Yes. That is correct. Today the majority of Republicans voted against the war funding bill that President Bush wanted and signed into law. I thought I was reading the results incorrectly at first but check it out.

H R 2206 passed today, 221-10, with 3 not voting and President Bush promptly signed it into law. But it was 219 Democrats who voted for the bill and 195 Republicans who opposed. Only 2 Republicans voted for the legislation.

So what gives? The President got the bill he wanted with no timelines for withdrawal included. Are the Republicans now against the continued funding of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not long ago the Republican congressional leaders were lambasting the Democrats for not supporting the troops and the military leaders with the funds they needed.

Even today, John McCain and Mitt Romney assailed Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton for voting against the measure in the Senate. (One might ask why Mitt and John did not savage their own Republican House members for also voting against the measure).

So again, what gives? Well the bill includes spending for a number of Democratic domestic priorities and the first increase in the minimum wage in a decade. Minimum wage earners would get a pay increase to $7.25 over the next two years. This increase amounts to a 2.4% increase per year over the 12 year period since 1997 until 2009 when it goes into effect. A 2.4% increase per year is less than the current annual inflation rate and also less than the average yearly inflation rate during the past decade.

I guess the Republicans just couldn’t stomach providing minimum wage earners a basic pay raise that might actually bring their earning potential anywhere close to being able to keep up with inflation.

“Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world, and it presents significant national security challenges for the United States. Accordingly, it is appropriate to start now to help mitigate the severity of some of these emergent challenges. The decision to act should be made soon in order to plan prudently for the nation’s security. The increasing risks from climate change should be addressed now because they will almost certainly get worse if we delay”.

The statement above was not made by some tree-hugger, not by some Hollywood “liberal”, nor by some climate scientists (who the naysayers claim have some kind of biased “agenda”).

The statement above was issued today by eleven retired three-star and four-star U.S. admirals and generals who were brought together too provide advice, expertise and perspective on the impact of climate change.

The former military men released their report, “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,” which explores how projected climate change serves as a threat multiplier to U.S. national security, especially in already fragile regions. The military experts conclude that projected climate change would likely exacerbate conditions that lead to failed states : the types of places that can serve as the breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism.

The report includes several formal findings:

• Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America’s national security.
• Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world.
• Projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world.
• Climate change, national security and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges.

The report also made several specific recommendations:

• The national security consequences of climate change should be fully integrated into national security and national defense strategies.
• The U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability.
• The U.S. should commit to global partnerships that help less developed nations build the capacity and resiliency to better manage climate impacts.
• The Department of Defense should enhance its operational capability by accelerating the adoption of improved business processes and innovative technologies that result in improved U.S. combat power through energy efficiency.
• DoD should conduct an assessment of the impact on US military installations worldwide of rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and other possible climate change impacts over the next thirty to forty years.

President Bush is inadvertently drawing attention to the huge amounts of money directed to military spending in the United States.

Mr. Bush is claiming that Congress’ attempts to limit the length of the Iraq war by placing language to such effect in the $124 Billion supplemental bills will hurt American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What Mr. Bush fails to acknowledge is:

1. That HE would be the one to halt the supplemental funding process by carrying out his threatened veto.
2. That the military budget for Fiscal Year 2007 is $481 Billion dollars not counting Iraq war funding.
3. That the above $481 Billion in the normal defense appropriations alredy included about $70 billion for Iraq war related expenses
4. That the U.S. has already spent over $414 billion on the Iraq war
5. That the $124 Billion emergency supplemental funding for the war is in addition to the $414 billion already spent on the Iraq war and is in addition to the $489 Billion dollar FY military budget
   
6. That the Congressional Research Service has indicated that the Pentagon can get along just fine without the additional money through July by juggling other accounts in its half-trillion-dollar budget.
7. That last year facing the same deadlines, the Republican Congress didn’t get around to approving a supplemental $94.4 billion in war-fighting money until June without hectoring by the White House

So let’s take this a step further. Could there possibly be any FAT in the Pentagon’s almost half trillion dollar budget for this year?

Well we see in the spreadsheet for the U.S. Budget that there are some interesting categories that could be looked at.

How about the $73 Billion dollars that is supposed to be spent this year on Research and Development?

How about the $84 Billion dollars that is supposed to be spent this year on Procurement? Do we actually need all the aircraft and missiles that may be in the budget that could perhaps have been more suited to a conflict with the former Soviet Union?

How about the almost $13 Billion dollars that is supposed to be spent this year on Military Construction? Didn’t the BRAC commission just a short time ago propose to close a bunch of U.S. military bases?

The cartoon below is a few years old. We now spend 56% of the Federal Budget on military expenditures (see pie chart above). But the cartoon gives you a good idea about the enormity of money our government spends on the military relative to all of our other pressing domestic and international needs.

You can usually tell when a politician is going into defensive mode. Yesterday Senator John Sununu attacked me in a letter to the the editor of the Nashua Telegraph.

Today, the New York Times published an article from North Conway, New Hampshire talking about how Sununu is feeling the heat.

even among the ladies and gentlemen of the Carroll County Republican Committee, more than a few of whom wore elephant neckties and broaches to celebrate the symbol of their party, the vexing issue of Iraq was the real elephant in the room. “Nobody is happy with the way the war is going,” said a loyal Republican who attended the event. “It was a Republican project, so my guess is that he’s in trouble. Senator Sununu has been such a big supporter of George W. Bush, the Democrats will take a good shot at him.”

more than a dozen Republicans in attendance said they were concerned about Mr. Sununu’s re-election prospects. New Hampshire has been trending Democratic, with both chambers of the Legislature and the governor’s office out of Republican control for the first time since the 1870s.

a Republican state senator, delivered a bleak outlook for his party’s prospects in the state. He said he feared being “caught up in this anti-Iraq message,” but said voters spared him because he served a six-month stint in Iraq as a Marine Corps reservist.

“At this point,” Mr. Kenney said, “it’s going to be a challenging election for John (Sununu).”

It certainly will not help when people begin to learn that despite his call for the resignation of Alberto Gonzales last week, Sununu both supported Gonzales‘ nomination to the post of Attorney General and defended Gonzales‘ horrific stances on torture and disregard for the Geneva convention.
sununu

Frank Rich writes in the New York Times today:

…a revisionist history of the White House’s rush to war, much of it written by its initial cheerleaders, has already taken hold. In this exonerating fictionalization of the story, nearly every politician and pundit in Washington was duped by the same “bad intelligence” before the war, and few imagined that the administration would so botch the invasion’s aftermath or that the occupation would go on so long. “If only I had known then what I know now …” has been the persistent refrain of the war supporters who subsequently disowned the fiasco. But the embarrassing reality is that much of the damning truth about the administration’s case for war and its hubristic expectations for a cakewalk were publicly available before the war, hiding in plain sight, to be seen by anyone who wanted to look.

Shortly after the war broke out in 2003, I e-mailed some observations to friends and later posted those comments to this blog once it was created.

March 18, 2003: Bush at War: Part Two

I just completed the book “Bush at War” by Bob Woodward. After having the book on request from the local library for several months, it finally became available with the foreboding due date of March 17.

The book, which was completed by Woodward last fall, details how the die was cast on September 12, 2001 for the current attack on Iraq and removal of Saddam.

Immediately after 9-11, some in the “war cabinet” were in favor of going after Iraq first, even before pursuing al Queda. However, it was determined that this sequence of events would result in the loss of the extensive coalition that stood with the U.S. immediately after the Towers fell. Therefore it was determined that Iraq would be dealt with later, with the early acknowledgement that when the US did pursue this course that it would likely be with only one major ally: Britain.

March 26, 2003: War Background

Although we are constantly bombarded by information, real understanding of the issues which we face requires a further look below the surface….

Since the first Gulf War, we have learned a lot about Saddam Hussein and his regime, Saddam’s brutal methods used in coming to power in Iraq, making war on his neighbors, and suppressing and attacking his own people. But I have started to become curious about the history of “modern” Iraq, pre-Saddam. Supposedly the Iraqi people are more technologically advanced and better educated than the citizens in other Arab countries. But what about the capability of the Iraqis to develop a peaceful and democratic government after the current tyrant is gone?

I have found one site on the history of Iraq that seems to be relatively unbiased and up-to-date.

Of particular interest to me are events which have occurred beginning with the the fall of the Ottoman Empire during WWI. British forces were involved in fighting the German-allied Turks in Mesopotamia” and wound up occupying Baghdad in 1917. In 1920 the League of Nations placed Mesopotamia under British rule. The British Mandate eventually resulted in the borders that currently define Iraq, Kuwait, Jordon, etc.

Since 1920, there doesn’t seem to have been many significant periods in Iraqi history that we could describe as peaceful. Rather the country’s modern history seems to be defined through a series of coups, wars, and instability. Saddams participated in several of these coups but there were many others, particularly during the 60’s and 70’s.

In 1920, the League of Nations provided Britain with a Mandate to establish a “responsible” Arab government in the territory which is now Iraq according to a league-approved timetable. Clearly that effort failed.

Iraq’s turbulent history suggests that the current US/UK goal of fostering a democratic and peaceful post-Saddams Iraq may not be an easy nor readily-achievable task.

March 29, 2003: Iraq deja vu?

“Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators.
Your wealth has been stripped of you by unjust men… The people of Baghdad shall flourish under institutions which are in consonance with their sacred laws.”

British Lieutenant-general Stanley Maude, March 1917, in his “Proclamation to the People of the Wilayat of Baghdad” after entering Basra with his Anglo-Indian Army of the Tigres.

I am neither an historian nor a war expert but it only took a little digging in March of 2003 for me to find sobering information that the war that we were being compelled to enter was neither needed nor would it be a cakewalk.

I repeat again what Frank Rich said in his NYT article today:

the embarrassing reality is that much of the damning truth about the administration’s case for war and its hubristic expectations for a cakewalk were publicly available before the war, hiding in plain sight, to be seen by anyone who wanted to look

As I wrote last week, it seems that we are approaching the worst possible outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ariana Huffington found more DARK READING in our government’s own data on hostilities in Iraq. The data speak for themselves. As summarized by the LA Times:

• On average, nearly 80 Iraqis were killed or wounded every day from mid-February through mid-May, up from the previous quarter’s 60 per day.
• The report also shows an increase in the overall average number of attacks, from fewer than 500 per week last year to more than 600 per week in the most recent quarter.

Average Daily Casualties in Iraq
(Source: May 26, 2006 Congressional Report)

Today the news was unsettling. Despite ongoing statements for years now from people in the Bush administration that the end to hostilities in Iraq are “just around the corner”, we hear that more, not less troops are going to be deployed in that country.

Over two years ago, I wrote about my deja-vu experience relative to what I was hearing from government and military leaders about Iraq in September 2004 compared to what I had heard in 1968 from government and military leaders about Viet-nam. The words then out of the General’s mouth to a bunch of young cadets was that “we” were killing so many Viet-cong that that war would be over in 6 months. (None of us believed it).

Fast forward to today. Our time of engagement in Iraq is fast about to surpass the length of time American soldiers fought in World War II.

Worse yet, there is the small issue of that other war, the one in Afghanistan. Remember Afghanistan? That country that we (in my opinion) rightly attacked in response to the September 11 attacks. The place where Osama Bin Laden was hiding and where the Taliban provided Bin Laden refuge. Thought the war in Afghanistan was over? Think again. That war is ongoing and the Taliban are now fighting some of their fiercest battles been since they were ousted from power in 2001.

In an interview, the European Union’s special envoy to Afghanistan, said the Taliban is stronger in southern Afghanistan than it has been in the past three years.

The special envoy said:

“It had been somewhat assumed that Afghanistan was a success, that the mere toppling of the Taliban and the arrival of a person that we trusted like President Karzai was enough to ensure a success. That was … a facile assumption.”

As I stated in March 2004, one year after the Iraq invasion, “George W. Bush and others in the administration took their ‘eye off the prize’ goal of making America safer to pursue some ideological goal of bringing democracy to the Arab world.”

We now have both the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan going badly. We have lost the support of our allies around the world. Americans are less secure from harm due to natural disasters (Katrina) and due to our ever increasing dependence on foreign oil.

The American people are “finally getting it” as support for the Iraq war dissipates. Now with the increasingly likelihood that atrocities were committed by American soldiers in Haditha and possibly elsewhere in Iraq, we may have another deja-vu moment for the American people. The My Lai massacre of civilians was a major turning point for the Viet-nam conflict. The massacre of unarmed Viet-namese civilians by American soldiers in March of 1968 prompted worldwide outrage and greatly diminished support by Americans for that war. History may repeat itself if the initial reports of a civilian massacre in Haditha turn out to be true.

The Dixie Chicks strike a blow against the hatred and xenophobia that pervaded the U.S. for too many years now.

On the day that the New York Times (finally) reported that President Bush essentially suspended the Fourth Amendment in 2002, a bipartisan group of Senators have blocked the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.
Raw Story reports that the New York Times withheld this important story on domestic spying from the American public for a full year.

The filibuster was led by Senators Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, and Larry Craig, R-Idaho. The cloture vote failed by an amazing 47 Nays to 52 Yeas (60 votes are needed for cloture to end debate in the Senate).

Although the Main Stream Media seems not to have caught on this filibuster by Feingold et al. is an important event for American history.

Four years ago Feingold distinguished himself as the Senate’s leading defender of the Constitution, when he became the sole member of that body to vote against enactment of the Patriot Act. Senator Feingold was also only one of 23 Senators who voted in 2002 against giving Bush authority to start the war in Iraq. (Democratic Senators who voted FOR the war included Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Feinstein, Kerry, Reid, and Schumer). And Four years ago, Feingold distinguished himself as the Senate’s leading defender of the Constitution, when he became the sole member of that body to vote against enactment of the Patriot Act.

Now, by preventing cloture on this Bill, 47 Senators have stood up to President Bush to let him know that they they believe in the importance of the rights granted to citizens by the U.S. Constitution. The Patriot Act and Bush’s secret presidential orders have abridged those rights.

The Senate had passed a compromise version of the Patriot Act renewal that was reasonable. But conservatives in the Senate-House conference committee rejected the compromise. To show you how bad the filibustered Reauthorization Bill was, even Senator John Sununu (with whom I almost never agree with) blasted the bill yesterday.

Unless Congress quickly pulls off some sort of extension, the Patriot Act provisions that will expire on December 31 can be found here.

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now."

"There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today." (more…)