Don't Bite on Domenici's Cosmetic Makeover on Iraq

Sen. Pete Domenici's sudden pubilc acknowledgement that there are serious problems with the Bush-Cheney strategy being employed in Iraq is, of course, noteworthy. After all, he's been zealously supportive of the BushCo line since before the invasion of Iraq, and among the true believers who felt entirely comfortable casting critics of Bush and the war as terrorists-lite. If nothing else, his newfound concern represents his handlers' realization that any candidate who continues to support the debacle will be in serious jeopardy of being tossed out in 2008.

However, if you actually read the so-called "Iraq Study Group Recommendations Implementation Act" (S 1545) that  Domenici is now supporting, you'll encounter a myriad of obstacles to troop withdrawal rather than effective, binding ways to get it done. In reality, the legislation is designed to keep our troops on the ground in Iraq while appearing to do otherwise -- it's nothing more than another example of the toothless sleight of hand we've seen in the past. To understand just how false and misleading the Salazar-Alexander bill is, check the analysis by AMERICAblog.

Bottom line: the bill would "keep US troops in Iraq indefinitely. What's worse, they're claiming that the legislation implements the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Studgy Group, when in fact, the legislation codifies George Bush's current failed policies in Iraq ... Probably the most offensive thing about the legislation is that it outright calls for the continuation of the status quo policy of keeping US troops in Iraq until the day that Iraq is 100% ready to stand on its own - namely, never." More:

Specifically, the legislation buries a little nugget on page 18 of the bill. In a section entitled "Sense of Congress on Redeployment of United States Forces from Iraq," the legislation spells out the following preconditions to withdrawing US troops:

1. A massive list of suggested policies need to first be accomplished before the US withdraws. These include transferring the Iraqi National Police to the Ministry of Defense, reorganizing the Iraqi security forces, upgrading Iraq's police communications equipment, establishing courts, training judges, prosecutors and investigators, drafting oil legislation, implementing metering at the oil pipelines, reorganizing the entire Iraqi oil industry, and more. But that's not all that has to happen before our troops are permitted to withdraw from Iraq. Oh no. Read on.

2. Additional Iraqi brigades need to deployed. Meaning, the exact same policy we have now under George Bush. No withdrawal until the Iraqi security forces are up to par. And our military people on the ground in Iraq say this could take 40 to 50 years, if ever.

3. The eventual withdrawal of US forces is "subject to unexpected development in the security situation on the ground." Meaning, if things don't get better, we don't leave. That's the current policy. And things aren't getting better.

The legislation then says that if ALL of those things I listed above are met, THEN we can possibly consider to maybe redeploy some of the troops next spring, 2008.

Are they kidding?

Oh but that's not all. The legislation also says that the Iraq Study Group never ever said that we should actually withdraw from Iraq by next year. And put aside the fact that the entire legislation is written as a "sense of the Congress" - meaning, it has the same legal weight as National Ice Cream Day.

What we're really seeing is the formation of a cowardly coalition of fearful, "moderate" Dems and dishonest Repubs who want to appear to be doing something meaningful to end the Iraq occupation when they're really just into treading water and donning masks. We all know that's not nearly enough and that in order to gain support for REAL CHANGE in Iraq, bogus bills like Salazar-Alexander will have to be defeated. We see through you, Pete.