Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided the Senate Democrats will not temper their approach to Iraq legislation in an effort to gain Republican support.

Apparently 54% of Americans polled by Pew have said they want to bring the troops home as soon as possible. That number, if accurate, is dropping lately. The question is are the people who are being polled actual voters or just the average man or woman on the street?

The Democratic leader said he will call for a vote this month on several anti-war proposals, including one by Sen. Carl Levin that would insist President Bush end U.S. combat next summer. The proposals would be mandatory and not leave Bush wiggle room, said Reid, D-Nev.

“There (are) no goals. It’s all definite timelines,” he told reporters of the planned legislation.

Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Monday night he would have agreed to turn his summer deadline into a nonbinding goal if doing so meant attracting enough votes to pass. Several Republicans have said they are uneasy about Bush’s war strategy but do not like the idea of setting a firm timetable on troop withdrawals.

Reid’s hardline stance, announced after the party’s weekly policy lunch on Tuesday, reflects a calculation by Democrats that Levin’s proposal probably would have failed either way.

Maybe it’s bad legislation.

Most Republicans say they are willing to give Petraeus’ strategy more time to work.

“We either allow this strategy to succeed … or we don’t,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee and a GOP presidential hopeful. “And that’s why you see compromise after compromise failing to get a significant amount of support, because we are faced with basically two stark choices, and it’s very difficult to split the baby.”

Levin’s legislation would require that the U.S. begin withdrawing some troops from Iraq within 90 days, which Bush has already said he plans to do. It also would require that the U.S. hand off the combat mission to the Iraqis within nine months and restrict U.S. troops to such tasks as fighting terrorists and training the Iraqi security force.

Reid said the bill will be considered as an amendment to a defense policy bill on the floor, along with a proposal by Feingold that would cut off money for combat operations next year and one by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., limiting combat tours.

McCain blasted Webb’s amendment as “unconstitutional.”

“The Congress of the United States has the right to declare war and to fund armies and navies. It says nothing about setting tours of duties,” he said.

Another effort in futility, which reminds me of someone banging his head against the wall until the skin is nothing but pulp and his brain nothing but mush.

“But we must be loyal to the MoveOn base or we won’t get re-elected, regardless of how stupid it makes us look,” must be their thinking.

Why don’t they just testify and get it over with? They may not be trying to hide anything but it sure looks that way?

House Democrats on Thursday took the first step toward holding former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt of Congress after she defied a subpoena _ at President Bush’s order _ and skipped a hearing on the firing of U.S. attorneys.

Over the strenuous objections of Republicans, a subcommittee cleared the way for contempt proceedings by voting 7-5 to reject Bush’s claim of executive privilege. He says his top advisers, whether current or former, cannot be summoned by Congress.

“Those claims are not legally valid,” Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., said of Bush’s declaration. “Ms. Miers is required pursuant to the subpoena to be here now.”

Republicans complained that Democrats were choosing showy, televised proceedings and the threat of court action to force the testimony rather than agree to Bush’s offer for private, off-the-record interviews.

In the absence of an agreement with the administration, House leaders and committee members were likely to pursue contempt proceedings against Miers but were still talking about when, according to some Democratic officials.

“We would not be discharging our responsibility today if we were to simply drop this,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., said during the hearing.

The White House showed no sign of giving in.

“If the House Judiciary Committee wants to avoid confrontation, it should withdraw its subpoenas,” said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. “The committee is rejecting accommodation because they prefer just the kind of political spectacle they’re engaged in now.”

Miers’ testimony emerged as the battleground for a broader scuffle between the White House and Congress over the limits of executive privilege. Presidents since the nation’s founding have sought to protect from the prying eyes of Congress the advice given them by advisers, while Congress has argued that it is charged by the Constitution with conducting oversight of the executive branch.

Bush’s invocation of executive privilege comes during the Democrats’ probe of whether the firings were really an effort by the White House to fire and replace federal prosecutors in ways that might help Republican candidates. Democrats say testimony by numerous aides that Bush was not involved in deciding whom to fire undercuts his privilege claim.

Story

President Bush said today he accepts the idea of including benchmarks for progress in Iraq as part of an emergency war spending bill, but he rejected what he called a “piecemeal” funding approach now under consideration in the House and vowed to veto it if it reaches his desk.

In a news conference at the Pentagon after receiving a briefing from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Bush leveled sharp criticism at congressional Democrats, accusing them of seeking political gain from the war-funding bill, and he warned them not to “hamstring” U.S. commanders in the field or include “pork” projects in the supplemental appropriations bill. Yet he also expressed a desire to find “common ground” with Congress.

Democrats said in response that they would maintain pressure on Bush to change course in Iraq and extract U.S. troops from the middle of what they called a sectarian civil war there.

[The Associated Press reports: "The Democratic-controlled House defeated legislation Thursday to require the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq within nine months, then pivoted to a fresh challenge of President Bush's handling of the unpopular war. The vote on the nine-month withdrawal measure was 255-171."]

Congress needs to fund the bill so our troops can have the best equipment available, and even hot meals. With no funding contractors will stop working and that includes the contractors who provide our troops with hot meals instead of MREs.

Fund it or do your constitutional duty, Congress, and actually pass a bill that defunds the war so you can shoulder that responsibility.

Story.

The Democratic House of Representatives is hell-bent on confrontations with the president as to what authority belongs to whom.

Now they are set to approve a bill that would fund the troops only until July, a scant two months away.

President Bush would veto a bill drafted by House Democratic leaders that would fund the Iraq war only into the summer months, his spokesman said Wednesday.

The Democrats’ proposal would pay for the war through July, then give Congress the option of cutting off money after that if conditions do not improve. Bush requested more than $90 billion to fund the war through September.

“There are restrictions on funding and there are also some of the spending items that were mentioned in the first veto message that are still in the bill,” White House press secretary Tony Snow said on Air Force One traveling with Bush.

Asked directly if Bush would veto the House bill in its current form, Snow said, “Yes.”

Bush vetoed an earlier bill because it set deadlines for U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq.

The new proposal is aimed at appeasing Democratic lawmakers who want to end the war immediately and are urging leaders not to back down after Bush’s veto. But lacking a firm endorsement by the Senate, the challenge by House Democrats seemed more for political show than a preview of another veto showdown with Bush.

If you know it’s going to be vetoed and you can’t override the veto, why engage in fruitless effort?

Congress has the power of the purse and, as such, can withdraw funding for the war at any time. If they don’t want to compromise to make our troops safe longer than two months then use the constitutional power they have and defund the war.

All this other nonsense is just that.

In the ongoing feud between the legislative and executive branches of our government, Rep. John Conyers has served the subpoena authorized a few weeks ago to compel Attorney General Gonzales to give more information on the firings of the US Attorneys.

It’s important for everyone to remember the Executive Branch has total control over whom they hire, whom they fire and for whatever reasons, including no reasons.

Admittedly, the spokespersons for the Justice Department, including Gonzales, did themselves no favors in the way they botched up the testimony they already gave.

Just sit there and say you did it and quit trying to dig a deeper hole making up a story about why. Say you did it because it was your right to do so and that’s it.

Why congress thinks this is something they need to involve themselves in seems to be just another way to force Gonzales out of office so we can have another food-fight trying to confirm a new Attorney General.

Dear Lord, how did this great country ever come to this?

This editorial appeared in today’s Washington Post, a newspaper that is certainly no friend to President Bush or to conservatives in general.

HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria. What’s more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to “resume the peace process” as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. “We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria,” she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. “What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel,” said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister’s office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that “a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel.” In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel’s position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad’s words were mere propaganda.

Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That’s true enough — but those other congressmen didn’t try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. “We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace,” Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush’s military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi’s attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Rep. Pelosi is first of all a representative of her congressional district in the San Francisco area, and is not the representative of the entire United States government.

Unless you live in her district she does not represent you. Her position as Speaker of the House means she is the leader of the Democrat Caucus in the House and since the Democrats are in the majority she holds the title Speaker of the House, and as such can set the legislative agenda and make committee appointments for the Democrats only in the United States House of Representatives.

No one has confirmed her as any kind of ambassador for the United States, and her (appropriately named in this editorial) shadow presidency is doing nothing to help this country, but is hurting it instead.

There will be no censure by Congress of Ms. Pelosi because her party controls the Congress, but the American people are aware of what she is doing and may have a lot to say about it in November 2008.

“Politics stop at the water’s edge” used to be the old saying, but lately we have seen former President Jimmy Carter, former President Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore disparage their own country while in foreign lands.

This trip by Ms. Pelosi and all those who accompanied her is nothing but a slap in the face to the Constitution of the United States in order to slap the face of the President of the United States, and it is disgraceful.

Big Mo has a wonderful post up at Hang Right Politics, showing us, according to James Madison, one of our founding fathers, why Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria which has been described by Rep. Tom Lantos as “an alternative Democrat foreign policy” is possibly going to get us into a constitutional crisis.

Some quotes:

For proof that what she and her party is doing is so outrageous, I give you none other than the father of the Constitution, James Madison, who explained the necessity for the separation of powers in Federalist #51:

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

From Federalist #53, speaking on House members:

And although the House of Representatives is not immediately to participate in foreign negotiations and arrangements, yet from the necessary connection between the several branches of public affairs, those particular branches will frequently deserve attention in the ordinary course of legislation, and will sometimes demand particular legislative sanction and co-operation.

And in a speech on June 8, 1789, to the House, proposing the Bill of Rights:

The powers delegated by this constitution, are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the legislative department shall never exercise the powers vested in the executive or judicial; nor the executive exercise the powers vested in the legislative or judicial; nor the judicial exercise the powers vested in the legislative or executive departments.

No matter who the president is and no matter if we agree or disagree with his foreign policy it is his turf and his turf alone. Certainly not the turf of the Speaker of the House.