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.

More details are emerging from the investigation into Blackwater's role in the deaths of over 20 civilians in Iraq on September 16. According to the New York Times, American investigators have learned that the incident began when a bomb went off near a meeting of U.S. officials. What followed was a chaotic, poorly managed evacuation, in which Blackwater employees fired upon anything in their path. That included a woman and her infant, who were among those killed.

As many commentators have noted, one disturbing thing about farming out security in a war is the lack of accountability that private companies face. Witness the follow-through on recent threats by the Iraqi government to kick Blackwater out of Iraq. Outsourcing war, while filling in troop gaps, has disturbing consequences.

On the surface, it would seem that the firms and the U.S. military would be working toward the same end: to secure the country. Yet, as we've seen with Halliburton, these private companies are not beyond overcharging and fraud. And, as Robert Gates pointed out earlier this week, we have big problem with losing highly trained soldiers to companies like Blackwater. Why? Money.

Yes, the war is a huge windfall to select group of private companies. When it comes to loyalty, our military is a direct representation of the United States government, yet private security firms work for the highest bidder. That may mean a Sunni sheik one day, and a resurgent Shia politician the next. By every Pentagon calculation, the longer the war drags on, the fewer troops we'll be able to rotate into the country. Therefore, we will become increasingly reliant on contractors like Blackwater in the coming year. That means, of course, that those companies stand to make a lot more money from a protracted war. What was that Doobie Brothers refrain? "Old black water, keep on rollin."

Considering what we've been talking about this is probably the most significant story from the latest Democratic Debate held last night. None of the top three candidates, apparently, will guarantee an Iraq exit should they be elected:

Obama: "I think it's hard to project four years from now."

Clinton: "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting."

Edwards: "I cannot make that commitment."

Richardson, Dodd, Biden and the others did step up to make a commitment, but I find it the weasel wording here very telling. We're not leaving Iraq, not for a long time. It does not matter who is in the White House. The circumstances in the Middle East will essentially force their hand. An Iraq that devolves into a stateless area like Somalia would be a disaster for everyone in the region, and us as well. So it's not going to happen.

This doesn't mean that the Democrats won't continue to wax rhetorical about how Bush needs to start the withdrawal. Why not take him and the Republicans down a few notches? It's an easy target. But as far as doing the practical things to force a withdrawal? As everyone can see with their own eyes, the Democrats have had the majority for nine months now and it hasn't happened yet. The leading candidates won't commit. Connect the dots.

Joe Biden, former plagiarist and Senator from the not-so-great, yet first state of Delaware has succeeded in accomplishing nothing and is elated about doing so:

In a strong rebuff to the Bush Administration on Iraq, the Senate overwhelming approved a plan by Biden that essentially calls for breaking Iraq into three sections: Kurd, Sunni, and Shia. While the amendment is nonbinding, it's the first measure to pass, (vote was 75-23,) that goes against the administration's war strategy.

Biden's chief co-sponsor was Brownback. Fellow candidates Clinton and Dodd also supported the plan. Obama and McCain did not vote. (bolding in original)

Wow, I'll be beating a path to the Biden for President headquarters in the morning. I'm entirely sure that President Bush felt "rebuffed" by this huge victory that is er, nonbinding. It's good to know that fellow candidates Hillary, Chris Dodd and Sam Brownback aided in passing this momentous bill that actually means nothing. It's a microcosm of the new Democratic Senate, is it not? Ineffectual, meaningless and proud of it as is made entirely too evident by this statement:

Republican Senator John Warner, instrumental and influential in almost all things related to Iraq, called the vote an "extraordinary moment because it marks the high-water mark of all the many debates and resolutions we've had in terms of bipartisanship."

The high-water mark? Bipartisanship? Jeez, the "influential" Senator is crowing about a nonbinding resolution that will have no effect on anything.

I have less faith in both sides of the Senate than I did just five minutes ago. Please tell me this is satire on MSNBC. Please tell me that correspondent Domenico Montanaro is really John Stewart and this whole thing is make believe.

Sadly, I fear it's not and with the day MSNBC has been having, this is probably the highlight of Dan Abrams day.

According to Rasmussen:

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 58% disapproved. Those figures include 12% who Strongly Approve and 42% who Strongly Disapprove.Self-identified liberals were evenly divided-45% approve and 39% disapprove. However, only 19% of moderate voters approve while 62% disapprove.

Forty-seven percent (47%) of all adults say that "stunts like the MoveOn.org ad" hurt the cause they believe in. Only 12% believe they help the cause while 17% say there is no impact. Twenty-four percent (24%) are not sure. Again, political liberals are divided with 27% saying they help and 32% taking the opposite view. Fifty percent (50%) of moderates and 57% of conservatives say that these sorts of events hurt the cause the group is trying to promote.

Of course this seriously smacks of all the polls on negative political ads. The ones where folks are asked how much they hate negative ads, and they say "A lot!". But they listen to them and vote according to negative ads anyway.

HT to Captains Quarters who had this to say:

It's an amazing sweep. MoveOn managed to unite most of the country -- against MoveOn. Eli Pariser planned on making this into a series of ads, but he'd do better by burying the Betray Us theme and hope everyone forgets about it -- and quickly

Let's recap, it did absolutely nothing to help Democrats on Iraq, or to stop the war, but it did embarrass a lot of Democratic candidates who were put in a tight spot of having to renounce the organization that has been a major source of funds. Well done!

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.

Hillary Clinton spent some time on Fox News Sunday and told us that she would rather not be talking about MoveOn.org:

WALLACE: Senator, you have refused to criticize the MoveOn.org ad about General Petraeus. And in fact, this week you voted against a Senate resolution denouncing it.

President Bush said that you and other Democrats are more afraid - his word - afraid of irritating the left wing and MoveOn than you are about insulting the American military. Does he have a point?

H. CLINTON: No, he doesn't. But I think it's clear I don't condone attacks on anyone who has served our country with distinction and with honor, and I have been very vocal in my support of and admiration for General Petraeus.

I did vote for a resolution that made it clear I do not condone and do condemn attacks on any American, impugning their patriotism, and that includes people like Senator Max Cleland and Senator John Kerry.

I think we need to call a halt to any kind of attacks, from wherever they come, that would go after anyone based on their service to America.

Pretty standard so far, but at this point she does a perfectly disciplined Jane Hamsher pivot and attack.

But you know, this is not a debate about an ad. This is a debate about how we end the war in Iraq. That's the debate that I want to be participating in, and I think a lot of people on the other side don't want us to have that debate.

Nicely done!

It's been an interesting week in the free speech debate; we have Holocaust denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University next Monday, A Colorado collegiate newspaper that runs an editorial of two words: F**K BUSH and Stanford students and faculty hitting twelve on the outrage meter that Donald Rumsfeld will participate in classes. In other words, we have a strong, healthy dose of reinvigorating the Constitutional debate happening and it's always a good exercise.

First on Ahmadinejad. I, for one, say, "let the man speak." Sunlight is a great disinfectant and perhaps an enterprising blogger or student will ask him some tough questions the media does not. Maybe we'll see him put on the spot for his references to erasing Israel and his steady quest for nukes. Heaven knows that free speech is effectively dead in his home country of Iran, where saying what you think will get you shot. We also see the anti-war people for who they are, rabid socialists who support Palestinians and abhor Israel.

In other words, a man that right-thinking people hate is allowed to speak because the political right values free speech more than the political left. The proof is available in two cases in California involving the aforementioned Rumsfeld and Larry Summers.

The latest numbers on Iraq will give even a hardened economic analyst like Alan Greenspan a panic attack.

The war is costing $720 million a day or $500,000a minute, according to the group's analysis of the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes. The estimates made by the group, which opposes the conflict, include not only the immediate costs of war but also ongoing factors such as long-term health care for veterans, interest on debt and replacement of military hardware.

This is known as full-cost accounting which is what the IRS does when it says it costs 40 cents a mile to operate a typical car. This is what it is costing to run this war all piled on an already bloated national deficit that is becoming untenable. Like a sub-prime mortgage gone bust, we can't even afford the interest on the national debt. This war, which the leading Republican candidates fully support as a permanent war, coupled with Bush's fiscal insanity, has rendered our country the debtor nation of all time. We're in hock up to and including the White House.

This war, which is decimating the military, leaving tens of thousands of our youth crippled for life has already cost almost a trillion dollars. $720 million a day. What could we be doing?

The money spent on one day of the Iraq war could buy homes for almost 6,500 families or health care for 423,529 children, or could outfit 1.27 million homes with renewable electricity

That's just a start. It's a question of priorities and what safety really means. Ask yourself: would we be safer if we had not invaded and occupied Iraq for the past 4.5 years? If we had supported the UN instead of going it alone and invaded would we be spending our treasure and youth today? Perhaps O.J., Britney, and the other celeb trash would be alone in the headlines and we could be building a better country.

I originally wrote about Blackwater back in April, "Outsourcing the War: Blackwater USA". Based on the comments I received at the time, no one seemed to have a big problem with these mercenaries (versus loyal Americans willing to fight for $30,000 a month) operating below the horizon in Iraq (and New Orleans, post-Katrina) . Fast forward five months....

Blackwater is now being investigated by just about everybody for this, that and the other thing. Little things like selling arms to terrorists (as in our weapons, traced through serial numbers, ending up in the hands of terrorists in the Middle East).

One could make a good argument that they were simply doing their job when they killed the 11 (or 20) Iraqi terrorists (or civilians) after the State Department convoy they were guarding (under their lucrative 3/4 billion dollar contract with the U.S. State Department) was attacked. I've heard people say that by definition, our volunteer army is, in fact, a mercenary army. I know or know of many military people, those who have chosen to devote their careers to serving their country, like my brother, and those who volunteered to serve after 9/11 out of patriotism, the sons and daughters and husbands and wives of people I know. Not one of them is in it for the money.

The Iraqi government has said as many as 20 civilians were killed by gunfire from Blackwater USA contractors who were guarding a U.S. diplomatic convoy. Iraqi officials dispute the U.S. claim that the guards were responding to an attack. The Blackwater employees involved in the incident are still in Iraq, but those who fired weapons -- about a third of the guards -- were "standing down," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

Outside experts may be brought in to help review the "protective service details" in Baghdad, McCormack said. Such details usually have 15 to 20 guards. The "full, complete review" would look at rules of engagement and overall operations, with consultation with lawyers over what authority contractors operate under, he said.

Sunday's shooting has created new tension between the U.S. and Iraqi governments. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed regret about the incident in a phone call to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and promised an open and transparent probe into what happened.

The problem with outsourcing government services is that private firms are in business to make money, not serve the greater good. When billions of dollars are being loosely thrown at no-bid contracts (those would be our tax dollars at work, thank you) that will be administered by private firms whose only purpose in life is to make a profit, contracts awarded without competitive bidding, without any oversight afterward or accountability by or to the American people, the end result is pretty much predictable.

As an aside, one could also make a comment about how safe conditions have become in Iraq since the surge was implemented. Just a stroll in an Indiana open marketplace. Not only were Blackwater operations suspended after this incident, but all non-military personnel were forbidden to leave the so-called "safe" Green Zone. As of Saturday, all Blackwater "services" have been resumed, so it is now okay for our congressional delegations to venture out so they can return home to tell us how wonderful everything is over there.

"The Baghdad of today is different from the Baghdad of yesterday."

So were the words of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon after a meeting in New York where the two discussed a possible future role for the UN in Iraq as a means to aid economic and political reforms. The Washington Times reports that al-Maliki has assured the Secretary-General that Iraqi Security Forces will be more than capable of protecting UN Delegates while in Baghdad citing that levels of violence in the city have decreased.

To be sure, political reconciliation remains the most difficult goal to be achieved and the UN's ability to be successful in a role designed to facilitate reconciliation can be somewhat questionable. (The United Nations has not proved itself very successful on a number of issues in recent years) However, it is still a very positive area of contention to note levels of violence in Baghdad have reduced greatly. If anything could be pointed at as being the major obstacle impeding political reconciliation it would be the violence in the capital. Hopefully, as the violence diminishes – along with political corruption in the Iraqi government – the goals of stability are attainable.

It's apparently a slow news day because the wire services are trying to manufacture a controversy:

In a speech defending his administration's Iraq policy, Bush said former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's brutality had made it impossible for a unifying leader to emerge and stop the sectarian violence that has engulfed the Middle Eastern nation.

"I heard somebody say, Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas," Bush, who has a reputation for verbal faux pas, said in a press conference in Washington on Thursday.

So it's not the most artful way to get the point across, but Warner Houston at Newsbusters makes it clear that Bush was using Mandela as a stand in for a generic peacemaker, and not saying anything specific about Mandela himself or his current body temperature.

Could it be any more obvious that Bush is saying that there aren't any Iraqis filling the same sort of role in Iraq that Nelson Mandela filled in South Africa? Could it be any more clear that Bush was saying that Saddam "killed all the Mandelas" of Iraq?

In a development sure to be viewed as a turning point in the Iraq war, karate champ turned actor turned Fox News talk show host, Chuck Norris has just headed over to set things straight in Saddam Hussein's old stomping grounds. He'll be covering the conflict for World Net Daily. Well, hold on to your hat, two things have already become apparent to Chuck:

The "surge is working" and "morale is up--way up!"

Why we didn't think of sending Chuck sooner is a mystery to me. Hell, we probably just should have sent him in alone back when this whole thing began. Consider his qualifications:

Despite the best efforts of the Bush administration, assorted pundits bloggers and the traditional media (including the NY Times and Washington Post), Americans have had it with this war and think the Dems in Congress have not done enough to end the war. According to a new Pew Research Center poll:

Check out the independent numbers. They are not moving President Bush's way. The only ones who feel good about the song and dance in Washington recently were Republicans (their numbers feeling the war was getting better went up a little).

President Bush and General Petraeus convinced no one else. The American people are speaking but are the leaders really listening. What a sad state that not even a few Republicans would support a Dem troop rotation that would give them as much time at home as in Iraq. It's not enough the war goes on, the elected Republicans are fine with the suffering on top of it.

Enough is enough.

New Virginia Senator James Webb tried an end run to stop the war in Iraq, by limiting the deployment options of the military. The idea of guaranteeing time between deployments made great sense rhetorically and it was hoped the idea of supporting the troops while stopping the war would enable them to pick off enough senators to get it done.

But it was not to be, as the WaPo reports, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now giving up on clever strategies and going back to the old strategy which did not work last spring:

Instead, Reid will again push for a firm deadline, this time June 2008, along with a stronger effort at cutting off war funding.

"It's all definite timelines," Reid said.

The Senate will resume the war debate today, and Reid invited Republicans to offer proposals. His spokesman said that several possibilities are being negotiated, although it appeared unlikely they will meet the 60-vote threshold to pass.