A major earmark scandal, with Jack Murtha at its center, is brewing. Jonathan Allen and Alex Knott for CQ:

More than 100 House members secured earmarks in a major spending bill for clients of a single lobbying firm — The PMA Group — known for its close ties to John P. Murtha , the congressman in charge of Pentagon appropriations.

“It shows you how good they were,” said Keith Ashdown, chief investigator at the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. “The sheer coordination of that would take an army to finish.”

PMA’s offices have been raided, and the firm closed its political action committee last week amid reports that the FBI is investigating possibly illegal campaign contributions to Murtha and other lawmakers.

No matter what the outcome of the federal investigation, PMA’s earmark success illustrates how a well-connected lobbying firm operates on Capitol Hill. And earmark accountability rules imposed by the Democrats in 2007 make it possible to see how extensively PMA worked the Hill for its clients.

In the spending bill managed by Murtha, the fiscal 2008 Defense appropriation, 104 House members got earmarks for projects sought by PMA clients, according to Congressional Quarterly’s analysis of a database constructed by Ashdown’s group.  Those House members, plus a handful of senators, combined to route nearly $300 million in public money to clients of PMA through that one law (PL 110-116). And when the lawmakers were in need — as they all are to finance their campaigns — PMA came through for them.

That’s the very definition of quid pro quo.   It’s also, obviously, institutionalized.  There are only 435 Members of the House of Representatives.  Nearly a quarter of them, including some senior leaders from both parties, are involved.

Story via Taegan Goddard via Memeorandum.  Cartoon by PolitickerPA via Vets for Russell.

Chuck Todd and Domenico Montanaro take a look at the results of a new NBC/WSJ poll and find some surprises. Most notably, about half the people had never heard of Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Pollster Peter Hart calls the NBC/WSJ poll a “myth buster” survey; it really breaks down a lot of the myths we’ve been hearing over the last week like: (1) that the Wright controversy was the beginning of the end for the Obama campaign — certainly not the case, but there’s no telling how much more Wright stuff comes out; (2) It was surprising how few people knew who Wright was (about half). People who followed story, though, were really disturbed (55%); (3) The premise that the Clinton campaign would turn out to be a stronger campaign or stronger among independents. (4) That the bar facing a black candidate would be higher than for a woman or a person over 70; There’s a bar, but not higher; (5) That somehow this Wright story is over. If you look at it overall numbers, you can be misled. Among 29% of ALL voters, they need more answers from Obama. They have hesitations and uncertainties; they want to know, “Is he safe?” — both in the sense of credentials/experience but also in terms of life story. The Wright controversy, the poll indicates, has taken a bit of the shine off Obama, brought him out of the stratosphere, notes pollster Bill McInturff. Clinton also faces a similar amount of uncertainties, but among a different group of people.

[...]

But the poll didn’t indicate the past couple of weeks’ news hurt Obama the most; it was Clinton (sniper fire?). She’s sporting the lowest personal ratings of the campaign

It’s always befuddling to learn that most “regular” people are ignoring the stories that the chattering class (myself included) are engrossed with. Sometimes, stories just don’t catch the public’s fancy. Then again, if Obama is the nominee, one expects that some 527 group will run a lot of television ads to see if they can’t change that.

I do believe that the wheels are coming off the Hillary Clinton campaign, though. It’s not just that it’s unlikely that she’ll be able to make up the necessary ground on Obama — we’ve known that for a while — but that she’s coming across as increasingly desperate, if not simply pathetic. That’s the opposite of presidential.

While many war supporters have been pointing to security improvements in Iraq as evidence that the Surge is working for weeks, the meme got a significant boost yesterday from an unlikely source: Congressman Jack Murtha.

U.S. Rep. John Murtha today said he saw signs of military progress during a brief trip to Iraq last week, but he warned that Iraqis need to play a larger role in providing their own security and the Bush administration still must develop an exit strategy.

“I think the ’surge’ is working,” the Democrat said in a videoconference from his Johnstown office, describing the president’s decision to commit more than 20,000 additional combat troops this year. But the Iraqis “have got to take care of themselves.”

Violence has dropped significantly in recent months, but Mr. Murtha said he was most encouraged by changes in the once-volatile Anbar province, where locals have started working closely with U.S. forces to isolate insurgents linked to Al Qaeda. He said Iraqis need to duplicate that success at the national level, but the central government in Baghdad is “dysfunctional.”

Mr. Murtha’s four day-trip took him to a Thanksgiving dinner with troops in Kuwait last Thursday, and he then made stops in Iraq, Turkey and Belgium.

Murtha’s comments are getting plenty of attention around the blogosphere.

Bruce Kesler wins the clever headline award for, “Murtha Eats Turkey And His Hat.”

Jules Crittenden advises those hoping for Murtha to get on board the Stay the Course bandwagon, “Don’t hold your breath. Murtha won’t give up on giving up.”

AllahPundit proclaims, “Hell freezes over” and provides a video clip of Murtha from July “sneering” about the obstacles ahead.

The Politico’s Josh Kraushaar cites the same clip.

I just don’t see it. I’ve chided Murtha for over-the-top rhetoric and flawed strategic vision since he first came on the radar screen as the face of the Withdraw Now movement. But his remarks in July were quite tempered and, indeed, essentially correct. Moreover, he’s not saying anything much different now: Despite remarkable and welcome success on the security front, the performance of the Maliki government has been dismal.

BCB’s “Gaius” dismisses the idea that Murtha is just acknowledging shifting facts on the ground: “The polls changed and so did the weather vane that is John Murtha.” Moe Lane agrees: “What’s changed? Oh, right, we’re coming up on an even-numbered year.”

The Surge has in a sense worked despite itself, with local warlords stepping in and providing political leadership in key hot spots. Despite the nonsensical idea that a retired Marine colonel and veteran of two wars wants to lose this war, Murtha is obviously pleased with the progress being made. Even so, he’s still cautioning — as are most sensible proponents of the war, such as John McCain — that there are many miles yet to go on the road to victory.

Moreover, Murtha is giving a candid assessment knowing full well that this will be the reaction. From a sheer political standpoint, failure in Iraq is good for him and his party. Despite that, Murtha is acknowledging progress.

Ed Morrissey observes of the success Murtha is now observing, “No thanks to Murtha and his defeatist ilk in Congress, of course. If the Congressional Democrats had had their way in January, we would have abandoned the Iraqis to the terrorists and left behind a failed state and destroyed credibility.”

That judgment is harsh and somewhat unfair. Honorable people disagreed about whether we could achieve our objectives in Iraq; indeed, most experts thought — and still think — it’s a longshot. It’s hardly unreasonable for those who think losing is inevitable to think we should stop getting American soldiers killed in a lost cause. Indeed, the alternative view would be despicable.

It’s almost certainly true, though, that the security situation in Iraq would be worse rather than better had we withdrawn our forces in November 2005, as Murtha urged. That’s why I’ve reluctantly urged continuing the slog. The consequences of failure here are severe. But let’s not act as if a significant number of those who disagree want failure. Or that recent progress is anything like a guarantee of eventual success.

Photo credit: Larry Downing/Reuters

John Murtha gets more pork for his district than any other Representative.

If John Murtha were a businessman, he’d be the biggest employer in this town.

The powerful U.S. congressman has used his clout on Capitol Hill to create thousands of jobs and steer billions of dollars in federal spending to help his hometown in western Pennsylvania recover from devastating floods and the flight of its steelmakers.

More is on the way. In the massive 2008 military-spending bill now before Congress — which could go to a House-Senate conference as soon as Thursday — Mr. Murtha has steered more taxpayer funds to his congressional district than any other member. The Democratic lawmaker is chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, which will oversee more than $459 billion in military spending this year.

Johnstown’s good fortune has come at the expense of taxpayers everywhere else. Defense contractors have found that if they open an office here and hire the right lobbyist, they can get lucrative, no-bid contracts. Over the past decade, Concurrent Technologies Corp., a defense-research firm that employs 800 here, got hundreds of millions of dollars thanks to Rep. Murtha despite poor reviews by Pentagon auditors. The National Drug Intelligence Center, with 300 workers, got $509 million, though the White House has tried for years to shut it down as wasteful and unnecessary. Another beneficiary: MTS Technologies, run by a man who got his start some 40 years ago shining shoes at Mr. Murtha’s Johnstown Minute Car Wash.

Thats’ quite a haul; Robert Byrd would be proud. So is Murtha.

Mr. Murtha defends Congress’s right to award such funds. Despite lobbying and earmark scandals of recent years, he argues that local lawmakers are best suited to understand the needs of their district. He says he’s backed new research into treating diabetes and breast cancer, largely funded with defense earmarks and steered to Pennsylvania hospitals and institutions.

He’s particularly proud of the military contractors that have flocked to his district. “They do their work on time and at a competitive price,” he said in an interview, saying earmarks have helped spur economic development. “I’m not going to apologize for that.”

There’s no reason he should under the current system. The Federal government spends an inordinate amount of money and it’s his job to get as much of it back for his district as possible. Further, it makes sense for both fiscal and security reasons to shift as much defense contract money away from the National Capital Region as possible.

No doubt, directing these funds based on which area is home to the key committee chairmen in the House and Senate is a bizarre, inefficient process. It’s unclear, though, what feasible alternative exists. The Framers intentionally set up our legislature to represent provincial interests and it’s impractical to run committees on something other than a rough seniority system, since there’s a legitimate value to accumulated experience. Term limits, both for Congress in general and committee chairs in particular, might help somewhat but it would likely have no practical effect beyond spreading the pork out more evenly.

More problematic is the fact that these contractors are pouring large sums into Murtha’s campaign coffer (see Ed Morrissey and Brian Faughnan). Again, though, this is an indictment of the game, not the player.

The Abscam scandal (see Michelle Malkin) involved legitimate corruption. But Murtha’s role was murky, at best, with the Justice Department concluding “that Murtha’s intent was to obtain investment in his district,” rather than to line his pockets. It was also 26 years ago.

Media Matters has again successfully embroiled the blogosphere in a controversy with a press release. The latest, entitled “Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are ‘phony soldiers,’” has gained wide circulation on the left. The lede:

During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq “phony soldiers.”

This got even the likes of Steve Benen going. He begins his post, “Limbaugh calls service members who support withdrawal ‘phony soldiers’”,

Rush Limbaugh smeared countless U.S. service members — ranging in rank from private to general — who dare to believe that withdrawal from Iraq is a good idea. As Limbaugh described it, those in uniform who disagree with him are “phony soldiers.”

Matt Yglesias, though, comes within an inch of getting it right:

Rush Limbaugh calls anti-war troops “phony soldiers.” One wonders if he’s literally doubting the existence of such people, and thus proving himself to be an idiot, or metaphorically doubting their authenticity as soldiers, thus proving himself to be morally contemptible. Both are, obviously, plausible end-states for Rush.

If one looks at the transcript, it’s rather clear that it’s the former. Limbaugh is no idiot but one of his favorite rhetorical devices is defining a group in a very narrow way and then claiming anyone who doesn’t fit that definition but nonetheless identifies himself that way is either a liar, a plant, misguided, or the like. Indeed, there are several instances of this in the exchange in question (highlights mine):

RUSH: Mike, you can’t possibly be a Republican.

CALLER: I am.

RUSH: You can’t be Republican.

CALLER: Oh, I am definitely Republican.

RUSH: You sound just like a Democrat.

CALLER: No, but seriously, Rush, how long do we have to stay there?

RUSH: As long as it takes.

CALLER: How long?

RUSH: As long as it takes. It is very serious. This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. Just like your job, you do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.

CALLER: So then you say we need to stay there forever?

RUSH: No, Bill — (Laughing) or Mike. I’m sorry. I’m confusing you with the guy from Texas.

CALLER: I used to be military, okay, and I am a Republican.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: And I do listen to you, but –

RUSH: Right, I know. And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon.

CALLER: How long do we have to stay there?

RUSH: You’re not listening to what I say. You can’t possibly be a Republican. I’m answering every question; it’s not what you want to hear, and so it’s not even penetrating your little wall of armor you’ve got built up. I said we stay to get the job done, as long as it takes. I didn’t say forever. Nothing takes forever. That’s not possible, Bill. Mike. Whatever. Nobody lives forever, no situation lasts forever, everything ends. We determine how do we want it to end, in our favor or in our defeat? With people like you in charge, who want to put a timeline on everything — do you ever get anything done in your life? Or do you say, “Well, I wanted to have this done by now, and it’s not, so screw it”? You don’t live your life that way. Well, hell, you might, I don’t know. But the limitations that you want to impose here are senseless, and they, frankly, portray no evidence that you are a Republican.

Another Mike. This one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am serving in the American military, in the Army. I’ve been serving for 14 years, very proudly.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I’m one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I’m proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, what these people don’t understand, is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is not possible because of all the stuff that’s over there, it would take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse and we’d have to go right back over there within a year or so.

RUSH: There’s a lot more than that that they don’t understand. The next guy that calls here I’m going to ask them, “What is the imperative of pulling out? What’s in it for the United States to pull out?” I don’t think they have an answer for that other than, “When’s he going to bring the troops home? Keep the troops safe,” whatever.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: It’s not possible intellectually to follow these people.

CALLER: No, it’s not. And what’s really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they’re proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they’re willing to sacrifice for the country.

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

CALLER: A lot of people.

RUSH: You know where you’re going these days, the last four years, if you sign up. The odds are you’re going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere.

To Limbaugh — at least Limbaugh the radio persona — if you disagree with his views, you’re not a Republican. If you say you’re a huge fan of his show but you disagree with him on this one issue, you’re a Democratic plant sent in with talking points, posing as a loyal listener to get past the call screener. If you claim to be a veteran or currently in the military and differ with him on military issues, you’re not really a soldier. Similarly, anonymous soldiers quoted in the press criticizing the war are fictitious. Liberal journalists fabricate them to spice up their stories.

He’s an exceedingly bright fellow — you don’t make yourself into a household name, basically invent a new medium, and last two decades doing three hours a day doing radio call-in otherwise — so my guess is this schtick is just an act used to bait the opposition and score points with his loyal listeners. I don’t think he actually believes this nonsense.

Regardless, it’s an infuriating and dishonest stance. Still, it’s not the same as what he’s being accused of here, though: Saying that soldiers who want to leave Iraq are therefore “phony soldiers.”

That said, as Media Matters, Benen, and others document, Limbaugh has a history of throwing around language suggesting that war opponents are un-American, un-patriotic, or worse.

As Media Matters for America has documented, Limbaugh denounced as “contemptible” and “indecent” MoveOn.org's much-discussed advertisement — titled “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” — critical of Gen. David Petraeus, but has repeatedly attacked the patriotism of those with whom he disagrees. For instance, on the January 25 broadcast of his radio show, he told his audience that he had a new name for Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a Vietnam veteran: “Senator Betrayus.” A day earlier, Hagel had sided
with Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in voting to approve a nonbinding resolution declaring that President Bush's escalation in Iraq was against “the national
interest.” Additionally, on August 21, 2006, Limbaugh said: “I want to respectfully disagree with the president on the last part of what he said. I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to
lose.”

As Media Matters has also documented, on the August 2, 2005, program, Limbaugh repeatedly referred to Iraq war veteran and then-Democratic congressional candidate Paul Hackett as “another liberal Democrat trying to hide behind a military uniform” and accused him of going to Iraq “to pad the resumé.” On the day of Limbaugh's comments, Hackett narrowly lost a special election to Republican Jean Schmidt for Ohio's 2nd Congressional District seat.

This tactic is deplorable, if effective. It’s not solely a tactic of the Right, however: our debates on everything from abortion to affirmative action to welfare reform to Social Security is tinged with hateful language designed to put opponents on the defensive rather than focus on the merits of the policies under discussion.

There, is, however a not unimportant distinction in the Petraeus ad and Limbaugh’s outrageous attacks on Kerry, Hackett, and Hagel: The latter are/were politicians engaged in partisan contests to win political office while the former is a serving military officer constrained by his office from fighting back in kind.

Once one has taken off the uniform and entered the political fray, the gloves come off. Being a war hero doesn’t and shouldn’t give one a free pass in the political arena — although those who haven’t served should tread carefully, lest the attacks backfire. The attacks on the patriotism and military service of the likes of John Murtha, Max Cleland, Kerry, and Hagel are despicable; no more so, though, than other smear tactics (push polling, gay baiting, the race card) that have become routine in our campaigns.

Public opinion polls showing Americans overwhelmingly frustrated with the war in Iraq and ready to begin withdrawal. Paradoxically, domestic political considerations are making it impossible to move off the status quo.

John Murtha blames the Republican primaries:

Rep. John Murtha predicted Monday that Democrats will not be able to pass any meaningful legislation to end the Iraq war until presidential primary elections are over next year. Murtha, a Vietnam veteran and war critic who chairs the appropriations subcommittee overseeing defense spending, conceded that not as many Republicans had broken with President Bush as many Democrats had predicted. “As soon as the primaries are over, you’re going to see Republicans jumping ship,” Murtha, D-Pa., said in a speech at the National Press Club.

Matt Yglesias blames the Democrats: “Not only are Democrats afraid of taking certain kinds of political risks to end the war, but they see no prospect of a political upside to ending it.”

Kevin Drum expands on that analysis:

Not only are there fewer upsides than downsides, but the upsides are vague and fuzzy while the downsides are sharp and terrifying and potentially career-ending. This is the underlying dynamic that will probably keep us in Iraq essentially forever, no matter who we elect president. It’s all very discouraging.

Jim Henley quips that this is “why the libertarian critique of the state still makes sense to people.”

Really, though, this is simply the nature of our system of separation of powers and checks and balances. The Framers created a system that makes it really hard to change policy without broad consensus and extra-constitutional measures like the filibuster added to that dynamic. Theoretically, at least, that redounds to the advantage of those with libertarian leanings. In reality, though, it often leads to guilding the lily through horse trading for votes.

Glenn Greenwald argues that many of those now condemning MoveOn.org and/or demanding that Democrats condemn MoveOn.org for suggesting General David Petraeus would “betray us” are hypocrites, since many have used inflammatory rhetoric themselves.

He’s surely right in many particulars. Those on the Ann Coulter wing of the Right, who routinely throw around words like “traitors” and “treason” to describe mainstream Democrats for expressing honest disagreement, live in proverbial glass houses.

Many of us, though, have been rather consistent on this issue, decrying those on both sides of the aisle for going beyond the pale and creating a chilling effect on democratic debate. Still, I’ve argued since before the Iraq War started that there were plenty of honorable reasons to oppose it; I’ve defended John Kerry, John Murtha, John Edwards, and Joe Biden from unfair attacks; argued that Ward Churchill has a right to academic freedom (but not academic misconduct!); and I’ve repeatedly rebuffed the notion that Democrats are anti-victory, let alone anti-American.

The point of all this isn’t that I’ve been a bastion of civility in an otherwise harsh body politic. I’ve been at this since January 2003 and I’m sure that someone looking through my archives hard enough could find instances within the 15,958 posts I’ve written and find contrary examples. I’m occasionally snarky and infrequently angry but try to avoid painting with too broad a brush.

I’m hardly unique in this role. Most of the bloggers on my blogroll and certainly those in the recommended feeds in the top navigation bar have been mostly civil in their discussion of some incredibly divisive issues. That’s true of plenty of other non-blogging pundits, too (see this four-year-old George Will column, for example).

So, yes, condemn hypocrisy. But stand up and be counted when major spokesmen for your side go beyond the pale, too.

UPDATE: Andrew Rasiej and Micah Sifry and Jane Hamsher (and, presumably, others) argue that tactics like the “Betray Us” ad are not only brilliant but necessary to get one’s point noticed. But, surely, Ann Coulter, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and others despised by the Left could make the same claim.

It’s true on many levels, of course. Bomb throwing tactics are often quite successful. But at what cost to civil society?

Charges have been dropped against a Marine captain and lance corporal who had been accused of criminal wrongdoing in the killing of three brothers in a 2005 incident in Haditha.

The Marine Corps has dropped all charges against a captain accused of failing to investigate the deaths of 24 civilians and another Marine accused in some of the killings, the Corps announced. Capt. Randy W. Stone, 35, a battalion lawyer from Dunkirk, Md., was one of four officers charged with failing to adequately probe the deaths in Haditha. “It is clear to me that any error of omission or commission by Capt. Stone does not warrant action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice,” Lt. Gen. James Mattis wrote.

This follows similar action this morning:

A general dropped all charges Thursday against a Marine who had been accused of killing three Iraqi brothers in response to a roadside bomb attack in Haditha in 2005. “The evidence does not support a referral to a court-martial,” Lt. Gen. James Mattis wrote in his written decision.

Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt, 22, had been charged with the murder in the deaths of three of those killed after the bomb attack Nov. 19, 2005.

The decision to drop the charges followed an earlier recommendation from a hearing officer who listened to evidence in the case. Under military law, a commanding general has total jurisdiction over a case. In his recommendation, Lt. Col. Paul Ware said murder charges brought against Sharratt were based on unreliable witness accounts, poor forensic evidence and questionable legal theories. “The government version is unsupported by independent evidence,” Ware wrote in an 18-page report. “To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.”

So, we’re left with one Marine accused of a war crime: “The central figure in the case is squad leader Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich of Meriden, Conn., who faces 18 counts of murder. His preliminary hearing is scheduled for Aug. 22.”

This is drawing plenty of blogospheric commentary, mostly focusing on John Murtha’s statements about the case, notably his reference to the accused as “cold blooded killers.” See Michelle Malkin, Bruce McQuain, Jeff Goldstein, and Uncle Jimbo.

In fairness to Murtha, though, he was merely foreshadowing what the Marine Corps itself would report.

A Pentagon probe into the death of Iraqi civilians last November in the Iraqi city of Haditha will show that U.S. Marines “killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” a U.S. lawmaker said Wednesday.

[...]

Murtha, a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, said at a news conference Wednesday that sources within the military have told him that an internal investigation will show that “there was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”

That’s exactly what the Bargewell Report, published twelve days later concluded. If it was wrong — and it surely seems to have been — I’m relieved. But Murtha’s statement was correct.

Related posts below the fold.

• Marine Convicted of Murdering Iraqi Man
• Marine Convicted in Iraqi Murder Spared Prison Time
• Haditha and the Warbloggers
• Media Downplays Heroes, Overplays Atrocities
• Why Haditha isn’t My Lai
• Pentagon Strikes Humane Treatment from Field Manual
• Military Clears Troops in Ishaqi Incident
• Ishaqi Massacre Video ‘Uncovered’ by BBC
• Iraq Government Launches Probe of Haditha Deaths
• Bargewell: Officers Covered Up Haditha Massacre
• Haditha Massacre Coverage
• Report Marines Killed Iraqi Civilians
• Murtha: Marines Murdered 15 Unarmed Iraqi Civilians

Another day, another Iraq withdrawal proposal.

House Democrats have drafted new Iraq legislation they hope will appeal to Republicans fed up with the war: Start withdrawing troops in two months but leave it up to President Bush to decide when to complete the pullout.

The vote will come next week, as members take up a $460 billion bill covering military spending for 2008. Another vote could come again in September, after Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus delivers a long-anticipated assessment on the war and Congress considers a $142 billion measure needed to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“This is big time,” Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said of the upcoming fall debate. “When you get to September, this is history. This is when we’re going to have a real confrontation with the president trying to work things out.”

On one hand, this is quite silly. A similar effort was just shot down, like others before it. On the other, it was blocked by a steadfast minority against the will of the majority of both Houses of Congress and the overwhelming support of the country.

My guess is that this is not, indeed, “big time.” This bill will go nowhere. Murtha is right, though, that the September report could provide a rationale for several Republican Senators who privately would like to get the hell out of Iraq to jump on the bandwagon. Absent some miracle between now and then — and I don’t expect one — the drumbeat for withdrawal will be much louder.

Julian Sanchez wrote a few days back,

Look, I’m “rooting for” success in Iraq too; I’m just not kidding myself about the odds. I’m hoping someone hands me a check for a cool million dollars next week also, but I’m not going to take on debt on the assumption it’s going to happen.

The theoretical odds of achieving something like our goals in Iraq are higher than those of Julian getting that million. Given that September suddenly looms as the decision point, however, I’m not so sure. I don’t think anyone seriously believes things will turn around — especially on the Iraqi domestic politics side — by then.

Bringing back the military draft would make it easier to meet recruiting goals but the negatives would outweigh the positives, a new Congressional Budget Office study found.

The report, requested by Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, says that drafting people could make it easier for the Army to reach its 2012 goal of 547,000 soldiers. It might also save some money if Congress opted to pay draftees less than volunteers. But the downside, the report claims, would be a less effective fighting force, thanks to a sudden influx of draftees who would remain in uniform for much shorter spells than today’s all-volunteer soldiers.

“Usually, greater accumulated knowledge and skills come with increased experience,” the report notes. “Because most draftees leave after completing a two-year obligation, a draft might affect the services’ ability to perform those functions efficiently.” To maintain the same capability, the CBO suggests, the Army might have to grow, which could eliminate any savings. On the other hand, increased training costs for draftees – with less time in uniform, more have to be trained – could be offset by cuts in advertising and bonuses now used to entice volunteer recruits.

The report says that while 91% of last year’s recruits were high school graduates, only 80% of U.S. residents aged 18 to 24 have attained that level of education. And high-school graduates, the military says, make better soldiers than dropouts. The CBO, which does not make recommendations but only charts options for lawmakers, estimates that somewhere between 27,000 and 165,000 would be drafted each year. That relative small slice – some 2 million males turn 18 each year – could resurrect the problems seen in the Vietnam era when deferments and friendly draft boards kept some well-connected young men out of uniform. Under current law, women could not be drafted.

If it doesn’t make military or economic sense to launch the draft, what about the notion of fairness? Critics have claimed that minorities are over-represented in the all-volunteer military because they have fewer options in the civilian world. The CBO disputes that, saying that “members of the armed forces are racially and ethnically diverse.” African Americans accounted for 13% of active-duty recruits in 2005, just under their 14% share of 17-to-49-year-olds in the overall U.S. population. And minorities are not being used as cannon fodder. “Data on fatalities indicate that minorities are not being killed [in Iraq and Afghanistan] at greater rates than their representation in the force,” the study says. “Rather, fatalities of white service members have been higher than their representation in the force,” in large part because whites are over-represented in the military’s combat, as opposed to support, jobs.

Anyone with even a modicum of interest and a library card or Internet access already knew all that. Certainly, Murtha — a retired Marine colonel with years of experience on the Armed Services Committee — did. One wonders, then, what he hoped the CBO study would accomplish.

The Hill’s Roxana Tiron reports that there’s a growing number of congressional Democrats who want to pull American troops out of Afghanistan. When one reads the story, however, it’s pretty clear that this still represents a tiny constituency.

When they won control of Congress in November, Democrats pressed their case to withdraw troops from Iraq and refocus on Afghanistan, but some are growing impatient with U.S. operations in Afghanistan as well. A few congressional Democrats go so far as suggesting that the Pentagon should pull out of Afghanistan now, while others say that troop withdrawal will be addressed after the military is out of Iraq.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), a senior defense authorizer, wants the U.S. out of Afghanistan immediately, calling operations there “futile” in trying to effect political change in a country with a tangled history. Most other Democrats want to focus on Afghanistan, with the goal of withdrawing the military down the road after the country is stabilized and any new Taliban resurgence quashed.

With a few exceptions, congressional Democrats no longer show any hesitation about withdrawing the military from Iraq. But they are more circumspect about Afghanistan, saying that the Bush administration let the situation worsen by shifting attention onto a protracted conflict in Iraq. “We should have never gone to Iraq, because we would have been out of Afghanistan [by now],” Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) said in a brief interview. Murtha, the chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee and a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, said that by September, when he takes up the fiscal 2008 war supplemental funding, he would have a better sense of how to handle Afghanistan.

In the entire story, Abercrombie and Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.) are the only Members cited as favoring withdrawal. It’s a stretch to take Murtha’s words that way and everyone else mentioned in the piece is staunchly in favor of staying in Afghanistan until the job’s done, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and liberal stalwarts Henry Waxman, Russ Feingold, and Barbara Boxer. A few Members are also mentioned as hoping that getting troops out of Iraq could hasten our withdrawal from Afghanistan.

This comes across, then, as a manufactured story. The premise, essentially, is that congressional Democrats ought to be in favor of getting out of Afghanistan because the same arguments apply there as in Iraq.

Yet making the argument that the U.S. needs to get out of Iraq and stay in Afghanistan can be politically challenging. While Democrats regularly note that the war in Iraq has now gone on longer than World War II, the U.S. has been in Afghanistan longer than it has been in Iraq. And arguments that Iraqis need to take control of their own country can be applied to Afghanistan as well. The Afghanistan effort enjoys much more support among the American public, and Democratic leaders have sought to burnish their homeland security credentials by presenting an unwavering backing of the war there.

[...]

War violence is common in Afghanistan. One of the deadliest insurgent attacks since the fall of the Taliban in 2001 killed 24 people occurred earlier this month when a bus exploded in Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul. Out of the 24 victims, 22 were police academy instructors on their way to work. About 300 Afghan police officers have been killed in the past three months, making 2007 the worst year ever. Insurgency-related violence has killed more than 2,400 people in Afghanistan this year, according to a count by the Associated Press based on official figures.

[...]

The anti-war grassroots movement has generally been quiet about Afghanistan as it has committed most, if not all, of its attention on Iraq. Code Pink Women for Peace spokeswoman Dana Balicki said that her organization would like to see soldiers withdraw from Afghanistan.
“The combat forces should be replaced by international peacekeeping forces,” she said. “We should push for peace talks in the area with all groups that have power.”

MoveOn.org did not respond to repeated attempts for comment on the issue.

So, basically, we have two Members who want to get out now and they have the full support of Code Pink. Everyone else, from MoveOn.org to Dennis Kucinch, is still on board.

Retired fighter Jock Robert “Buzz” Patterson has made a name for himself by churning out books about how Democrats hate America and want us to be weak. His first two efforts, Dereliction of Duty: How Bill Clinton Compromised America’s National Security and Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our Security were New York Times best sellers.

His latest release is entitled War Crimes: The Left’s Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror. While seemingly redundant, Glenn Reynolds is intrigued.

I don’t think that the left wants to lose the war on terror, exactly — they just want Bush to lose the war on terror. I suspect, however, that Patterson’s theme is one that we’ll hear more in the future, especially if things go badly in Iraq.

Now, I don’t doubt there there is a lunatic fringe out there who wants us to lose or is willing to see us lose if it’ll vindicate their view of Chimpy McHitler. But, surely, even the most liberal mainstream Democrats want the country to be safe from terrorist attacks, even if it means Bush goes up in the polls?

Pick your favorite liberal bogeyman. Who among them wants Bush to lose at the cost of failing to secure the county against terrorist attacks?

The book’s cover features four elected leaders: Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Teddy Kennedy. Certainly, they all stand to gain politically if Bush’s popularity remains historically low. Is there any evidence, though, that any of them actually want the terrorists to win to achieve that?

The fifth person pictured on the cover is polemicist and filmmaker Michael Moore. It’s safe to say, I think, that he is far and away the most extreme among them. He seems to hate Bush and is willing to go to considerable lengths of dishonesty to undermine his foreign policy. (See, for example, Christopher Hitchens‘ dismembering of “Fahrenheit 9/11.”) Yet I’m not sure it could be credibly said even of him that he wants to lose, given the implications of that.

One would hope that Patterson is merely being hyperbolic; arguing only that Democratic policies would lead to defeat, not that they are aimed at defeat. One would be disappointed. From a recent interview with NRO’s Kathryn Jean Lopez:

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Your upcoming book begins with a quote from Cicero about how a nation “cannot survive treason from within.” Surely you’re not calling Democrats traitors. Or are you?

“Buzz” Patterson: I am. They certainly are if their behavior during our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is held up to the light of the U.S. Constitution. Article III, Section 3 defines treason against the United States as “adhering to (our) enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, and John Murtha, amongst others, are guilty of exactly that. […]

It’s not just the Democrats though but many on the Left — its faculties and administrations on college campuses, big media, Hollywood, and left-wing organizations such as the Ford Foundation, Moveon.org, United for Peace and Justice, etc. What is particularly disturbing to me is that these Americans are doing it while their fellow citizens are fighting and dying in combat. The best ally that al Qaeda has these days is the Democrat Party leadership. It’s reprehensible.

But, by that logic, any debate at all during wartime is treason. That view would be absurd if it weren’t so dangerous.

I don’t doubt that Reid, Pelosi, and others are exploiting the unpopularity of the war for political gain and that the recent showdown over funding the Iraq War was motivated more by the next election that actually changing the course of the war. That’s light years, though, from consciously seeking to undermine the war effort.

The overwhelming majority of Democrats opposes the war in Iraq and the way the Bush administration is prosecuting the war on terrorism. A large number have, from the beginning, thought “war” was the wrong construct for building a counter-terrorism policy. A fringe, including Moore, thought Osama bin Laden should have simply been captured and treated like any other accused criminal. None of that, though, constitutes “treason,” let alone a wish to lose.

Kevin Drum, Josh Marshall, and others think these accusations are merely a desperate attempt by some on the right to blame the failure of Bush policies on the left. While I’m sure there’s some of that going on, I fear it’s more sinister than that.

There is a genuine and growing belief, as demonstrated by the continuing boom in sales of books like Patterson’s and Moore’s, that people on the other side of the political aisle are not simply in disagreement or misguided or wrong but genuinely bad people. That notion is more dangerous to the country than all our external enemies combined.

Back in December of last year I hosted something I referred to as a “blog colloquium”, “Directions on Iraq”;. At that time I attempted to recruit contributors who could present practical alternatives other than slogging through for dealing with the situation in Iraq. I received several dozen polite refusals (and a good number of tacit refusals as well), some of which were, I suspect, from folks who absolutely rejected the idea of just sticking it out. I hope I’m not mischaracterizing the consensus view of those who did contribute by saying that they considered the consequences of our simply leaving Iraq as sufficiently bad that it was not an acceptable alternative.

My own views haven’t changed appreciably since then:

I’m not interested in counting political coup or peripheral skirmishes with the press or other bloggers. I am interested in the welfare of my country and that of the people of Iraq. I think it’s clear that events in Iraq are very, very serious and not trending in a positive direction nearly fast enough if at all.

Things look worse now if anything. Despite that, or, possibly, because of that I’m seeing a number of proposals for dealing with the consequences of acknowledging defeat in Iraq, three just today. The first of these I’d like to consider was published in the Washington Post and is by Steven Simon and Ray Tayekh of the Council on Foreign Relations. Would I be exaggerating if I characterized their position as “Surely, it can’t get a good deal worse in Iraq than it is now!“? Mssrs. Simon and Tayekh downplay the likelihood of unmanageable negative effects and propose a three-pronged approach to “preserving U.S. power and position in a post-Iraq Middle East”:

1. Contain Iran by holding out a package of carrots and sticks. I’ve proposed such a thing myself.
2. Tamp down the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by “nudging” both the Israelis and Palestinians to “take risks for peace”. I have no opinion on this subject and can only point out that administrations over the last 40 years have had little success in resolving the conflict and it’s hard for me to see how that will be improved under the signfiicantly increased stress that the events of the last six years have produced.
3. Return to realiism by which I gather they mean a rejection of the idea of democracy promotion in the Middle East and a re-assertion of support for the present authoritarian regimes there.

The second proposal, an op-ed by Andrew Bacevich in the LA Times, suggests that change in the Muslim world will only proceed in its own good time, that timeframe is probably not tolerable by the non-Muslim world, and that the prudent alternative is quarantine:

Yet coexistence should not imply appeasement or passivity. Any plausible strategy will prescribe concrete and sustainable policies designed to contain the virulent strain of radicalism currently flourishing in parts of the Islamic world. The alternative to transformation is not surrender but quarantine.

This strikes me as an elaboration of the Israelis’ “Wall” strategy for dealing with the Palestinians. I have my doubts as to the practicality and political acceptability of this but I would remiss if I didn’t observe that it would probably be more practical to quarantine ourselves than much of the rest of the world. Dr. Bacevich, too, characterizes his position as realism but I think it’s actually closer in practice to isolationism.

The third proposal is from former Virginia governor and present Republican presidential candidate James Gilmore and it takes the form of an open letter to President Bush. Here’s the core of the letter:

I urge that we define our goals in terms of America’s national interest, and let the people of Iraq take care of their national interests. The United States has a stake in preventing a government from emerging that is expressly hostile to us, such as in a coup inspired by al-Qaeda. The United States has a stake in not permitting the invasion and occupation of Iraq by any of its neighbors. This can be done through a military assistance program and diplomatic initiative. Beyond this, the responsibility for peace and order of the country rests with the Iraqi government, which can make a specific request to the United States for assistance like any other country of the world.

I have a good deal of sympathy with this position. But to it he adds a proposal for an “over the horizon” force to be used in case of emergency, similar to the proposals of John Murtha, among others. I find this part of his proposal particularly incredible. What, other than re-invading and re-occupying Iraq, can be done by an “over the horizon” force that can’t be done from 20,000 feet? What would a president ordering such a thing say to the American people?

My fellow Americans,
I was wrong; you were wrong; the people who said that very bad things would happen if we left Iraq were right.
Now, boys, over the top!

I just don’t find it credible. When we leave Iraq, we’re gone and we won’t be back for a generation or more if ever come what may.

Nonetheless I’m glad to see additional points of view being offered and genuinely hope they’ll be given some serious scrutiny. So, discuss away!

Cross-posted to The Glittering Eye

Patrick Ottenhoff reports that “NationalJournal.com recently emailed wordsmiths Frank Luntz, a Republican, and Andrei Cherny, a Democrat, a series of short questions on messaging.” The results are behind a subscription wall, but here’s a preview:

I’m not sure the “best describes” list tells us much about the candidates as much as how Luntz and Cherny see them. Still, it’s interesting that Barack Obama, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain get positive associations from both. I’m not sure where “flighty” comes from on Fred Thompson, frankly.

The “should describe” list is more amusing as an indicator that Luntz can’t follow directions than anything else. Clearly, for whatever reason, Cherny isn’t a fan of Fred Thompson, though….

Redstate’s “RS Insider” notes a kerfuffle brewing among the Netroots:

Think Progress, the Booman Tribune, the Carpetbagger Report and a herd of Democratic bloggers are criticizing General Petraeus for allegedly having a partisan meeting for Republicans. One blogger even suggests General Petraeus should be “relieved of his command”.

He asserts, linking to an old post of his own, that Democrats were invited but chose not to attend. Sure enough, a Jennifer Yachnin report in the March 8 Roll Call confirms:

Boehner attended a video-conference at the Pentagon this morning with Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and knocked Democrats for not attending. “There was not a single member of the Democratic leadership in the House there this morning despite being invited,” he said, “I think it’s unfortunate but telling. … Gen. Petraeus should be the one making decisions about what happens on the ground in Iraq, not Nancy Pelosi or John Murtha.”

RSI concludes, “Next time, instead of criticizing General Petraeus for briefing Republicans on the war, perhaps liberal bloggers should suggest the Democrats actually attend those briefings.”

That seems reasonable enough.