50-48 vote. The bill would have had a withdrawl/redeployment begin 120 days after it passes, and complete combat troop withdrawal by March 31, 2008. One Republican voted with the Democrats, Smith of Oregon: "Setting specific dates...is unwise, but what is worse is remaining mired in the quicksand of the Sunni-Shia civil war." Two Democrats voted with majority. Said Sen. Harry Reid, "The Republicans are rubber-stamping the president's failed policy." Added Sen. Byrd, "We were wrong to invade, we were wrong to think victory would be quick or easy and we are wrong to stay on in occupation that earns us only hated--with ne end, no end, no end in sight,." Those in the majority of this vote countered, that it would be "like sending a memo to our enemy" about when we will depart. Moderate Republicans appear leery of continuing to support the president.

A similar House bill was still in committee as the fourth anniversary of the start of the war approached, March 20. Their bill would push until Sept. 1, 2008 for a final withdrawal. In committee, the only Democratic the vote against was anti-war Barbara Lee, saying,"The American people sent a mandate to us to bring home our men and women before the end of the year. I don't think the president deserves another chance." Some Democrats feared they would be blamed for defeat if they forced the war to end.

On the eve of the House vote, the President urged members to show "courage and resolve....Don't pack up and go home." In a speech, he cautioned of violence "engulfing the region" but did not mention democracy. Added Tony Snow from the White House, "It is a withdraw-the-troops bill, not a fund-the-troops bill...It would also force failure of the mission...and forfeit the services made by our troops." Responded Senator Majority leader Reid, "After four years of failure...the president's only answer is to do more of the same."

Thomas Friedman feels that Democrats need to get behind Pelosi and get realistic. The surge "is going ahead" though it should have happened years earlier if the Republicans had been doing some serious questioning. Deadlines matter and Patraeus is willing to change course if the policy doesn't have a chance. But "how will General Patraeus or Congress judge if the surge is working? The real test is whether a self-sustaining Iraqi army and policy consensus is...being put in place that can hold after we leave," concludes Friedman.

Historians suggest that the House and Senate will slowly increase pressure on the White House, even if a strong bill does not pass in the spring of 2007.

Moveon.org led their subscribers vote, and the web site reported that 85% support the Democratic bill. Tom Matzzie, MoveOn leader, is quoted in the Times, "This [bill]is a good step" and other steps will be needed.

The House bill passed on March 23, setting benchmarks and a goal of getting all troops out by fall of 2008. Exceptions would made for those "fighting al Qaeda."

The Senate bill passed about one week later, on March 29, with similar guidelines. The Senate vote was 51-47, making the Bush veto threat very real. It would require that the President start withdrawing troops from "the civil war" within 120 days of its passage. A non-binding goals of ending combat operations was March 2008. The USA Today story labeled the vote the Senate's "boldest challenge yet to Bush' handling" of the war. Lieberman was the lone Democrat (actually an Independent now) to vote against. The House and Senate bills need to be reconciled. The vote was an example of nearly all Republicans deciding, according to Democrats to choose "loyalty to the president over loyalty to their constituents."

How many troops are combat troops? Since fewer than half the total troops are combat, parts of these bills talk of reducing combat troops, not total troops.

Feingold and Majority leader Reid vowed to follow a veto with a bill to cut off funding for the war. The President and Republicans phrase that threat, "Cutting off funds for the troops" and "jeopardizing the safety" of the troops. Reid soon appeared to back off the threat, upsetting some Democrats would want an end to the war funding. When President Bush invited Republican leaders to the White House to talk, Reid wasn't so sure given that the President set the condition of no timetables. Bush is accusing Democrats of "behaving irresponsibly" and making political statements. Responded Reid, "By our constitution, we have equal say...And he's got to listen to us, because we are speaking for the American people. He isn't."

McCain visited Baghdad in the spring, and talked of freely moving about the capital. Actually, he was accompanied by hundreds of US troops and several helicopters on his visit to a market. McCain's presidential bid is ever more dependent on "victory" in Iraq, as the Washington Post reported in early April. Frank Rich was among those to criticize McCain's "disastrous" market visit. Violence in the market returned the day after McCain's "stroll." Should the visit "speed America's disengagement form Iraq, what looks today like Jon McCain's farcical act of political suicide may some day loom large as a patriot's final act of sacrifice for his country." Rich quoted Rep. Pence as saying that the scene was like "a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime."

McCain gave a major speech at the Virginia Military Institute, which could be one of the most important of his career, as he goes out on the "pro-war limb", focusing on "the need to win" in Iraq. He talks of national security being more important than winning an election. If the military strategy works, his move could be fruitful. Withdrawal, the former Vietnam POW warns, would lead to chaos across the Middle East, embolden Al Qaeda and expose the US to "another 9/11--or worse...America has a vital interest in preventing the emergence of Iraq as a Wild West for terrorists," as Afghanistan was before 9/11. He repeatedly portrayed Democrats as acting only out of political motivation and of being reckless. McCain asked, "Will this nation's elected leaders make the politically hard but strategically vital decision to give General Petraeus our full support and do what is necessary to succeed in Iraq? Or will we decide to take advantage of the public's frustration, accept defeat and hope that whatever the cost to our security, the politics of defeat will work out better for us than our opponents? For my part, I would rather lose a campaign than a war."

In early April, McCain visited Iraq and said things were looking better and safer. We can "walk freely" and "strolll" in certain neighbrohoods. One type of violence, sectarian violence, is down in Baghdad. However, he was accompanied by scores of troops and a few helicopters. McCain thinks the press "needs to get up to speed." Critics feel that McCain has lost credibility because Baghdad is not safe.

David Brooks labels McCain as the "fatalist" (4/12/07). Quoting the Senators criticism of the polices in Iraq, he writes, "For four years we've been screwing this up. Too often we've misled the American people with talk of Dead Enders and Mission Accomplished." McCain's focus, the "give the surge a chance" is military. "The problem...is he doesn't grapple with the psychology and culture of the Iraqis, upon which all else depends."

Biden responded to McCain with a Post op-ed, "The Real Surge Story."

Another Republican candidate, Giuliani, criticized Democrats for "throwing up a flag of surrender" but still urged President Bush to negotiate with them before vetoing the bill. Clinton too, urged the President to compromise.

Though General Patraeus doesn't like to talk of politics, with Newshour interview a few days after the McCain visit surely impacted the politics of Washington. Emphasizing the positive, he spoke of soccer teams holding practice and Anbar tribal leaders standing up to Al Qaeda. Sec. of Defense Gates was also "encouraged" by signs in early April.

Calls for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney got more press in the spring of 2007. With Congress not inclined to act even with a Democratic majority, local governments were becoming more bold. The major issues they bring up are spying, torture, and lying to war. Kucinich asked for Cheney's impeachment in late April. The Ohio Congressman, running for President, introduced the articles of impeachment. State legislators in California and Massachusetts passed impeachment resolutions in May.

Other anti-war groups are uniting to pressure Congress.

Columnist Richard Cohen, not a fan of the V.P., feels that Cheney's actions are not impeachable.

Bush was criticized in the Sunday Times, as usual, by Frank Rich. At his Easter weekend press conference, "Almost everything he said was patently misleading or an outright lie, such as his "claim that military equipment would be shortchanged" without a bill in April. This is contradicted by two government agencies. "Even as the administration claims that Iraqis are leading the Baghdad crackdown, American military losses were double those of the Iraqi Army in March." Mosul and "once pacified Tal Afar are more violence. Tal Afar was declared by Bush in 2006 as "a free city that gives reason for hope for a free Iraq"

The following week Rich wonders if Rice is "hiding the smoking gun" on pre-war intelligence.

Congress delayed hearings with Gonzales to honor the horrific deaths of Virginia Tech on April 16. A few days later Sen. Reid told Bush, "The war is lost." The President warns that withdrawing US troops would lead to a "bloodbath." In May the President spoke at the Coast Guard Academy and spoke of previosly public but classified information. Bin Laden, he alleged, is trying to turn Iraq into a "terrorist sanctuary" from which Al Qaeda could attack the US.

The Post sees room for compromise in their mid-April editorial, "Standoff in Iraq."

The top story of early May was that the House and Senate conferenced and passed a common bill which called for timetables. Troops would need to start to withdraw in October, 2007. They sent the bill to him on the fourth anniversary of his "Mission Accomplished" speech from the aircraft carrier off San Diego. The President quickly vetoed the $124 billion bill, only the second veto of his six years in office. Bush invoked "supporting the troops" and the specre of al-Qaeda.

In the debate over some kind of compromise between the White House and Congress, it appeared that "timetables" might be replaced with "benchmarks." The Post editorial page responded to this possibility in "Benchmarks for Iraq." (5/3/07). Back in 1999, Bush was critical of Clinton for not setting timetables for US forces in Kosovo.

Majority leader Harry Reid was able to blundly say what was felt by a growing number of Americans: "The war is lost."

John Edwards, apologetic of his 2002 vote for war, suggests that Congress send back the same bill to the President. "This is deja vu all over again. We saw it in Vietnam."

Iraq was off the front pages of both the Tribune and New York Times on May 7, thanks to the Presidential elections in France and the Kansas tornado. However, Iraq made the Kansas news as the Governor complained that the National Guard did not have enough equipment since much of it was in Iraq.

The lead Times editorial of May 7, "The Soft Bigotry of Iraq", feels that the US needs to stop talking and get tough with the Iraqi government. "Whether out of blind loyalty or blind denial, most Congressional Republicans are prepared to back up President Bush's veto of the Iraq spending bill." Maliki has been "dodging" national reconciliation promises concerning three issues: Iraqis security forces, oil revenue and anti-Baathist laws. "Without these steps, Mr. Maliki and his allies cannot even minimally claim to be a real national government. With them, there is at least a chance that Iraqis can muster the strength to contain the chaos when, as is inevitable, American forces begin to leave...Each time Baghdad fails a test, Mr. Bush lowers his requirements and postpones his target dates--the kind of destructive denial Mr. Bush called, in another context, the soft bigotry of low expectations" Recently, Maliki helped fired some security officers who took on Shiite militias. On an oil agreement, "The Bush administration prematurely popped champagne corks in February."

Follows Thomas Friedman in his May 23 column, on the "sad truth. 9/11, and the failing Iraq war, have sucked up almost all the oxygen in this country--oxygen needed to discuss seriously education, health care, climate change and competitivenss...Which is why we've got to bring our occupation of Iraq to an end in the quickest, least bad way possible--otherwise we are going to lose Iraq and America. It's coming down to that choice." Friedman has avoiding talking of timetables for the past few months.

Mark Kirk (R-IL) was among the 11 moderate Republicans who pressured Bush on May 9, behind closed doors, to change course. According to the front page of both the Tribune and Times, the President "faces defections" from the "blunt warnings" and "very frank conversations."

The House passed a second Iraq bill on May 11, to fund about $40 of the war, but only through July. The second "installment" would need to be approved only after the Presidents reports on progress. The numbers were not veto-proof, and mostly along party lines. If this bill also passed the Senate, would the President make a second veto? Another House vote failed 171-225. It would have starting withdrawals in 90 days. Troops would stay on for training of Iraqis and for fighting al Qaeda. This bill received no votes from 59 Democrats

The Senate voted down an Amendment to start withdrawal in 120 days and having all troops out in March 2008. The vote gained 29 votes, double the total from 10 months ago. Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, among others, joined this minority. In another symbolic vote, a majority of Senators voted for some type of timelines.

On May 22, Congress relented on timetables, in a dramatic turn of events. A "significant concession" to the President and Republicans," the Times reported. Many Democrats would vote against this new bill which provides over $100 billion through September 30. On May 24, the new bill passed both the House and the Senate. This exposed a sharp divide in the Democratic party and made the public confused. Some Democrats worried about not being perceived as "supporting the troops" before the Memorial Day recess. As the front page Times put it, "Demo crts became concerned that their defiance could be portrayed as indifference to the troops." Others argued, "Support the troops; bring them home." Some anti-war folks thought the Democrats had "sold out" and the President has been given a "blank check." Speaker Pelosi pushed for the bill but then voted against it, as did 140 others.

While the vote in the House was closer, only 10 Democrats in the Senate voted no. Remarked Obama: "I am demanding a new policy" and stop going down "this disastrous path." Joining him were Clinton and Dodd. John Kerry also voted now. Current Senator Russ Feingold, often a critic of the war, called the vote"toothless" and "a blank check" for the President. "It looks like the desire for political comfort [support the troops] won out over real action." The Wisconsin Senator added, "Congress should have stood strong, acknowledged the will of the American people and insisted on a bill requiring a real change of course..."

John Edwards, of course, is not longer in the Senate, but said the Senate "caved in." Candidate Bill Richardson rebukes Democrats.

Only Presidential hopeful Biden, among Democrats, voted for the bill is "the more principled vote," according to Tribune political commentator Mike Tackett. Democrats like Biden and Durbin called it "a concession to reality." House leader Rahm Emanuel of Illinois is optimistic: "I view this as the beginning of the end of the president's policy..."

The bill provides 18 political and legislative benchmarks on progress for the Iraqi government, (oil, Sunnis/political unity, security, militias) which the President may "wave" if he chooses. Bush must first report to Congress in July. Benchmarks have been used unofficially for a few years, with little if any progress to show for them. This was a bill the President would not veto.

If Obama and Clinton voted the same way, do they then share views of the war? Bill Clinton claims they have essentially the same positions with the same voting records since 2005, which Obama contests. "We had a fundamentally different opinion on the wisdom of this. war. And I don't think we can revise history when it comes to that."

Reaction to the new bill came from E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post. His refrain was, "See You in September." Writing in The Nation, David Corn was critical of Democrats.

In the second Democratic debate of early June, Iraq again took center stage.

In polls, 63% of Americans favor some kind of timelines. Polls in early June showed a "growing discontent" with the war.

After George Tenet (CIA Director) released his book in May, 2007, reaction came from many venues. Paul Bremer got into the debate a few days later with his Post op-ed piece, "What We Got Right in Iraq."

Tenet, back in the fall of 2002, was the primary architecs of the hurried National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Presidential candidates were asked in June if they had actually read the document. Some had and other had not. Senator Bob Graham, not running for President, did read the full reprot, was skeptical of Saddam's WMD, and voted against the war. Graham was interviewed on NPR's "All Things Considered" on June 6.

Also see pre-war FAQ's for much more on the NIE and pre-war intelligence.

Anti-war activists were upset with Democrats voting to support the President. The National director of Win Without War commented, "You can't oppose the war and support a complete capitulation to the president. That's not why you were sent to Washington." Responded Senator Durbin, who voted against the war in 2002, he shared the frustration but just didn't have the votes, which limits his options. The House May 24 vote for funding with benchmarks for the Iraqi government was 280-142, while the Senate was 80-14. Those supporting the bill didn't want to be accused of "cutting funding for the troops."

Edwards criticized Obama and Clinton, even though they voted in May against the funding. McCain feels Obama and Clinton are "embracing the policy of surrender" and "waving a white flag to Al Qaeda." Replied Obama, "The truth is this war cost us thousands of lives and made us less safe." The Illinois Senator feels the status quo in Iraq is no longer acceptable. Giuliani stated that Democrats are "in denial of the war on terrorism."

In polls, the majority of Americans in May wanted to continue funding the war as long as the Iraqi government met specific goals. There continued to be little or so progress on those in throughout the summer of 2007. 63% want a timetable for withdrawal in 2008, while 20% feels sending more troops (surge) will improve the situation. The most negative view of the war is reflected in the thinking of 61%, who feel the US should not have gone to war, 76% way things are going badly. 13% want Congress to block all funds for the war. Only 23% approve of Bush's handling of the war, while 72% disapprove.

The US goal stated in late May was to allow improved security to make for more political reconciliation and reconstrution, described the President in his first full, solo news conference in three months.

Reaction to the funding vote of late May came from many sources, including "War Without End" from the New York Times. The President has "ignored not just the Democrats but also the vast majority of Americans, who want him to stop chasing illusions of victory and concentrate on how to stop the sacrifice of young Americans' lives." By stating that "al Qaeda is public enemy #1 in Iraq" Bush shows his "disconnect from reality and his habit of tilting at straw men, like Americans who don't care about terrorism because they question his mismanagement of the war or don't worry about what will happen after the US withdraw, as it inevitably must. The really disturbing thing about Mr. Bush's comments is his painting of the war...as an obvious-to-everyone-but-the-wrongheaded fight." So, what is the solution? It lies with the Iraqi leaders, continues the editorial. It concludes that though Democrats have been disjointed, their approach "makes far more sense than Mr. Bush's denial of Iraq's civil war and his war-without-end against terror."

At the Presidential debates of May and June, Republican criticism of the war was restrained, with the exception of Rep. Ron Paul, who said, "If we made the wrong diagnosis, we should change the medicine." McCain warned that if the surge fails "genocide" will follow, along with other doomsday options. "We must succeed," he concluded. In another Republican debate, Romney said it was right to go to war because Saddam would not let in the weapons inspectors. Sadly, Romney needs to study up on his pre-war basics.

In the Democratic debates, their "most spirited clash" was on June 3. Edwards criticized Obama and Clinton for voting against the new supplemental but not speaking out against it and "standing quiet...There is a difference between leadership and legislating." Replied Obama, "I opposed this war from the start. So you are about four and a half years late on leadership on this issue." Clinton moved the focus to Bush, adding, "This is George Bush's war...He started the war. Me mismanaged the war. He escalated the war. And he refuses to end the war."

Also in mid-May President Bush appointed a "war czar" for Iraq and Afghanistan. General Lute took the post after a few other candidates had refused the President's officer. Lute emphasized that the solution to Iraq will not be entirely military. The Senate must approve him, as he officially assistant to head of NSA. Lute said in June that he was "hesitant" about the surge strategy.

Former President Jimmy Carter was back in the news in mid-May, criticizing President Bush's policies. In two separate interviews, one for the BBC, Carter spoke of outgoing British Prime Minister and his relationship with Bush. The relationship was labeled "loyal, blind, apparently subservient." The former President added about Bush's leadership, "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history."

Most Americans believe that the in "gentleman's club" of former President, they are never critical of sitting Presidents, but "our short memories" help us forget about Eisenhower, Bush Sr., Truman, TR, and Nixon. A White House spokesman termed the comments "sad...reckless...He is proving to be increasingly irrelevant."

A senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations lambasted Carter. Amity Shlaes (Tribune, 5/23/07) feels that Carter is not one to criticize because "if he's not the worst, he's right up there" in both domestic and foreign policy. Carter is to blame for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the handling of the Iran hostage crisis, for example.

Carter pulled back from his comments after a few days saying his remarks were "maybe careless or misinterpreted." He was trying to compare the Nixon and Bush administrations and added, "I was certainly not talking personally about any president."

Al Gore's new book came out in May, 2007. The Assault on Reason includes these lines: "the current White House has engaged in an unprecedented and sustained campaign of mass deception where its policies in Iraq are concerned."

For fourth anniversary protests of March 2007, see "Troops Home '07?" FAQ.