The Daily Background

I’m renaming what has now become a daily series “The Daily Brief” rather than “Morning Notes.” Long-time readers will remember that I had a similar series running in the summer of 2006, when I had less time to blog because I was shooting a documentary.

Status check: 100 hours
On Friday, House Democrats passed the second portion of their ethics reform package, cracking down on lobbying and earmarking in the most effective and aggressive manner ever- nothing like the watered down ethics reform package lipservice that Republicans passed last year. Democrats hope to take up the issue of ethics reform again later this month and address the possibility of creating a government committee or agency which would be independent of Congress, but serve to monitor and further regulate its ongoings- a step that watchdog groups are advocating for very strongly, but is sure to see much opposition from many members of Congress (the principle reason why it was not included in the Dems 100-hour agenda, because it was simply too hard to fit in).

That’s 1 for 1 so far.

The House is not in session today, but Tuesday to work on another part of the 100 hours plan; implementing the remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations. On the slate for Wednesday will be the minimum wage increase Democrats plan to push through the House. Thursday is tentatively set aside for stem cell research legislation, and Dems hope to pass legislation which will mandate the Bush Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services to fight for lower prescription drug prices for seniors. Note that these dates and the schedule is subject to change.

The Senate, which will meet today to slowly tackle ethics reform legislation which is roughly similar to that recently passed by Democrats in the House, is still boring as hell.

Bush’s Iraq plan
Expected to be unveiled on Wednesday or Thursday. the President’s “new” Iraq policy plan is already encountering stiff resistance among Democrats and growing resistance from Congressmen in his own party. With our anti-escalation list already quite extensive, you can add another name to the roster of experts who don’t believe a troop surge will magically fix Iraq’s civil war.

Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the number two general in Iraq (after General Casey, who will be soon tapped for Army Chief of Staff and shifted out of his Iraq leadership role) does not believe that Iraq can be fixed by what the President seems to have in mind- combat escalation, that is. According to McClatchy:

In his first wide-ranging interview, the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq conceded Sunday that a military “surge” escalation would not be enough to rescue Iraq, advocating economic and political changes as well, as top Democratic lawmakers in Washington stiffened their opposition to any escalation of U.S. troop strength.

By echoing his predecessor [Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, whom Odierno replaced a month ago] , Odierno’s comments raised concerns in both Washington and Iraq that the U.S. war effort is exhausting old tactics that haven’t worked.

Benchmarks sans Consequences
You can also add retired General Wes Clark (former Supreme Commander of NATO forces), to the list of people who don’t think escalating the conflict in Iraq will solve any problems. In the words of Clark, the President’s “surge plan” (a product of “misunderstanding and desperation”) will backfire.

The New York Times today has an article about what the Iraq policy the President is now expected to present this week. Of note, the President’s new plan places greater emphasis on “benchmarks” when specific things should be done by, they may be as loose as previous non-binding timelines because they don’t talk about what might be done if the deadlines are not met by the Iraqis.

Filed under: Z-TDB Blog