Cut And Run 3.0 On Display At The Victory Caucus 
Ed Morrissey

The Democratic plan to lose the war in Iraq has been transcribed by NZ Bear at The Victory Caucus. NZ also has a link to a PDF scan of the document, but the gist of the bill is captured in his transcription. The heart of its unconstitionality can be found in Sections 1902 and 1903:

Sec. 1902 (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that Army, Army Reserve and National Guard units should not be deployed for combat beyond 365 days or that Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve units should not be deployed for combat beyond 210 days.

Congress may also find that the executive branch sets that policy and its parameters for implementation. The Constitution gives Congress no authority to either deploy troops or to undeploy them, only to give the executive the authority to conduct war and the power of the purse to end it. This looks very much like an intrusion on the President's authority as Commander in Chief to determine troop movements during conflict, and puts the United States in a position where we have 535 Commanders in Chief -- definitely not what the founders had in mind. ...

***

The "Slow Bleed" Bill
By Smash  

N.Z. Bear has a sneak peek at the text of Pelosi & Company's "Cut & Run" bill over at Victory Caucus.

Here are the lowlights:

Sec. 1901 (b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be used to deploy any unit of the Armed Forces to Iraq unless the chief of the military department concerned has certified in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services at least 15 days in advance of the deployment that the unit is fully mission capable.

What the bill doesn't tell you is that almost all of the units deploying to Iraq today are technically considered not "fully mission capable" until they have arrived in theater and taken custody of the heavy equipment from the unit they are relieving. Moving all those vehicles and parts halfway around the world takes time, manpower, and money. It's far cheaper and easier to move men, and match them up with the equipment already in place. Which is why we do it that way.

As an ex-Marine, Murtha -- especially -- should know this.

Sec. 1902 (b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be obligated or expended to initiate the development of, continue the development of, or execute any order that has the effect of extending the deployment for Operation Iraqi Freedom of ---

(1) any unit of the Army, Army Reserve, or Army National Guard beyond 365 days; or

(2) any unit of the Marine Corps or Marine Corps Reserve beyond 210 days.

So where are the limitations for the Navy and Air Force? Blue forces deploy too, you know.

But seriously, this doesn't look like it would stand up to a Constitutional challenge. Article 2, Section 2 specifically grants Commander-in-Chief powers to the President.

And then there's the withdrawal timetable and benchmarks: ...

***

***

Senate Dems’ Iraq proposal looks a lot like Kerry’s plan from last summer
Allahpundit

Lurch’s plan, you may recall, was offered as an alternative to the Reed-Levin proposal. R-L called for U.S. forces to begin withdrawing by a certain date; Kerry called for them to finish withdrawing by a certain date (namely, July 1, 2007). Result: Yeas 13, Nays 86.

Nine months later we’ve got a new defense secretary and commanding general, a so-far-so-good surge in Baghdad, and even a nascent dialogue with Iran. Yet suddenly Kerry finds his plan in vogue. What gives?

Why, politics, darling. Remember who we’re talking about here.

For Kerry’s June 2006 effort, which would have withdrawn U.S. combat troops by June 2007, the lanky junior senator from Massachusetts was rewarded by a scathing report in The New York Times entitled, “On Iraq, Kerry Again Leaves Democrats Fuming.” The Times reported the 2004 presidential nominee’s “fellow Democrats” were fearful that “the latest evolution of Mr. Kerry’s views on Iraq may now complicate their hopes of taking back a majority in Congress in 2006.”…

Said Biden of Kerry’s proposal back then: “Setting a date is not a plan.'’ Added Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., ‘’If the argument comes down to, ‘Is it one year or 18 months,’ I think we’re going to confuse people. I’m not sure what the value is; I think it hurts us rather than helps.'’

Not only did Biden appear beside Kerry at the Democrats’ presser to announce the new bill, he’s started his very own nutroots-brand online petition that calls upon Congress to … set a date.

***

Clinton Sees Some Troops Staying in Iraq if She Is Elected

WASHINGTON, March 14 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

The nutroots are gonna absolutely love that, but they'll be fine with this part, anyway:

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain in Iraq after taking office would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

Screw those little brown people. I mean, like, do they vote in our elections?

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

“So I think it will be up to me to try to figure out how to protect those national security interests and continue to take our troops out of this urban warfare, which I think is a loser,” Mrs. Clinton added. She declined to estimate the number of American troops she would keep in Iraq, saying she would draw on the advice of the military officers who would have to carry out the strategy. ...

***

Okay, So Hillary Is Just Plain Stupid 
Dan Riehl

Hillary has decided to be more "nuanced" when it comes to what she would do with Iraq as President. This is rich. While her party is attempting to pass legislation to micro-manage the war, Hillary would instead rely on the advice of the military commanders. Huh? And it gets better. The urban war is a "loser." However, she would obviously have plenty of troops in Iraq to protect our “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq”.

Okay, so we would what? Guard oil wells and chase al Qaeda while all of Iraq burned down around us? ...

***

Clinton Won't Withdraw From Iraq
Confederate Yankee

This won't endear her to the netroots, but then, what could? For those Democrats that have a toe in reality, however, Hillary just showed that she may be the first grown-up running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Well, almost:

[...]

It is good to see that Hillary recognized the need to help support the Iraqi government, but her statement about not protecting Iraqis from sectarian violence, "even if it descended into ethnic cleansing," is troubling. ...

***

Clinton: I'll Ignore Genocide
Ed Morrissey

Hillary Clinton made an astonishing statement on her policy for Iraq if elected President, in an interview with the New York Times yesterday. She refused to commit to total withdrawal from Iraq, saying that she would keep American troops in Anbar to fight terrorists, a stance that will not endear her to the anti-war Left in her party. At the same time, she said she would refuse to send troops back into Baghdad, even if a genocide took place:

[...]

More nuanced? It's abysmal, cynical, and completely self-serving. To commit the US to inaction in the face of genocide is nothing short of breathtaking, especially with the Left agitating for action -- and rightly so -- in Darfur. It should also remind voters of Bill Clinton's record in Rwanda.

This statement shows a complete lack of strategic and tactical thinking on the part of someone who want to assume the role of Commander in Chief. The key to stabilizing Iraq and beating the terrorists who have nested in Anbar is restoring order to its capital. If the central government falls, the other goals she mentions -- deterring Iran, protecting the Kurds, and so on -- will go right out the window. If Baghdad falls into utter chaos and ethnic cleansing, the rest of the nation will follow suit in short order, and Anbar will be the least of our problems.

***

James Joyner, commenting on Ed Morrissey's comments:

... Quite. Further, Clinton would effectively have us running around in a war zone pretending to be a neutral bystanders, which is simply bizarre. “Don’t mind us–we’re just going after terrorists and acting as a buffer against Iran! Go ahead and burn that village! Wait–you’re not a terrorist are you?”

This makes John Murtha’s “We’ll go hide in Okinawa and monitor things from there” plan look positively brilliant by comparison.

***

Bush: I'll Find My Veto Pen 
Ed Morrissey

The White House has threatened to veto the new Democratic bill to limit his options in Iraq, which would double the number of vetoes in the Bush administration. No one expects the measure to pass in Congress, but the President wants to leave no doubt about its fate if it does:

In the face of determined opposition from the Bush administration, the Senate on Wednesday began an impassioned debate over an exit strategy from Iraq, headed toward a vote on a Democratic resolution aimed at a pullout of American combat troops in 2008.

Underscoring the mounting tensions between the Democratic Congress and the White House, administration officials immediately issued a veto threat, even though the measure is considered unlikely to win final passage. The administration’s statement denounced the Democratic plan in forceful terms, declaring that it would “embolden our enemies” and “hobble American commanders in the field.” ...

A veto here will be tricky. He needs supplemental funding for the Iraq theater to maintain operations, and Congress has to generate that appropriation. Vetoing a funding bill may mean that Congress simply won't produce one in a timely fashion, which would put the effort in Iraq in a very precarious position. Democratic leadership probably won't withstand pressure to keep the troops funded and supplied, but the temptation for mischief will certainly arise. ...

***

Colorado Legislation Against the War
By Matthew Currier Burden (Blackfive)  

Rocky Mountain News has a slide show with testimony from those against and those for our involvement in Iraq (it's quick and I think it's important to see the Iraq vet's perspective). This is Colorado's Military Affairs Committee. Here's a copy of their resolution.

The resolution is to support the Democrat resolution in Congress. It is explained in the video below: ...

***

Harry Reid's Plan to Withdraw U.S. Troops From Iraq by March 2008 Fails in Senate

WASHINGTON —  Republicans handed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid a defeat on the Iraq issue Thursday, voting down a proposal that would withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008.

Democrats aggressively challenged President Bush's Iraq policy at both ends of the Capitol building, gaining House committee approval for a troop withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008, but suffering defeat in the Senate.

The vote was 50-48 against the measure, 12 short of the 60 needed for passage.

***

Reid resolution fails
Paul Mirengoff

Harry Reid's resolution, ... has failed.

UPDATE: The Gregg Amendment, which I understand calls says that Congress should not eliminate or reduce funds for troops in the field, has passed 82–16. The Murray Amendment, which I understand calls for Congress to provide funds for training, equipment and other support for troops in the field, has passed 96-2. ...

***

GOP Defeats Reid Measure To End Deployment
Ed Morrissey

Senate Republicans turned back an effort by Harry Reid to set a fixed withdrawal date for US troops in Iraq. Reid lost by a thin margin, 50-48, as three Democrats defected to the opposition for this measure:

... Senate Democrats promptly said they would try again to force a change in Bush's policy beginning next week when they begin work on legislation providing money for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Democrats want to keep digging on this issue until they weaken Republican resolve to see the war through to a successful conclusion. Gordon Smith voted with the Democrats, giving them some hope for more erosion later, but three Democrats voted against the bill. Joe Lieberman joined red-state Senators Mark Pryor and Ben Nelson.

What's next? ...