A new leaked Congressional Budget Office report has shown that Bush may be sending as many as 48,000 troops in this surge, double what was originally proposed. From DefenseTech.org, the CBO report states:

  Over the past few years , DoD’s practice has been to deploy a total of about 9,500 personnel per combat brigade to the Iraq theater, including about 4,000 combat troops and about 5,500 supporting troops.

  DoD has not yet indicated which support units will be deployed along with the added combat forces, or how many additional troops will be involved. Army and DoD officials have indicated that it will be both possible and desirable to deploy fewer additional support units than historical practice would indicate. CBO expects that, even if the additional brigades required fewer support units than historical practice suggests, those units would still represent a significant additional number of military personnel.

  To reflect some of the uncertainty about the number of support troops, CBO developed its estimates on the basis of two alternative assumptions. In one scenario, CBO assumed that additional support troops would be deployed in the same proportion to combat troops that currently exists in Iraq. That approach would require about 28,000 support troops in addition to the 20,000 combat troops-a total of 48,000. CBO also presents an alternative scenario that would include a smaller number of support personnel-about 3,000 per combat brigade-totaling about 15,000 support personnel and bringing the total additional forces to about 35,000.

As you’ve read here recently, Sen. Russ Feingold has introduced legislation that will essentially cut off funding for the war after 6 months and call for a redeployment of troops from Iraq. This is not some mushy non-binding symbolic resolution, it is the real deal. Leahy has already signed on as a co-sponsor, and I’m sure Bernie will too, if he hasn’t already. Here’s the fact sheet for the bill, be sure to read it: http://feingold.sena…

Anyways, as we hear all the talk of Welch not going far enough, etc. , here’s how to put him to the test. Call his VT office at 888-605-7270 or his Washington office at (202) 225-4115 and tell them that you want Welch to publicly express support of Feingold’s resolution bill, and that ‘symbolic resolutions’ are meaningless, and don’t go far enough. And remember, be nice.

UPDATE: Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey  is sponsoring a bill on the house side (Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act of 2007) that is similar to Feingold’s. Here are the cosponsors:Barbara Lee (CA), Maxine Waters (CA), Diane Watson (CA), James McGovern (MA), Barney Frank (MA), Raul Grijalva (AZ), Chaka Fattah (PA), Jerrold Nadler (NY), John Conyers Jr. (MI), Wm. Lacy Clay (MO), Steve Cohen (TN), Maurice Hinchey (NY), Bob Filner (CA), Dennis Kucinich (OH), Donald Payne (NJ) and Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX).

You can read about it here:http://woolsey.house…
Call Welch and demand him to co-sponsor this important legislation.

Please post your experiences in the comments section.

( – promoted by odum)

Right-wing hate groups that lie and are deliberately making it harder for the U.S Capitol Police to do their jobs?? Say it isn’t so.Who would Jesus harass? Americablog has the scoop on the latest round of idiocy from the right.

Why Bill O’Reilly Ought To Be Sodomized With a Microphone (Vermont Boycott Edition), in which the Rude Pundit brings us his unique perspective on doughy pantload Bill O’Reilly’s VT boycott.

Robert Parry warns us as to why we must move quickly to stop George Bush, and that an attack on Iran is much closer than you think.

And finally, Kos diarist Brooklyn Raider takes us into the sleazy belly of the beast with I Was a Mole at the Conservative Summit: They’re Not Dead Yet.

Happy Thursday, and remember, if it weren’t for the daily dose of right-wing idiocy, we’d all be bored!

”We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war,” Ivins wrote in the Jan. 11 column. ”We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, ‘Stop it, now!”’

I started reading Molly Ivins back in the 1980’s in The Nation. Her columns on Texas politics, about which I knew very little, were always funny, but with an edge that attacked the comfortable and powerful. It was only natural when W (“Shrub”, as she called him) hit the national stage that she would get more attention.

The Star-Telegram has some great stuff on her. (Free registration required.)

If you aren’t already familiar with her, pick up one of her books, like Molly Ivins Can’t Say That, Can She?

Well, Boston got shut down because of a publicity stunt advertising a cartoon.  Can you say over-react.  Publicity stunts have an honorable and amusing history (think David Merrick’s famed quote ad; think David Merrick’s famed attack on the actor in Look Back in Anger, thank God Merrick isn’t alive, he’d be in Gitmo by now. 

Get a grip. 

This reminds me of what happened in Northern Ireland during the troubles in the 70’s, soldiers were told to confiscate all Republican liberature (meaning of course IRA); well they confiscated someone’s copy of Plato’s Republic. 

Really seems to me that we need to question who the terrorists really are.

It’s January 31st, a month into freshman US Rep. Peter Welch’s first term in Washington, breaking in a staff, familiarizing himself with the process, getting settled and acquainted with his colleagues, learning who’s who and what’s what in the middle of the biggest Washington power shift in 15 years.

And apparently, if you surf Vermont blogs (and yes, that includes the traditional media blogs), you’ll find he is all washed up. Done. Kaput. He’s already defeated by a Green candidate. He’s a phony. A Bush cheerleader. Turning his back on all his campaign promises.

It’s so obviously absurd, it’s actually started to get kind of funny, in an embarrassment-humor sort of way.

There seem to be two forces at play here. One is the sore loser contingent; our buddy Christopher Stewart who is still desperately fighting for his old boss Martha Rainville’s imagined honor by taking that weasely Welch down. Stewart (and his rhetorically and stylistically identical buddy at Welchwatch – McKenna or whoever it is) seems to spend his time promoting talking points that pivot on first grade logic, while trying to electronically cozy up to those selfsame reporters and left-wingers that he despises – all in the hopes that some of his Jon Lovitz-inspired repartee will actually pay off and get him his revenge, as well as that attention he so desperately craves (and it has already paid off with Freeps reporter Terri Hallenbeck, who is broadcasting their message farther and wider than they could on their own).

And on the other hand, we have the people on the left who’ve never been able to stand Welch. As far as they’re concerned, Welch was a failure before he even got the final returns on Election Day. This is partly because he runs with a ‘D’ after his name, but also because he seemed locked into virtual policy paralysis during his most recent stint as VT Senate President Pro-Tem out of pre-election fear of alienating voters. These folks aren’t just pre-emptively casting him as a failure sell-out, they’re thrilled out of their minds to do so (and equally chomping at the bit to cast anyone who might say “slow down a minute and think” as a similarly misbegotten sell-out right-winger).

Both groups seem to be focusing their attention on all the rest of the non-Republican crowd. The 99% of the left who, if they’ve even noticed all this goofiness, are probably scratching their heads wondering what all the ranting is about. The Welch-bashers get in the front door with all of us for one very important reason – that is, that we all are awake, engaged, and that means we have high standards for our elected officials. The truth is, we do expect Welch to be on the leading edge of the War discussion. And even though we know he just stepped into the whirlwind, every day that passes does leave us more and more unsettled that he hasn’t done more than sign on to others’ non-binding resolutions. In the Senate, there are now two proposals that would explicitly defund major military operations by dates certain – both of which have our senior Senator’s support as a co-sponsor. In light of these, action in the House seems woefully inadequate.

But whereas we all expect Welch to be on the leading edge, does anybody with half a brain really expect him to be a House leader? Only a month into this job? A month into DC? With a green staff and having had little time to build relationships, clout, or even a clear idea of where all the Capitol bathrooms are?

Please. That’s ridiculous on its face. It’d be great if he could, but that’s a lot to ask – let alone demand. And using that as a springboard to write his political epitaph is either poorly-thought-through political hackery, or delusional self-important nonsense.

I’m a citizen. I’m a lefty. You can expect me to pay close attention to what Welch does. You can expect me to be checking my watch on progress towards his taking a meaningful move towards defunding the war, pushing for universal health care. You can expect me to be less and less patient as that clock ticks on. You can expect me to share in the concern – even frustration – when things aren’t playing out the way I want to see them from his office. You can expect me to express those concerns on this blog and in private conversation, while supporting the efforts of places like MoveOn to put the pressure on him. You can expect to see that pressure grow if time keeps passing.

But don’t expect me to be an idiot. That costs extra.

UPDATE: Senator Feingold’s resolution was introduced today, and indeed, Senator Leahy is a co-sponsor. He is also a co-sponsor of Senator Obama’s legislation that would require all combat brigades to be redeployed by March 31, 2008. Check after the fold for instances in recent history where Congress has restricted funding for specific military operations or campaigns (and – surprise, surprise – two of the four listed targeted Clinton)

As much as activists are demanding otherwise, I and others have been assuming that the question of pulling congressional funding for the Iraq War wouldn’t come up until March – when the next supplemental funding request from the Pentagon was likely to show up. But Sen. Russ Feingold has decided to bring it up now. He is proposing legislation that would prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. Here’s Feingold explaining his legislation:

The Judiciary Committee Chair is, of course, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, which means he’ll have a big role in how this plays out. I’m confident he’ll do the right thing, but he should hear from his constituents in support. Give him a holler if you can at 202-224-4242 or 1-800-642-3193.

Instances where the Congress has restricted funding for specific military operations or campaigns (from Sen. Feingold’s website, linked at the top of this diary):

On numerous occasions, Congress has exercised its constitutional authority to limit the President’s ability to escalate existing military engagements. Here are just a few examples:

  * Cambodia – In late December 1970, Congress passes the Supplemental Foreign Assistance Appropriations Act prohibiting the use of funds to finance the introduction of United States ground combat troops into Cambodia or to provide U.S. advisors to or for Cambodian military forces in Cambodia.

  * Vietnam – In late June 1973, Congress passes the second Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY1973. This legislation contains language cutting off funds for combat activities in Vietnam after August 15, 1973.

  * Somalia – In November 1993, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act includes a provision that prohibits funding after March 31, 1994 for military operations in Somalia, except for a limited number of military personnel to protect American diplomatic personnel and American citizens, unless further authorized by Congress.

  * Bosnia – In 1998, Congress passes the Defense Authorization Bill, with a provision that prohibits funding for Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless the President makes certain assurances.

I’ve heard too many times that “there is no GOOD solution” to the Iraq situation.  This is false. There is a good solution:  negotiation.  The challenge is how you to get warring parties together in the same room, around the same table.

The answer is to use the Internet.  The “virtual negotiating table” could be a modified version of Wikipedia to include proposals and counter-proposals, where every participant could edit any proposal, combine elements of different proposals, and so forth.

This is the technology of peace.  Domination isn’t going to work in my opinion unless we are willing to kill a whole lot of people.  The ones left standing would agree to anything to remain standing.  That’s hardly a good outcome.

Check out some of the new developments on the web:

http://ross.typepad….

http://ross.typepad….

http://www.politicop…

http://wikinomics.co…

Boy, how long has it been since we could say that?

Still, here is definite good news. 
Evidently the second time was a charm as cloture was reached in the U.S. Senate a few minutes ago on the minimum wage legislation, thus ending the Republican filibuster of the wage hike that easily passed the House of Representatives earlier in the month.

Cloture was achieved by a vote of 87-10.

On the other hand, the R’s continue to show their true colors. Twenty-eight of them voted to eliminate the federal minimum wage completely. Those twenty-eight include Mr. Straight Talk himself, as well as others who have been making a show of being moderates, like Lindsay Graham.

According to his office, our senior Senator is continuing his full court press today, including:

• A hearing for today by the judiciary Committee on the constitutional powers of the Legislative and Executive branches as they concern war.
• Reintroducing his National Guard Empowerment Act, which gives the Guard a seat at the table when it comes to their deployments. Hopefully, with this topic on his mind, he will also move quickly to undo some of the other damage done through last Septembers Defense authorization, specifically (in Leahy’s words):
  

  It also should concern us all that the Conference agreement includes language that subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law. There is good reason for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations.

• Preparing for tomorrow’s Judiciary hearing with Lee Hamilton and others on the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations concerning police training and establishing a workable judiciary in Iraq.

Go get em, Pat. Remind ’em Vermont sent ya.