Tour du Swamp

Posted by Mark Silva at 6:10 am CDT

Taking a full lap around the morning news this morning, Team Swamp returns with a reminder that, for all the controversy over subpoenas and how the White House will or won't testify about its role in the firings of the federal prosecutors, there is still a war out there -- and Congress is getting ready to take up positions. As they say in France: Bienvenue au Swamp. Voici les grands titres de ce vendredi -- Welcome to the Swamp. Here are Friday's headlines:

WAR POSITIONS: As House Democrats edge closer to securing the votes to pass a war funding bill that demands the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq at a certain time, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is warning that the current troop buildup would be jeopardized by any delays in securing war funding, the Los Angeles Times reports today. But a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that President Bush would be to blame for any delay in the legislation because he has failed to adequately fund the war.

As the House prepares to vote on a war spending bill that includes a deadline for troop withdrawal, the White House pledges to veto it. This standoff, in turn, could delay eventual passage of the $100-million war supplemental spending that the president is seeking for operations through the end of the fiscal year.

The warning from Gates, whom the Times notes has largely stayed out of the political fray during his first three months at the Pentagon, threatene to upset a carefully crafted coalition of moderate and liberal Democrats that party leaders have been laboring to assemble behind a $124-billion measure. See the story.

CLOSING RANKS: Liberal opposition to the $124 billion war spending bill -- which has taken on some other funding passengers -- broke last night when leaders of an antiwar Out of Iraq Caucus in the House pledged to Democratic leaders that they will not block the measure, the Washington Post reports.

The acquiescence of the liberals probably means that the House will pass a binding measure today which, for the first time, establishes tough readiness standards for the deployment of combat forces and an Aug. 31, 2008, deadline for their removal from Iraq, the Post notes. A Senate committee also passed a spending bill yesterday setting a goal of bringing troops home within a year. The developments mark congressional Democrats' first real progress in putting legislative pressure on President Bush to withdraw. See the story.

A TENUOUS COALITON: The announcement by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) thatt the Out of Iraq Caucus, a group of legislators who support cutting off funding of the war but want the troops home sooner, has released members to vote for the bill highlights divisions with the Democratic-run House, the Tribune notes today in a story about the pending showdown. Waters would not say how many from the caucus would vote fir the measure, but says some members reluctantly will support the Democratic leadership.

"We told them, `If you really feel uncomfortable voting no, you are released to vote yes,'" said Waters, who nonetheless said she plans to vote against the measure. "We don't want you to be in a position that you feel you're undermining your political career."

The struggle with the bill highlights the divisions within the party on how to rein in the war, despite widespread belief that anti-war sentiment propelled the Democrats to their takeover of Congress in November. Conservatives are concerned about withdrawing troops, and liberals do not want to vote for continued spending. With the September 2008 deadline in the spending bill, the new Democratic majority has added billions in non-military appropriations to persuade moderate Republicans and Democratic fence-sitters to vote in favor of it. The Senate Appropriations Committee bill contains an earlier pullout. See the story.

THE UNLOYAL OPPOSITION: As Democratic leaders set the stage for big votes, House Republicans are wielding the power of parliamentary procedure to score floor victories unlikely for a minority party, as the Washington Times tells the story. The Republicans have employed a tactic to alter a handful of bills in the Democratic-controlled chamber, and yesterday their patience paid off when they caught the new majority in a pickle and blocked a vote on Washington D.C. voting rights.

Republicans call it the culmination of a parliamentary strategy they've been plotting for weeks. The first six or seven they have said, 'Oh, whatever, we'll support those, they don't mean anything,' but this is the one that jumped up and hit them in the face unexpectedly," a senior Republican leadership aide boasted of the move on the bill to hand D.C. a vote in the House.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland called the motions "gotcha amendments" meant to catch members in a political conundrum. "We are not going to play that game with them,'' Hoyer said. "When there are substantive amendments, we will debate them as substantive amendments." See the story.

UNFRIENDLY FIRE: A newly declassified government report says that half of American troop deaths in Iraq have been caused by explosives left over from Saddam Hussein's regime and that even four years after the war began the US military has failed to conduct an adequate inventory of Hussein's weapons depots, the Boston Globe reports today.

The assessment by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, found that Iraq remains awash in unsecured mortar rounds, shells, and grenades left over from the former regime and that "the looted munitions will likely continue to support terrorist attacks throughout the region."

In one case, insurgents repeatedly stole explosives from a well-known depot while the Iraqi government was supposed to be disposing of the arms, according to the report, which was written in December and based on field reports and secret intelligence. The report, released yesterday by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, also said the original US war plan designated the defeated Iraqi Army to secure the weapons depots. But that strategy fell apart when the Bush administration unexpectedly decided to disband the Iraqi military, leaving an undermanned US military force to take on the task. See the story.

CARE PACKAGES RUNNETH OVER: What do US soldiers need in Iraq? Probably not hand-knitted caps and booties, the Christian Science Monitor reports.

"We're running into a lot of knitted items" in care packages, says Marine 1st Lieutenant Barry Edwards, public affairs officer for Regimental Combat Team Six in Fallujah, Iraq. "Great job on the knitting, but we're starting to break 85 degrees [F.] ... and in about another month it's going to be over 100."

Four years into America's war in Iraq, public approval of the effort has fallen sharply, but private support for the troops looks as strong as ever. Since no official statistics exist, the evidence is necessarily anecdotal. Soldiers in war zones receive a steady influx of care packages and letters. Domestically, organizations that offer aid to soldiers and their families have enjoyed consistent support, and some have even grown. After only three months in Iraq, Lieutenant Edwards has received over 200 care packages addressed to him.

"I have received so much stuff, I would be hard-pressed to say 'thanks' enough," writes Commander Paul Eich, a naval aviator working as an intelligence officer in Baghdad, in an e-mail. Commander Eich says he once received two boxes with enough hand sanitizer to last him over six months. See the story.