Matt Yglesias writes a post that makes no sense to me on Iraq and the Dems:

[L]iberals should "keep our powder dry" in terms of Iraq stuff until the supplemental appropriation request comes down in a couple of months. . . . I meant liberals should keep our intra-party bickering powder dry. There simply isn't an important practical difference between the different degrees of anti-warness that various politicians have staked out at this point. There will be important practical differences in terms of how people vote on proposed amendments to the supplemental request. That's the time to start really worrying about what people are up to.

Will be? No Matt, there ARE important practical differences TODAY. Some, like Russ Feingold, understand that cutting off funding is the only way to end the Iraq Debacle. And while I applauded Barack Obama's political instincts demonstrated in his Iraq proposal, I also know, as Kevin Drum rightly points out:

[E]veryone talking about this already knows the basic answer: Congress can declare war, it has certain military rulemaking powers, and it can fund and defund a war. But that's it. Like it or not, Congress simply doesn't have the power to manage specific operational aspects of a war. Big Tent Democrat made the case for this a couple of weeks ago, and I think it's pretty convincing. Now, this is not a problem. Anyone who seriously wants us to withdraw from Iraq merely needs to introduce legislation defunding the war. . . . But Obama's description of his legislation very carefully avoids any mention of funding other than to explicitly say that it "does not affect the funding for our troops in Iraq." . . . Without that, he must know that his legislation is almost certainly futile.

But Matt, who says the funding issue is what matters, says he disagrees with Drum and agrees with this:

I think Kevin Drum gets this one wrong. He says that cutting off funding is the only way for Congress to control military action, and that Obama's claim that his plan won't reduce funding for the troops in Iraq means that it won't work. But if I read Obama's statement correctly, he means that it won't reduce funding for troops currently in Iraq; it will forbid adding new ones, and it will mandate a systematic withdrawal by a date certain. Clearly the Congress has the power to limit not only funding but troop levels, and it has the power to order the Pentagon to plan and execute a withdrawal.

Matt, either funding is the critical issue or it is not. Kleiman says it is not. Kleiman is also dead wrong on the Congress' power to manage the conduct of the war.

But more importantly, if we want Democrats to vote the right way on funding the Iraq war (to me the right way is to not vote more funds without an established cutoff date, in short the Feingold Plan), we must pressure them NOW, not when the vote comes up. Matt's idea appears to be that of a disinterested commentator who will critique the actions taken and who has disdain for efforts to EFFECT that vote. This makes absolutely no sense to me. But heck, maybe I have the wrong attitude about this.

I want the Iraq Debacle to end.

In the Judiciary Committee hearing on "Exercising Congress' Constitutional Power To End A War," chaired by Senator Russ Feingold, one of the more bizarre aspects of the testimony presented was that it actually had little discussion of Congress' power to end a war and focused instead on Congress' power to regulate the President's management of war. The other bizarre aspect of the testimony was the utter disregard for the existing Iraq Authorization To Use Military Force. It is necessary to remind just how awful this resolution was:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq . . .

Indeed, Democratic politicians and legal scholars have been utterly disingenuous in their discussions on the subject. I'll explain why on the flip.

See also Rep. Brad Miller discusses the issue with Secretary Albright.

I'm heading back to Denver today after three days at the Scooter Libby trial. As always, a huge thanks to TChris and Big Tent for posting in my absence and on other topics.

I'll be popping in and out here as I have internet access, but here's a place for you to talk about what's on your mind.

Noted jurist John Henry Wigmore described cross-examination as the "greatest legal invention ever invented for the discovery of truth." (5 J. Wigmore, Evidence §1367 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1974.) Put another way, it's a great tool for ferreting out untruths in the courtroom.

It's Fitzgerald's job in the Libby case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Scooter Libby lied to federal agents and the grand jury and obstructed justice.

It's the defense's job to test that proof.

Patrick Fitzgerald has placed a lot of faith in Judy Miller and Matthew Cooper and their less than perfect memories and note-taking skills. The defense chipped away at both today. There were no Perry Mason moments, but neither came across as 100% sure of what Libby told them.

An audit tells us what's been happening during the "see no evil" years of Republican congressional rule:

"Our troops are going without even as government funds go to pay for such boondoggles as an Olympic-size swimming pool in an unused training camp," said a statement issued by the Senate Democratic Communications Center directed by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. ...

The quarterly audit released Wednesday by Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, found the $300 billion U.S. war and reconstruction effort continues to be plagued with waste, spiraling violence and corruption.

Now that Congress is in an oversight mode, it will be fun to watch as tough questions are asked and avoided.

Hoping, perhaps, to avoid a subpoena, Attorney General Gonzales announced the administration's decision to control the flow of information submit documents to Congress that will (Gonzales asserts) demonstrate the administration's newfound respect for FISA.

The documents, which include applications for electronic wiretaps and orders from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, will be made available to congressional committees only and not released to the public.

Now brace yourself for a laugh:

Gonzales said the Justice Department would cooperate with both chambers of Congress. "It's important for us that they understand what we're doing," the attorney general said. "All they have to do is ask."

Some of us would like to know what the administration has been doing for the last six years. It's time for Congress to ask.

Via Scribe in the diaries:

Today, a prosecutor in Munich disclosed the existence of arrest warrants for 13 members of Ghost Air crews, relative to the kidnapping of Khaled al Masri from Macedonia to a US prison in Afghanistan. He was left to molder there for months while Condi and others debated exactly what to do with him, seeing as he really was the wrong guy. Ultimately, they had him flown back to and dumped off pretty close to the same spot he'd been kidnapped from. The US District Court has dismissed his tort suit, on the "state secrets" doctrine; he's appealing to the Fourth Circuit.

TalkLeft background on al Masri is here.

Team Libby has finished cross-examining Judith Miller. She was stronger today than yesterday and Bill Jeffress did not (in my opinion) make any inroads with her or trip her up. I think that the jury will find her credible.

Bottom Line: She is sure that Scooter Libby was the first to tell her that Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and that it happened on June 23 and again on July 8. She can't say it with 100% certainty but that's her belief based upon her memory and her notes and she has zero recollection of anyone else telling her.

Libby told investigators and the grand jury he learned of Wilson's wife from Tim Russert on July 10th. He says he was so preoccupied with pressing national issues, he forgot that he first learned of Valerie Wilson from Dick Cheney.

If he was so busy with other matters, why was he having a two hour meeting during the workday with Judith Miller at the St. Regis on July 8?

Fitzgerald redirects, a little bumpy, no big deal. Then the legal wrangling starts over Miller's notes and Libby's Aspen letter to Judy.

Barack Obama has been criticized often by me for lacking sufficient commitment to a politics of contrast. My view was well explained by Paul Krugman in his recent column On Partisanship:

Barack Obama recently lamented the fact that “politics has become so bitter and partisan” — which it certainly has. But he then went on to say that partisanship is why “we can’t tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that’s what we have to change first.” Um, no. If history is any guide, what we need are political leaders willing to tackle the big problems despite bitter partisan opposition. . . . Or to put it another way: what we need now is another F.D.R., not another Dwight Eisenhower. . . .

Thus it is very encouraging to see Obama take a strong contrasting view on Iraq. And not just for the contrast, but because Iraq CAN be the key to a lasting realignment in favor of the Democrats.

When policy and science collide in the Bush administration, it's like an 18-wheeler smashing into a Yugo. Science doesn't survive, as witnesses (including Rick Piltz, formerly of the federal Climate Change Science Program) told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform yesterday.

Part of his job, Mr. Piltz said, was to compile periodic assessments of government climate research for the Congress. “This report has essentially been made to vanish by the Bush administration,” he said.

The testimony coincides with the release of a report that documents and criticizes the administration's "widespread political interference in federal climate science." The Union of Concerned Scientists surveyed climate scientists, with disturbing results.

What an afternoon at the Scooter Libby trial. This is what I came to Washington for -- that sense of being right in the middle of the action, totally engrossed in the moment, never once looking at my watch, and when 5:00 came, wishing we didn't have to go home.

The day began slowly enough, with David Addington still on the stand and Libby lawyer Ted Wells questioning him about documents for almost two hours. Enough about that.

The main attraction was journalist and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller. She looked stunning, very pretty and impeccably groomed. The reporters in the courtroom all turned to watch her stride into the courtroom, chin up. Her lawyer, Washington powerhouse Bob Bennett, took a seat behind the Government's table. She was calm as she took the stand.

Judith Miller testified today in the Scooter Libby trial. She sailed through Fitzgerald's direct examination but started on a downhill course as soon as Bill Jeffress began cross-examining her.

The lawyers and judge are in deep debate over Paragraph 5 to Judith Miller's affidavit in support of a motion to quash.

I'll have details at Firedoglake later tonight. In the meantime, check out Marcy's live-blogging of the testimony, as well as Rory and Clarice at Mediabloggers.