The 2008 Defense Budget is an integral part of the wars we are now fighting, in addition to being essential for preparing for conflicts to come. It's the base funding for the entire Defense Department - our military. This bill in particular takes care of some issues that have been in the news recently - increased military pay, increased benefits and care for soldiers that have been wounded fighting our wars, and more armored vehicles - to name just a few. These are all things that the Democrats have been screaming about for months. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid once promised that the bill would go through clean, with no unrelated extraneous amendments added to muddy it up.

So why are the Democrats now jeopardizing the passage of the bill by adding, at the last minute, a Ted Kennedy authored homosexual hate crimes amendment, having nothing to do with the Defense Department, to the spending measure? The Army Times reminds us that the House passed the 2008 Defense Budget in May. Since then, the Senate has spent alot of time attempting to attach anti-Iraq War amendments to their version of the bill, but each one failed. So they throw one last minute unrelated liberal social agenda amendment onto the bill, in effect challenging Bush to veto the entire measure. It's almost as if the Dems did this out of spite.

The Kennedy amendment is a transparent attempt to get back into the good graces of the Left after the Democrats failed to do what they had promised (actually guaranteed) their base that they would do - get the US out of Iraq. The amendment passed, gaining 60 votes, but that's not enough to override a Presidential veto. Let's say the 2008 Defense Budget passes, and gets to conference committee with the House. There's a good chance that this amendment won't be in the final version sent to the President. But let's say it survives.

Don't look now, but if Congress doesn't reach some sort of an agreement for the next fiscal year's budget, the federal government will run out of money on Oct 1. Although political rhetoric is high, there is little chance of the Democrats going down the Newt Gingrich 1995 path and shutting down the government - primarily because they recognize that Newt's battle with President Bill Clinton was largely seen as a victory for Clinton, making Newt even more demonizable (is that a word?) until his exit from Congress in 1998. So, Democrat leaders are going to propose an interim budget to give them more time to "negotiate" with the White House on spending issues.

The draft resolution, which is still being finalized, is intended to buy as many as six additional weeks for negotiations, though Democrats are pessimistic about their chances of making much progress with Mr. Bush. With the exception of veterans' health care and border-security funds, the White House has signaled little flexibility, and neither House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) nor Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) appears to have much appetite for a protracted fight. "I don't want a headache. I want to try to work this out," Mr. Reid said last week after meeting with White House Budget Director Jim Nussle. At the same time as the standoff over domestic spending, Congress is being asked by Mr. Bush to provide more money to implement his Iraq policy, which the top leaders adamantly oppose.

With President Bush emboldened after his victories in Congress last week, his threats of vetoes are being taken more seriously by the Democrats. The Dems simply don't have enough votes to override any Presidential veto right now, be it on the war or general spending. That's not likely to change over the next six weeks, so look for the Democrats to capitulate on many of the White House's demands in the final budget, especially in matters regarding defense spending and funding the War in Iraq. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi believe, rightly so, that giving in on war spending at this precise moment, having lost all anti-war votes so far this fall session, would be the final straw for much of their far-left base. Hence the postponement of the final budget.

In January, we were told that the new Democrat-led Congress was going to save the country, change the world and make every bald guy grow hair. Instead, we have a Congress that continually gets beat by a lame-duck president and hasn't passed even one requisite spending bill:

With none of the 12 fiscal 2008 appropriations bills enacted, both the House and Senate will take up continuing resolutions to extend federal government funding at current levels.

But wait, they're still working on really important legislation. Way more important than passing bills that will keep our country moving:

Two other measures are expected to see House floor action next week. One bill (HR 2693) would protect workers against an artificial-butter flavoring chemical called diacetyl, a chemical that is used in the production of microwave popcorn.

Yeah, that Nancy Pelosi has taken that mandate handed to her and really run with it, hasn't she. I sense that the country is so much better because of Democratic leadership. Or not.

Speaker Pelosi and her compadre Steny Hoyer have spent so much time on stupid investigations and meaningless resolutions condemning everything and everyone connected to the war in Iraq that they've failed to do what they were actually put in office to do. It may just be the shortest leadership run in congressional history if this keeps up.

You have no idea how hard it is for me to call ex-Marine John Murtha that. I respect anyone who has served...at least until the point that they take off the uniform and demean our troops like Rep. Murtha and Sen. John Kerry did.

John Murtha said shortly after several Marines were charged with murder in Haditha Iraq that they killed "in cold blood" when the hadn't even gone to trial. Most of the charges were dropped including the most serious charges and the Marines have effectively been cleared. So why hasn't Murtha apologized for his comments and why didn't the media question why a sitting congressman would first portray our troops as murderers than not apologize when it became clear they would not? That was a rhetorical question.

I guess if you can't get the old media to do the job, it falls to new media bloggers to ask the corrupt congressman the pertinent questions:

It seems that at that exact moment Murtha would like to have redeployed himself to Okinawa. Murtha loathes those who he once belonged to and he should be ashamed of himself. Unfortunately shame is not something Murtha knows anything about.

Congressman John Murtha is an absolute disgrace and he is exulted by the Democrats. He accused our troops of committing a vile act and when they are proven innocent, he runs away. Ladies and gents, enjoy your new Congress, the Most. Ethical. Congress, Ever.

Public approval ratings: President Bush: 29%. Congress: 11%.

That is the result of a recent Zogby Poll.

So what can you say about a situation that words can not aptly describe? In essence, you have two competing forces -- the Bush administration and the Democratic Congress -- in control of the Executive Branch and the Legislature whom the public absolutely despises? How about "You need to get your act together. Both of you."

It is difficult to pinpoint any one particular issue that has led to this drop because most of the problems are so voluminous that it's getting to the point where the public is longing for the good old days when King George ran the show. You have the emergence of a mortgage crisis that no one seems to know how to address; the current attempt to pass a piece meal amnesty program, the DREAM Act, in bold defiance of the public's will; the Democratic leadership getting lumped in with the far, far left due to the now legendarily disastrous "Betray Us" ad; the President planning on vetoing the bill that will de-fund the incredibly anti-union/anti-middle class Mexican truck program; refusal to deal with the importation of unsafe goods from China; and on and on and on.

While few assumed that President Bush's approval ratings could get worse, they have and the Pelosi/Reid Congress has been an absolute, unmitigated failure. 11% is the lowest approval rating in the history of the United States.

Let's put that into perspective: Bush is right up (down) there with Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and this Congress is less popular than the Congress that served during the time when half the country seceded from the union and a war broke out that saw 600,000 casualties.

Will things get better? Can they get any worse?

The Hill is reporting that one of the leaders of the anti-war movement in the House, Democrat Rep. Jack Murtha, is claiming that Republicans will join him against the Iraq war -- next year.

House Appropriations Defense subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.) said Monday that he expects that Republican lawmakers will begin abandoning President Bush's Iraq policy after the GOP picks a presidential candidate next year. "As soon as the primaries are over, you'll see Republicans start jumping ship," Murtha said in remarks at the National Press Club.

Murtha also is predicting that Democrats will pick up 40 to 50 seats in the House next year. To put his predictions in context, might I remind readers that Murtha, one year ago, was predicting that by this time (September '07) we would have surrendered in Iraq and our troops would be "redeploying" to areas outside of Iraq where we could provide "quick response" strikes on terrorists -- from bases as close as Okinawa, Japan, 4899 miles away.

I believe that Murtha's predictions this year are also in error. Iraq will be in play next year, but will be more of a problem in the general electorate for Democrats than Republicans. And with Congressional approval lower with a Democratic Congress than it ever was with a Republican one, I don't think you'll be seeing any Democrat landslide in '08. What are the Dems going to do, run against themselves? (Oh wait, there's MoveOn.org...)

If (a big if) Republicans clean up their act and pledge fiscal conservatism under new leadership, I think that the Senate will remain in the Democrats' control, but the House might switch again. If Iraq is going particularly well, however, that might change - Republicans could win the Senate as well. All bets are off if the Republicans continue to act like idiots. I think that the House Republicans have, for the most part, learned their lessons. The Republicans in the Senate, as of yet, have not learned theirs (as evidenced by Larry Craig and Ted Stevens), and might not until after 2008.

The title of this post, Dems Divided on Iraq, was not what Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the mainstream media were planning for September '07. They had all assumed that it would be the Republicans who would be divided after the various congressionally-mandated reports came in -- that's what those reports were designed for. And after the Democrats made quick work of General Petraeus on the Hill? Well, the Dem leadership didn't just expect Republicans to join them in surrender, I'm certain they expected many in the GOP in Congress to beg Reid and Pelosi to allow them into the Democratic Party.

But that's not what is happening. Over at ABC's The Note (a very reliable friend of the Dems), Rick Klein and Company tell us that the real division is among the Democrats:

Start from this point: This is not what Democrats thought September would bring. Though the reviews from last night's speech were lukewarm, the Republican Party appears more united behind the president, not less -- galvanized more by Gen. David Petraeus' congressional testimony than anything Bush himself said. The liberal base is beyond restless -- and showing that the Democrats' most ardent supporters can be a recurring drag on party unity. And the Democratic presidential candidates are pushing competing proposals that largely agree on one point: The Democratic Congress isn't doing enough to hasten an end to the war.

Consider this stubborn fact: "There will actually be 7,000 more troops in Iraq next summer than there were before Bush deployed additional forces to Iraq in January as part of a troop surge plan to quell sectarian violence," ABC's Martha Raddatz and Jennifer Parker report. That's hardly the scorecard Democrats wanted to be able to point to when they took control of Congress eight months ago.

The excuse Klein helpfully promotes in the article is that the Democrats mean well, but just don't have enough votes. That will be seen as a clarion call for organizations like MoveOn.org and its ilk to get more and more shrill, and move the Dems as a whole further and further to the Left. As the Left consumes fellow Democrats, calling for the replacement of any Dem that deviates from their world view, the general voting public will pay attention to their words and tactics - and will not be impressed. The centrism of the Bill Clinton years is about to vanish - and with it the moderate Democrats and Independents that were the key to electoral success from 1992-2000. If only the Republicans could take advantage...

. . . hard. He's red hot. He's steamed. He wants everybody to know that what Hillary Clinton said to General Patraeus is way, way out of bounds. She's no better than MoveOn.org and their terrible puns. But, precisely, what part of Clinton's oratory was it at yesterday's Armed Services Committee testimony that crossed the line?

"The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief."

There you have it. A sentiment echoed by practically every other Democrat in Congress, and more than a couple Republicans, has sent Rudy Giuliani over the edge, causing him to proclaim,

"It is time for Americans to really insist that American politicians move away from character assassination and this is exactly what they attempted to do with General Patraeus."

Right. Rudy's above petty partisanship. He'd never call the credibility of another person or party into question for his own political gain. He'd never say something inflamatory like,

"If any Republican is elected president--and I think obviously I would be the best at this--we will remain on the offensive and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it,"

Oh wait. He did say that. You see, the way he sees it, every Republican is inherently better at protecting the country than every Democrat. And he bases this on the performance of none other than George W. Bush. Call me a character assassin if you must, but there's something that requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

It would appear that General Petraeus' report has done very little to sway the opinions of the Democrats in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid has blasted Petraeus' Iraq plan (which includes drawing down 5,000+ troops by the end of the year and close to an additional 30,000 by summer's end) Reid echoed the sentiment of Speaker Nancy Pelosi that was expressed yesterday in a press release that lambasted Petraeus' plan.

According to the AP, Democrat leadership would prefer a more rapid withdrawal of a significant number of troops and the remaining troops would serve in a more limited capacity.

This posturing by the Democrats may have SERIOUS repercussions if the public relations strategy they are employing fails. Within much of the public, there is a sentiment growing that the Democrats are posturing against Petraeus as a means of scoring political points in order to win in the next election. If the Democrats become pegged as a party that seeks its own agenda at the risk of causing serious harm to the troops in the field, the public will become resentful and the Democrats may find themselves in trouble with a segment of the voting population.

The public has had it with this war. From "Mission Accomplished" to "Bring It On" through "Last Throes" to just 6, 12, 18 and back to 6 or maybe 12 months before we even begin to exit, the public, the rank-and-file military, many officers but especially the voters have had it. Even congressional Republicans have had it and are breaking with Bush. Here's a snippet about Rep. James Walsh, R-N.Y.:

"Things have not changed substantially in Iraq," Walsh said after returning to Washington Monday. "It's a very, very dangerous place, if not the most dangerous place on Earth. Governance is a serious issue. They are stumbling toward democracy." [...] "What occurred to me while I was in Iraq is that it's time," Walsh said. "We've done enough. No country has done more than we have for Iraq. The question I kept coming up with is how much do we have to give Iraq to make things work? I think we have given enough."

We have given enough. If a Republican can tell the difference between killing more soldiers and bringing them home, then the Democrats should stand and say, "Enough." Just today on the radio I heard the Iraqi defense minister say his forces could handle 80% of the load right now.

Fine. Good Enough. Let them do it, it's the only way to get our guys out. Even if we started tomorrow it would take at least 12 months to do an organized withdrawal to the perimeter. More Republicans will break with Bush and we know he's just trying to run the clock out and hand this mess to anyone else. Meantime we lose more troops, meantime we lose more credibility, meantime it becomes a bigger mess. Thanks Mr. Walsh, you only won by 3,000 votes last time but you may have saved your seat with today's statement.

The bottom line in this NYT article is that General Petraeus is not calling it quits, and is saying that progress is significant enough to continue on for another six month effort. But regardless of how that goes, the forces sent to augment the coalition forces in Iraq will start drawing down in December.

General Petraeus, whose long-awaited testimony before Congress will begin Monday, has informed President Bush that troop cuts may begin in mid-December, with the withdrawal of one of the 20 American combat brigades in Iraq, about 4,000 troops. By August, the American force in Iraq would be down to 15 combat brigades, the force level before Mr. Bush's troop reinforcement plan.

Kick the can down the road is not the game that the Democrats want to play here, but the small successes that are evident in Iraq are forcing them to essentially do nothing. The anti-war elements of the party will surely be unhappy, but the fact of the matter is that the Democrats do not want to be seen as the ones guaranteeing a humiliating exit in Iraq just when daylight is in sight. The argument over whether that is daylight we are seeing or an oncoming train.

It would seem that the Democrats will be launching a series of "pre-emptive" strikes prior to General David Petraeus' report on the progress of the Iraq war. The International Herald Tribune has pointed out that a number of top Democratic leaders such as Sen. Edward Kennedy and Sen. Joe Biden have reached out to the media to dispute the report.

Such a strategy looks like it will backfire on the Democrats considering that a recent CBSNYT's poll shows that the public holds its faith in the military command and neither congress nor the president in terms of who knows how to run the war. Attacking Petraeus could prove disastrous for the Democrats and should be avoided at all costs. If the Democrats start to push a hard anti-military attitude, they will be in DEEP trouble with the public which can accept anti-war, but NOT anti-military posturing.

Will Petraeus become the modern day version of Gen. MacArthur or Gen. Eisenhower? Perhaps. He will be appearing in an exclusive interview with Brit Hume on Fox News right after his report to congress in what is about as hard of a slap in the face to the mainstream media and the left wing establishment as he could muster. If Petraeus' comes off a media darling after his interview, the war will take a unique dynamic as the public will have a new hero to rally behind.

"This call shows the tables may have turned."

This quote is by an unnamed Republican source in a recent article by the Politico that claims that the anti-war factions that have been pushing the Democrats to end the war in Iraq are losing ground. The "call" in the quote refers to a conference call between Democratic representatives and several left leaning anti-war groups such as Code Pink and Progressive Democrats of America.

The article goes on to mention Rabbi Michael Lerner, the editor of Tikkun magazine, has posted the transcript Friday on the website of the Network of Spiritual Progressives and it also mentions that Lerner had some harsh commentary about the conference call.

What was Lerner's commentary after the conference call? That the Democrats are representing "pure cowardice" (his words) in terms of their attempts to end the war; in other words, they are not going to end the war any time soon.

Every American should pay attention and analyze General Petraeus's words as to the situation in Iraq:

...18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up... ...And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq... ...Equipment is being delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished... ...Progress has also been made in police training. In the past week alone, some 1,100 graduated from the basic policing course and five specialty courses... ...Considerable progress is also being made in the reconstruction and refurbishing of infrastructure for Iraq's security forces... ...Iraq's security forces are, however, developing steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months...

No, these words are not part of the report that Petraeus will deliver to Congress this week. They were all taken from an Op-Ed he wrote for the Washington Post on September 26, 2004. Petraeus was dead wrong in his assessment of the situation then, so what makes us think that he'll be doing any better this time around? The police force is corrupt and virtually useless. Sectarian militias rule the street. The Iraqi army is still not ready to take over its own security. A drop in sectarian killings in one area of the country is wiped out by rises in another. Most damning of all, there's still no political progress among the Iraqi's themselves.

But nobody's fooled anymore. An significant majority of the American people seem to already know what we'll be hearing this week is nothing more than spin.

There will be no links or photos in this post. This is just a bunch of predictions and thoughts. We'll see how they come out:

- We're in Iraq for 2-5 more years. Even if we started withdrawing tomorrow it would take at least a year to get out. Still that's better than General Petraeus's ten years or the neo-cons century. What President Bush started he certainly will not finish.

- A third party candidate will enter the race (probably next year). I think Chuck Hagel will be a part of it and Michael Bloomsberg will either run or bankroll it. Altho the country is pretty receptive to change, it will not go third party in this time.

- I'm still amazed by the lack of focus on how corrupt and inefficient this administration is. With the combined wars we have over $750 Billion in defense with little results and we're seriously in huge debt. Yet, our obsession with entertainment and sports goes on and on.

- Every time I hear another in the endless talking points on why we can't leave Iraq and then I hear a report of more American or Iraqi deaths, my heart sinks. This war has gone on for more than we were in WW2 and for far less noble a cause.

- I wish any of the leading current Republicans running would tell the truth. Something like: 'The American people are right. This war is a quagmire, there's no solution and the longer we stay the worse it gets. i can't say that because the current President is from my party.'

- At the current rate, Democrats will have a veto proof majority in Congress and no matter who is president, the war will draw to a close faster rather than sooner.