Too Progressive

Ooooops! Wow, just wow.

Not like he’ll listen, but they tried again anyway:

Behind the Pentagon’s closed doors, U.S. military leaders told President Bush Wednesday they are worried about the Iraq war’s mounting strain on troops and their families. But they indicated they’d go along with a brief halt in pulling out troops this summer.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff did say senior commanders in Iraq should make more frequent assessments of security conditions, an idea that appeared aimed at increasing pressure for more rapid troop reductions.

The chiefs’ concern is that U.S. forces are being worn thin, compromising the Pentagon’s ability to handle crises elsewhere in the world.

John McCain and George Bush have been lockstep on Iraq from day one.

Opening Graphic: “McCain & Bush on Iraq: In Lockstep from Day One”

DON RUMSFELD: “There has been a good deal of interaction between the terrorists in the Philippines and the al-Qaeda and people in Iraq.” [ABC News, “Nightline,” 11/28/2001]

Barack Obama calls John McCain out on his Iraq position:

Senator Jim Webb is “profoundly concerned” about the resignation of Admiral William Fallon and says the sudden resignation raises concerns about whether or not the Bush administration considers or even tolerates dissenting views.

“I know a little something about resigning,” said Webb, who resigned as Navy secretary in the 1980s to protest cuts in shipbuilding. “Those are not easy decisions to make. And I would also point out that this administration is not an administration that has tolerated dissent from our military leaders.”

Webb took to the Senate floor to speak about the resignation and pointed out that Fallon was the third Middle East region commander to express concern with the Bush administration’s Mid East policies.

“This is a region that is in chaos all the way from Lebanon to Pakistan, as we well know,” said Webb, a freshman Democrat. “And we need the advice and the contributions of global thinkers. Adm. Fallon is one of them … . So I am profoundly concerned that Adm. Fallon has decided to take this measure, and I’m hoping that we can hear from him in a more specific way in the future.”

“The President is wrong and he knows it!”

On Friday I posted an article about Rep. Thelma Drake’s statement that Angelina Jolie should appear before Congress to testify that things are going just swimmingly in Iraq. Well, apparently she actually sent a letter to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) requesting that he actually make this happen. Via RTD:

STAR SEARCH: Rep. Thelma Drake, R-2nd, says members of the House Armed Services Committee could learn something about Iraq from actress and humanitarian Angelina Jolie.

In a letter to committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., Drake asked that Jolie, a U.N. goodwill ambassador, be invited to testify on the status of millions of refugees in Iraq and its neighboring countries.

Drake said the committee could benefit from differing perspectives on Iraq.

As I stated on Friday, no one can deny the great humanitarian work Jolie has done, but really? Drake wants a civilian to appear before Congress to testify that things are going well in Iraq? Wow.

Once again Thelma, good luck in your search for a new job come November.

Via the comments, Thelma’s November opponent Glenn Nye also responded to Drake’s bizarre request over the weekend:

Glenn Nye, a Democrat hoping to challenge U.S. Rep. Thelma Drake, R-2nd District, in the November election, went on the attack over Drake’s suggestion Friday that Jolie be invited to address members of Congress on the situation in Iraq.

“Where are Thelma Drake’s priorities?” Nye said in a statement released by his campaign. “It’s time for serious people to do serious work to bring a sensible and responsible end to the war in Iraq.”

We all know how crazy Representative Thelma Drake is (see here, here, here, here and here), but this is quite hilarious. Drake plans to rally Congress behind the war in Iraq (yeah right) by calling on Angelina Jolie to testify that last year’s surge of troops “appears to be working.”

Read more after the jump.

More so called progress in Iraq! The death toll following yesterday’s truck bombing in the northern part of Iraq now stands at at least 500.

The Tuesday truck bombs that targeted the villages of Qahtaniya, al-Jazeera and Tal Uzair, in northern Iraq near the border with Syria, were a “trademark al Qaeda event” designed to sway U.S. public opinion against the war, a U.S. general said Wednesday.

The attacks, targeting Kurdish villages of the Yazidi religious minority, were attempts to “break the will” of the American people and show that the U.S. troop escalation — the “surge” — is failing, Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon said.

The bombings highlight the kind of sectarian tensions the troop surge was designed to stop.

Major General Mixon went on to say “this is an act of ethnic cleansing, if you will — almost genocide when you consider the fact the target they attacked and the fact that these Yazidis, out in a very remote part of Nineveh province, where there is very little security and really no security required to this point.”

Get our troops out from the midst of the Iraqi civil war NOW!

Worth noting: Both Jim Webb, and John Warner voted “yea” as did Harry Reid and 435 term Senator John McCain. Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama both voted against the measure, but only after enough votes were in to secure the bill would pass, and war loving Senator Brownback Mountain of Kansas couldn’t even bother to show up. Another thing I found interesting was the fact that of the six Senators not voting, four were Republican (supposedly the “troop loving party”) while only two were Democratic, one of which was Tim Johnson (D-SD) who I think we can all agree has a legitimate excuse.

Anyway, here’s the full list, sorted by last name:

Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Not Voting
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Not Voting
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Not Voting
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Not Voting
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Love always,
The Democrats

and Co-signed,
The Republicans

Anyway, so we elect them (the Democrats) to Congress and what do they do? Exactly what we told them not to, of course!!!! In case you’re wondering, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both voted against the measure, but only after it was already assured that it would pass. Hm, I wonder if Walnuts! McCain actually voted this time.

Bowing to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled Congress grudgingly approved fresh billions for the Iraq war Thursday night, minus the troop withdrawal timeline that drew his earlier veto.

“The Iraqi government needs to show real progress in return for America’s continued support and sacrifice,” said the commander in chief, and he warned that August could prove to be a bloody month for U.S. troops in Baghdad’s murderous neighborhoods.

Five months in power on Capitol Hill, Democrats in both houses coupled their concession to the president with pledges to challenge his policies anew. “This debate will go on,” vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and if anything, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) of Nevada was more emphatic.

“Senate Democrats will not stop our efforts to change the course of this war until either enough Republicans join with us to reject President Bush’s failed policy or we get a new president,” he said.

Earlier: Keith Olbermann slams Bush, and the Democratic leaders

UPDATE: Looks like crazy McCain did vote, voting “yea” of course. I’ll post the full roll call when it becomes available.

Democrats on Capitol Hill today have supposedly reached a compromise with Republicans that would fund (to the tune of $90 billion dollars) the Iraq war through September 30, 2007. The bill would drop any required “time lines,” and would set benchmarks for Iraq that, if not met, would trigger a withholding of funding. None of that really matters though because the bill also gives George Bush the right to waive the requirements whenever he sees fit to do so.

On the flip side, the bill will also raise the national minimum wage from $5.15/hr to $7.25/hr. Funding for other domestic spending programs is still being negotiated.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi will present a plan to House Democrats for a war funding bill that won’t include a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq but will feature benchmarks with consequences, according to Democratic leadership aides.

The bill also would raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour from $5.15 per hour, and fund other domestic spending programs, which were still being negotiated.

The maneuvering over the past several weeks has been a Democratic attempt to show their anti-war base that party leaders were trying until the 11th hour to stand up to the president, the source said.

Earlier: Democrats cave to Republicans

MSNBC is reporting that Democrats on Capitol Hill have reached a “compromise” with the Bush Administration that will drop all time lines for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Instead? There will be benchmarks for the Iraqi government, and get this, George Bush will supposedly be able to waive these requirements at any time he pleases. HAHA!

Developing…

Wasn’t one of Senator Webb’s main campaign platforms supposed to be bringing the troops home? Wasn’t he supposed to be the relatively Conservative Democrat who opposed the war but could still win in Virginia? Yet, he still votes no on the Reid-Feingold bill.

Contact Senator Webb here and urge him to change his mind when this bill comes up again in the future. You can also call Jim Webb’s Washington, DC Senate office (which is much more effective than emailing) at 202.224.4024!

While I’m not the biggest fan of Republican Senator John Warner (as seen here, here, here, here, and here), I certainly support the Congressional resolution opposing Bush’s troop surge to Iraq (although I don’t think it’s NEARLY enough).

Today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates accused the Congress of emboldening the enemy by opposing the plan! Via the AP:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday that a congressional resolution opposing President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq undercuts U.S. commanders and “emboldens the enemy.”

He also said the Pentagon was now studying whether it could accelerate the deployment of the five additional Army brigades that it has announced will be sent to Baghdad between now and May to bolster security in the capital.

At his first Pentagon news conference since taking office Dec. 18, Gates was asked his reaction to the debate in Congress over the effect of such a nonbinding resolution. “It’s pretty clear that a resolution that in effect says that the general going out to take command of the arena shouldn’t have the resources he thinks he needs to be successful certainly emboldens the enemy and our adversaries,” he said.

Seriously, when the hell are these people going to realize that AMERICA ISN’T BUYING IT ANYMORE! To question the President, and the rest of our leadership, in any situation, at any time, no matter WHO is in the White House, is the patriotic thing to do!

[Cross posted on Capitol Talk!]

Earlier today I was pleasantly surprised to learn that Senator John Warner, who I’ve been covering very closely over the past few weeks, was going to coming out AGAINST the Bush plan to send 21,500 additional U.S. troops into the midst of a civil war in Iraq. However, after reading a bit more, it seems like yet another “do nothing” proposal from Senator Warner in an attempt to appear a sensible moderate. Once again I want to reiterate that the time for compromise over Iraq is LONG since gone, and it’s time to bring our troops home. While Warner apparently opposes the 21,500 troop increase, it would appear as if he isn’t opposed to a smaller increase, something every U.S. military official on the ground in Iraq, and at the Pentagon, agrees would be a disaster. Via CNN:

“The Senate disagrees with the ‘plan’ to augment our forces by 21,500, and urges the president instead to consider all options and alternatives for achieving the strategic goals set forth below with reduced force levels than proposed,” the measure states.

The same article went on to say:

Warner said senators aren’t trying to encroach on Bush’s authority as commander-in-chief of the military, but he cautioned that the war effort “can only be sustained and achieved with the support of the American people, and with a level of bipartisanship here in the Congress of the United States.”

Warner also said the senators were “accepting the president’s offer” to offer an alternative to his plans.

Well, suggesting that Bush “consider other alternatives” isn’t exactly an ALTERNATIVE PLAN, since President Bush has made it increasingly clear NOTHING short of cutting funding for the war, or impeachment will get the message across. The American people are increasingly against the war (and any escalation of the war), as shown in poll after poll, AND the November 7 elections. The time to “cozy up” to George Bush is over, the time for “compromise” is over. Congress MUST take serious action NOW, of they’re ALL going to have one helluva BAD day come Election Day 2008.

Republican Senator John Warner still refuses to tell Virginians whether or not he supports Bush’s plan to send 21,500 additional U.S. troops to an unstoppable civil war in Iraq.

Sunday, I wrote an extensive report on Warner’s inability to take a position on the troop surge, and in fact he actually suggested that rather than send 21,500 additional troops, we “only” send “a few thousand” more, something every single top military general agrees is a horrible idea! Despite that, it’s now being rumored that Senator Warner may be ready to set forth a “compromise” proposal on Monday that does just what U.S. generals and Pentagon staff have warned NOT to do!!!

So let’s review, on October 6, 2006, John Warner said the war in Iraq was “drifting sideways,” and that if the situation hadn’t turned around after three months, some bold decisions would have to be made by Congress. Then, following George Bush’s speech on January 10 announcing the “surge”, Warner said:

“I found the speech to be credible, and sincere that reflects a lot of study by the Executive Branch, and a lot of advice the President took into consideration.”

Following that, last week Warner was reported to have told Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Peter Pace that instead of 21,500 troops, the U.S. should start with several thousand troops, saying:

“Shouldn’t we walk a few steps along this line and then see how quickly — hopefully — the Iraqis begin to take up their responsibilities?”

Sorry John, but the time for that to happen has LONG since come to pass.

Now, CNN is reporting that Warner is set to introduce a “compromise resolution” on Monday that will presumably send about 5,000 troops instead of 21,500:

Warner, the influential ranking Republican on the Senate’s Armed Services Committee, has so far avoided saying whether he agrees or disagrees with the president’s plan, but is said to have been working behind the scenes for some time to build support for a compromise.

All of this despite nearly every single military official on the ground in Iraq and at the Pentagon warning that any troop surge, ESPECIALLY an extremely small one, will be disastrous.

Sorry Mr. Warner (and anyone else supporting this plan), but the REAL patriotic Americans are no longer willing to “compromise” when it comes to the safety of our troops and the well-being of our country. Furthermore, Virginia Democrats need to collectively get behind an effort to get this man out of office come 2008!!! There’s no place for “moderates” when it comes to such serious issues as this.

[Cross posted at Daily Kos, and Raising Kaine!]

Apparently Eric Cantor, and the rest of the Republican party, need to reread the Constitution, and perhaps, for the first time realize that we do not live in a monarchy, but rather, have three separate branches of Government all with “checks and balances” on each other. As some of you already know, a bill yesterday proposed by Republican Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas, proposed a bill yesterday that will bar any interruption of funding for U.S. troops in a war zone. You know, never mind the fact that while the President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the Congress has “power of the purse” as a means of keeping the Presidential power over the military in check. Time to go back to third grade History for all Republican Congressman.

Via the RTD:

“Open debate on Iraq is good, but our troops and the dollars that support them should not be used to play politics,” Cantor, the chief deputy minority whip, said at a news conference.

“It will only hurt our troops and encourage the terrorists who want to harm them.”

The bill was introduced yesterday by Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Cantor has endorsed President Bush’s plan for a buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq and was a co-sponsor of Johnson’s measure.

Most had said long before the November elections that if Democrats took control, many Republicans in Congress would be “jumping ship” so to speak. That is, they would likely begin to speak out against Bush’s failed policy - not only in Iraq, but at home too. After dropping the hammer on “Conda-liesa-liesa-liesa-lot” in Senate hearings last week, Chuck Hagel (R-NE) on CNN today slammed the Bush administration again, AND claimed Congress needs to be more assertive, saying “this is not a monarchy,” and going on to say:

“We are no longer just going to quietly stand by, as we have done for the last four years, and let our young men and women be thrown into this conflict when they cannot affect the outcome.”

He can join a growing number of Republicans who oppose the McCain doctrine, and while some media reports claim he’s the “second” one to come out against it, he’s actually the seventh, including Sam Brownback of Kansas, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Gordon Smith of Oregon, George Voinovich of Ohio, Susan Collins of Maine, and Olympia Snowe of Maine.

According to an article on CNN’s website:

Acknowledging their party is divided on Iraq, Republican leaders are trying to stave off a showdown in Congress by casting Democratic efforts as a political ploy to embarrass the president.

The White House cautioned lawmakers about the consequences of voting against a buildup.

“The one thing the president has said is, whatever you do, make sure you support the troops,” Snow said at the White House. “And the question people who support this resolution will have to ask is, how does this support the troops?”

Awww, so George Bush thinks he can make idle threats now? CONSEQUENCES of voting against sending our troops into a civil war in Iraq? Now what would they be, pray tell? My guess would be that Bush would send them anyway! And to the Republican leaders: George Bush has done a fine job embarrassing himself, Democratic “efforts” to save the country aren’t responsible for it.

Can Republican Senator John Warner please tell Virginians where he stands on the war in Iraq and Bush’s plan to send 21,500 additional U.S. troops to the war zone? He’s for it, he doesn’t know, he’s against it, WHO KNOWS! In October, Warner said the war in Iraq was “drifting sideways,” and the following excerpt appeared on NewsMax on October 6, 2006:

He (John Warner) said the military had done what it could and that Congress must make some “bold decisions” if, after three months, progress is not made by the Iraqis to calm ethnic violence and hasten reconstruction.

Warner did not say what he thinks Congress should do, but added all options will be considered. Lawmakers have suggested various remedies, including setting a timetable to pull out U.S. troops and dividing the country into smaller independent ethnic states.

Well, Senator Warner, it’s been more than three months, get moving! What’s your plan? What’s your idea? Are you for or against the McCain doctrine?

Wednesday night, after George Bush spoke to the nation regarding his plan, Warner said the following regarding the President’s speech:

“I found the speech to be credible, and sincere that reflects a lot of study by the Executive Branch, and a lot of advice the President took into consideration.”

Well, Warner didn’t exactly endorse the plan (with this quote, at least), I’ll give him that. However, his inability to express his concerns about the plan on national TV accurately reflects the GOP over the past few years: the political party where party loyalty comes before doing the right thing, and opposition to fellow Republicans is supposed to be expressed “privately.”

So what is Senator Warner’s position on the McCain doctrine, and the Iraq war in general at this hour? Well, at last check, he supports the plan to send additional U.S. troops into the midst of the civil war in Iraq, but not quite the 21,500 Bush plans to send. Not yet, at least. Warner told Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Peter Pace that instead of 21,500 troops, the U.S. should start with several thousand troops instead. According to the Richmond Times Dispatch, Warner went on to say:

“Shouldn’t we walk a few steps along this line and then see how quickly — hopefully — the Iraqis begin to take up their responsibilities?”

No, Senator Warner, we shouldn’t. First of all, we’ve waited long enough for the Iraqis to “take control,” but instead, the country sinks further and further into civil war every day. Not only that, but as I reported in a December 19, 2006 entry regarding the Joint Chiefs opposition to the troop “surge” via a WaPo article:

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq — including al-Qaeda’s foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias — without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

And here’s the kicker! Senator John Warner, please pay attention:

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

Hear that? If the Bush administration and other supporters of the McCain doctrine really want to fuel terrorists recruiting, “all” they have to do is continue with this dangerous plan to SEND MORE U.S. TROOPS TO IRAQ!

General John Abizaid, the U.S. military commander of forces in the Middle East opposes the plan too, saying in November that “Troop levels need to stay where they are.” While, as I wrote on December 28, 2006, according to an article published by the AP, U.S. soldiers on the ground in Iraq are increasingly against the war too:

“Nothing’s going to help. It’s a religious war, and we’re caught in the middle of it,” said Sgt. Josh Keim, a native of Canton, Ohio, who is on his second tour in Iraq. “It’s hard to be somewhere where there’s no mission and we just drive around.”

But James said more troops in combat would likely not have the desired effect.

One Lieutenant General slammed the “troop surge” saying instead of more troops, he wants better equipment for the soldiers already on the ground:

During a recent interview, Lt. Gen. Nasier Abadi, deputy chief of staff for the Iraqi army, said that instead of sending more U.S. soldiers, Washington should focus on furnishing his men with better equipment.

“We are hoping 2007 will be the year of supplies,” he said.

Unfortunately though, as Jaime over at West of Shockoe told us on Wednesday, it doesn’t appear as though Lieutenant General Nasier Abadi is going to get his wish:

The thousands of troops that President Bush is expected to order to Iraq will join the fight largely without the protection of the latest armored vehicles that withstand bomb blasts far better than the Humvees in wide use, military officers said.

One soldier, who had his contract involuntarily extended (indefinitely, I’m assuming), flat out claimed the U.S. was losing the war, and that a troop surge was not a good idea:

Sgt. Justin Thompson, a San Antonio native, said he signed up for delayed enlistment before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, then was forced to go to a war he didn’t agree with.

A troop surge is “not going to stop the hatred between Shia and Sunni,” said Thompson, who is especially bitter because his 4-year contract was involuntarily extended in June. “This is a civil war, and we’re just making things worse. We’re losing. I’m not afraid to say it.”

Still not convinced? Consider this, in 2004 support of the war among active duty military members was at 63 percent. Support from the military now? Only 35 percent of the servicemen and women said they approve of the way President George W. Bush is handling the war. My, my, so much for that “the media only reports the bad news from Iraq” theory, huh?

So, you see Mr. ‘come 2009 FORMER’ Senator John Warner, dancing around your stance on the McCain doctrine, and trying to take the middle road by suggesting even a “moderate” troop surge, as you did, is NOT a good idea. Not only that, but Virginians have a right to know your thoughts, so stop dancing around the issue in order to save face among your degenerate fellow party members.

Once again, as I headlined the other day, I would like to reiterate the need for Democrats to start getting SERIOUS about challenging John Warner for his Senate seat in 2008. We may be getting a pleasant surprise too! I’ve been told (and I’m sure many others may have heard as well) that former Governor Mark Warner is doing “polling” ahead of a possible 2008 Virginia Senate bid.

UPDATE: I meant to give mention to the fact that the Pentagon has abandoned its limit on time citizen-soldiers can be required to serve on active duty. More proof that the U.S. military has sadly been stretched dangerously thin. I’d also like to mention a “Catzmaw’s Commentary” post from earlier today revealing a classified Pentagon memo which projects “10,000 casualties, and 100,000 wounded” in Iraq by the end of 2008.

[Cross posted at Daily Kos, and Raising Kaine!]