The debate on the House Iraq supplemental funding bill, HR 1591 now reaches the debate on the bill itself. Rep. David Obey (D-WI), leads off for support of this bill.

As I did below, I will be live blogging the debate. Sorry, duty called.

Obey's argument - 'we try to do three thing with this bill - (1) direct monies to the right war, Afghanistan, (2) protect the troops, and (3)send a message to the Iraqi politicians. This bill sets a timetable for getting out of Iraq. It sets benchmarks, and set "a target" for ending our incolvement under any circumstances.'

Same argument. The bill does none of part 3 imo. The benchmarks are a charade as the PResident certifies there completion. The end date certain is phony as this Congress will never cut off funds in September 2008, two months before an election. This bill will never become law. It will be filibustered in the Senate and this bill will thus be weakened. IF it has a tooth left, the President will veto it.

It does not help politically. The Dems get nothing from this bill. It does not help towards ending the war in Iraq. This bill hurts this cause. It should be voted down.

Update [2007-3-22 16:21:27 by Big Tent Democrat]:Procedural vote passes with 224 votes. 1 GOP vote, Walter Jones presumably. More debate and the big vote tomorrow.

Open Thread. I'll be updating with my observations, which as always, are attributable only to me. You can follow along on c-span or at the c-span website.

Louise Slaughter, voting Yes, (D-NY) says "this its the first time Democrats get the chance to change the course of the war and we will do it."

Not with this bill you are not Representative. You talk a good game but push came to shove and you balked at standing for ending the war. You are supporting staying the course for all practical purposes. Your changes are unenforceable. Your withdrawal deadliine a sham. You have not honored your word on this.

Tony Snow says Congress has no oversight authority. That certainly explain the last six years of the Republican Congress. Anyway, James Madison sent this note:

The Federalist No. 51

The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments

Independent Journal

Wednesday, February 6, 1788

[James Madison]

To the People of the State of New York:

You know what I think about the House Dem Leadership's Iraq supplemental funding bill. But what do I know? I am just a citizen who has thought it through for months, looking at facts, language and history. Why not listen to a DC Beltway Media type. They know how things really work right? so let's see what Tom Edsall has to say:

The Democratic leadership . . . has busied itself behind closed doors, producing a toothless, loophole-ridden resolution that showcases the party’s generic antiwar stance while trying to establish troop readiness requirements, benchmarks for Iraqi progress and withdrawal timetables. The resolution — more precisely, a set of deals intended to paper over intraparty factions — is the result of a process better suited to a highway bill than national security. This patchwork proposal . . . risks setting the Democrats up for a poisonous share of responsibility for the failure of United States foreign policy, while amplifying questions regarding Democratic competence on military matters.

Hmmmm. That does not sound good. So what is the political reason for this bill again?

House Dem Leadership still twisting arms to get the votes for their terrible, harmful, politically disastrous Iraq supplemental funding bill:

The Iraq debate is scheduled to begin Thursday afternoon on the House floor, but the final vote was delayed by a day to give leaders more time to build support for a measure that has proved to be one of the most significant tests of the new Democratic Congress.

Shelve the bill House Dem Leadership. Start over. This bill is just plain horrible.

Bump and Update: The Edwards campaign is continuing. The cancer is back, minimally. She feels fine. Future treatment is medication and a less invasive form of chemo. Elizabeth looks and sounds great. Their optimism is inspiring. What grace under pressure.

Bump and Update: CBS reports John Edwards will suspend his campaign due to Elizabeth's relapse of cancer. CNN says the campaign denies it. We'll know any minute. [Update: Ben Smith of Politico apologizes and explains.]

*****

Original Post

Presidential hopeful John Edwards will hold a press conference today at noon ET.

More....

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards accompanied his wife, Elizabeth, who has been treated for breast cancer, on a doctor's visit Wednesday. His campaign said they would hold a news conference in their hometown Thursday to discuss her health.

Campaign officials refused to answer any questions about what the Edwardses learned at the doctor's appointment or how it might affect his candidacy. Edwards had cut short a trip to Iowa Tuesday night to be with his wife Wednesday but still attended a barbecue fundraiser later in the evening in their hometown of Chapel Hill, N.C.

Embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says he will not resign.

And, he's about to go on the road.

Starting in the next few days, Mr. Gonzales will be meeting with most of the current United States attorneys as he makes a long-scheduled trip to several cities to promote Justice Department programs.

Sen. Arlen Specter says the subpoena fight could take up to two years to resolve.

I'll go into the legal issues in more detail in a later post, but I want to draw your attention to Marty Lederman's incisive post on the strategy being employed by the Solicitor General in defending the DC Circuit's Boumediene decision. I strongly criticized the decision here.

Marty says:

As I predicted (see here and here), the SG -- no doubt aware that the Court is likely to hold that the Constitution protects the detainees at GTMO -- has decided to focus the case on the much closer question, which is whether the D.C. Circuit review of CSRT determinations, prescribed in the DTA and MCA, is an "adequate substitute" for habeas, assuming that the detainees at GTMO do have constitutionally protected habeas rights.

As a litigator who has argued a number of appeals, I do admire the first rate lawyering from the SG's office. The focus on the narrower non-Constitutional question and away from the weakest part of the decision is executed deftly and smartly by the SG.

As appellate craftsmanship, it is more than first rate; it is a wonderfully argued brief. I think it could ultimately fail to persuade but, as I said, the craftsmanship is truly admirable.

The usually very good NYTimes Editorial page is very bad today on the Iraq supplemental funding bill. The basic problem is it is wrong on all the facts. The Times said:

The benchmarks spelled out in this legislation . . . require that the Iraqi government stop shielding and encouraging the Shiite militias that are helping drive the killing. . .

No it does not. The President "decides" if the Iraqis are making progress. Any doubt on what he will think?

The White House made a generous offer: "we'll let them talk, but no oath and no recording or transcripts." And the President and his talking head had the audacity to decry "partisan politics."  Apparently it's only "partisan" if a Democrat is doing it. If a Republican does, it is the order of the day.

The House said "No thank you. We'll subpoena you." When the White House treats the Just Us Department as its personal legal office and tempers justice with whether the prosecutor is a "loyal Bushie," and Karl Rove calls the shots because the President is disengaged or just doesn't care what happens in government, that is what it deserves.  

So, the showdown begins: The gunfight at the D.C. Corral:

How do you define chutzpah? See Fred Hiatt. Today he writes:

It would not be acceptable for Mr. Bush to fire the attorneys to short-circuit prosecutions of political corruption among Republicans. So far there's no evidence that he did, and in fact the most questionable conduct we know of originated in Congress, with New Mexico Republicans Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson.

Wow! Did Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson fire David Iglesias? What a disgrace Hiatt is. But it gets worse:

Lawmakers would do well to demonstrate more understanding of the legitimate institutional concerns at stake here . . . and remember . . . a Republican Congress eager to rifle through the files of a Democratic administration.

I remember WaPo cheering a Starr doing the same thing:

"The White House should remember that what is driving this story," the Post pronounces, "is not the conduct of Mr. Starr's staff, alleged leaks, supposed media bias or -- in Mrs. Clinton's now famous words -- a 'vast right-wing conspiracy.' Mr. Clinton is the only one who can make this matter go away, and he remains entirely free to do so at any time."

Is Mr. Bush not entirely free to do the same now? But a horse's ass is a horse's ass of course of course. In this case, his name is Mr. Fred.

Let's not restrict the U.S. Attorney firing scandal to those who got fired. According to the Justice Department's lead prosecutor in the tobacco lawsuit,

Bush administration political appointees repeatedly ordered her to take steps that weakened the government's racketeering case.

Sharon Y. Eubanks said Bush loyalists in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's office began micromanaging the team's strategy in the final weeks of the 2005 trial, to the detriment of the government's claim that the industry had conspired to lie to U.S. smokers.

The specifics of her allegations:

Below the Fold.