ABC News recently posted an article entitled "Obama’s Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult."  

This article is dishonest.  

The ABC article says that Obama's plan would be very difficult logistically and uses as evidence the statements of an American Major General.  He claims the military has the ability to remove

two-and-a-half brigade combat teams a month.

How is Obama’s plan to remove ONE TO TWO brigades a month proven impractical by an American commander saying we have the capacity to remove TWO-AND-A-HALF brigades a month?  I teach English, but even I can see the flaws in this math.

For it isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it.
-Eleanor Roosevelt

The inauguration of a new president in January 2009 will provide a singular moment in international relations, a point in time where it is more likely than ever that thoughtful, fair and direct diplomacy can have a dramatic and positive impact throughout the Middle East.  Currently, most of the debate in the presidential election surrounds diplomacy with Iran and withdrawing from Iraq.  While these issues should be top priority, for progress in either area a larger context must inform policy makers' perspective and a plan must be put in place for the future.  

Below I give the central themes of what I think a successful Middle East Peace Plan for the 21st Century would look like.  

First, let me begin by saying that as a child of the sixties and seventies I fought telecom immunity tooth-and-nail. But there is nothing that would prevent me from voting for Barack Obama come November. He is just following Marketing 101: First, energize the innovators and early adopters to finance the nomination, then go after the early and late majority with a larger base of support, because without them, you won’t get to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue where you can do some real good. As one of those progressive early adopters (after all, he’s my senator), I’m emotionally hurt by his stance on FISA, but as a long-time marketing executive, I agree wholeheartedly with his decisions and tactics. It may come as a shock to some, but the majority of Americans don’t care whether the government spied on them, and the neocons will play the fear card every time to undermine a stance on civil liberties. Obama is doing exactly what I would do in his position.

[Consumer Action Plan below the fold]

As many people in the blogosphere have noted,  John McCain stepped in the "Hundred Years in Iraq" dookie again. His statement that it's "not too important" to bring the troops home has received most of the commentary. But for my money, it's his logic as to why it doesn't matter that raises an eyebrow. The idea that under his firm leadership (or something) no soldiers will die in Iraq.

As the shuttle program comes to a close over the next two years, and there is a somewhat uncertain time frame for the new shuttle program to start up. I propose today that we take half of NASA's CURRENT budget and focus it on battery, solar, and wind research among others. I'm NOT talking about increasing NASA's budget.

This is something NASA has been doing for a long time anyway; working with solar power and battery technologies. We have to start thinking as if we are stuck out in space (because we really are aren't we?) and to force ourselves to treat our living situation as if our primary power source is the sun and what do we do about harnessing it efficiently. There is going to be a major funding gap between shuttle programs which energy research could help fill the gap, help us here on earth and help the new shuttle program in 20 years.

I, like all of you, are very reticent to beleive anything that comes out of the Clintons mouth. Thats why I have been perplexed by Hillarys insistance for primary re-do's in Michigan and Florida.

According to TPM, in a private meeting on March 12th, Hillary Clinton gave a pep talk in which she predicted "We're gonna win this" Follow me over the fold for some insight into these Clinton strategy meetings.

Today's headline at Huffingtonpost.com is "Obama: Eliminate World's Nuclear Weapons".

"Senator Barack Obama will propose on Tuesday setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, saying the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism, aides say"

In 2009, we will have a window of opportunity to renew our global leadership and bring our nation together," Mr. Obama is planning to say, according to an excerpt of remarks provided by his aides. "If we don’t seize that moment, we may not get another."

So, over the fold I'll tell you why, even though I am currently and Edwards supporter, and DO like Hillary, Obama is impressing me.

That's right - forever, or until they send us home by choice.  But not Iraq - Kurdistan.  On Meet the Press on Sunday, Lindsey Graham was given a verbal smackdown by Jim Webb.  Looking like a god-damn fool, he was bitch slapped by the truth in a raucus debate the likes of which the Senate floor never sees anymore. After .watching this - and realizing that we were never going to have bipartisan consensus on the two plans currently before the American people - no plan and bad plan, I thought of another - and I have to say, it's good.  So if I were the President of the United States - this is what I would do.  Tomorrow...and then the day after that.  Of course, the devil is in the details - so I've tried to keep it short - add your ideas to the comments section.

    I am getting tired of hearing the buzz phrase, "Stay the course."  It implies that one should never alter a preconceived course, or adjust a plan.  Perhaps it pays homage to those who formulate their opinions early on, and never change them.  There is no room for doubt in their world.  Rather than think of this as loyalty to one’s core values, I see it as narrow-minded and stubborn.  The refusal to listen to advice, and alter a plan accordingly, is getting people killed in Iraq.

The goal of the proposed plan is a free-market, economically competitive, peaceful, stable, unified, mostly secular, but temporarily not "democratic" Iraq within its current borders. This plan can be accomplished within five years, with the US military commitment to Iraq reducing every year, and violence in Iraq becoming insignificant within the first two years. The plan allows the establishment of obvious and verifiable benchmarks. Since our only enemy in Iraq is our own wrongheaded policies, the chances of success of this plan depend entirely on us.

This plan is based on comprehensive measures leading to organization and self-organization of the Iraqi society, down to every individual citizen, as a result of which the Iraqi society becomes tightly controllable, and not from the outside but from within. At that point, the US military presence would no longer be necessary.

This diary makes the case for concerted action aimed at the resignation of GW Bush, President of the United States. In the past, Bush resignation demands have been viewed as futile gestures, best left to scattered petition drives of grass-roots zealots, while impeachment has been considered the proper focus of serious efforts to remove Bush. I argue that resignation is not only the most practical means of removing the Bush regime from power, but also the most expedient and democratically appropriate course. My argument lays out a plan for coordinated demands for resignation from the Congress, the public, and the press. I believe that the weight of these demands, in conjunction with the formation of a suitable interim government, will be sufficient to force Bush from office before he can further damage our nation.

Maybe the best speech of the year.

Turn on the video, turn up the volume, and maybe even ask little kids to leave the room so they don't cry....  Almost got me a little teary eyed.

Biden really stoked up the intensity to the Senate floor talking about Iraq today.

The video is the important part.  This speech is best experienced as a video.

I also provide partial transcript of the text for your review.

Does anyone here have any idea what the Congressional Democrats plan to do about the $93 billion Bush wants to extend this fiasco another year? That's not a rhetorical question. John Murtha's plan to protect the troops (and, let's not kid ourselves, to end the occupation of Iraq, if only gradually) now seems to be a dead letter, and I can't see that anyone's got an alternate plan in the works, not one with teeth and/or traction.

The House Dems have a nice majority, one they got because the people of these United States are fed up with the Iraq War. If they think they've earned some kind of Get Out Of Criticism Free card because they passed a non-binding resolution tut-tutting about the war and the Senate didn't, they'd best think again.

I encourage everyone to read the following open letter about the "Emergency Supplemental" (NB: no danger of copyright violation--it's an open letter), written by leaders of three of the most important groups fighting to end the occupation: Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, and Veterans For Peace.

Charles Krauthammer, neocon "pundit" and Iraq war apologist continues to advocate for a military solution. He follows the Republican party line that Democratic proposals will cause us to lose the war there.

In opposing John Murtha's proposed requirement that before being redeployed to Iraq, our troops must have sufficient time at home to recover, and receive proper training and equipment, he shows how little regard Bush and the neocons really have for our men and women in uniform.

He implies that Democrats do not support the troops even though they have repeatedly proposed legislation to procure equipment needed in Iraq and to increase the size of the Army so that it can meet all its commitments.

This entry, by a retired intelligence officer with counterinsurgency and diplomatic experience, refutes Krauthammer's statements, provides responses to them and calls for the Bush Administration to redirect its focus to the most important issues facing us in combatting terrorists.

I spend a lot of time on my blog posting and commenting on conservative email propaganda on my site DebatablePolitics.com. The piece I received today has been bouncing around for years now, and does lay out a reasonably argued case for the war. Being reasonably argued does not make it right, I go through the email in segments and tear down his case and offer up what I feel liberals should stand for on the war on terror, beyond just ending the Iraq debacle.

If you want to read the entire essay first, not broken up, click here, otherwise continue on to the next page. I know this is a particularly long piece, but I think it is important to read it all. There are some strong arguments that we liberals can use for ending the war in Iraq. I want to get some comments on my ideas, so please post comments!!

The essence of the Murtha plan to end the war involves budgetary restrictions on how money can be spent towards the war effort.

As it is budgetary in nature, a budget bill including Murtha-provisions will not be subject to Senate filibuster.  Yes, Murtha's plan can pass the Senate with 51 votes, however much the other 49 don't like it.

How's that you ask?  Here we have the magic of the Byrd Rule.

I was writing a comment, and it got so long I decided to make it a diary. It's entirely commentary and analysis.

Michael Ware was on Anderson Cooper last night for an interview. I saw Cooper, who has been a mouthpiece for support of this war, sit there astounded as Ware told him of realities that none of the MSM talking heads are even willing to acknowledge. Ware is a journalist who has FIRST HAND information and intelligence on the Iraq War, from the beginning until today, and he has risked his life to tell his story.

Ware said that the Iraq War isn't ONE war, it's FOUR WARS happening simultaneously in the same place.