On Thursday the House shocked everyone- including itself, with it’s votes on a 3-part war funding bill.

The surprise action left antiwar activists on and off Capitol Hill exultant, Republicans gloating and Democratic leaders baffled. Recriminations from all sides quickly followed.

House leaders had broken the war funding bill into three separate measures. The first, to continue funding combat operations, needed Republican votes to pass over the objection of antiwar Democrats. The second would impose strict Iraq-related policy measures strongly opposed by President Bush, and the third would fund domestic priorities, including a new G.I. Bill and levees around New Orleans.

That legislative legerdemain became the plan’s undoing. Rather than go along, 131 House Republicans voted “present” on the war funding provision, saying they were incensed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and a few of her lieutenants had drafted the bill in secret, then expected them to play along.

Reps say their action is a boycott of shady Dem dealings, Dems say the Reps had a choice between funding the war, or not funding it, and they chose to wash their hands of it altogether.

(T)he impact is likely to be short-lived. The Senate will take up its version of the war funding bill next week; it is expected to restore the war funds and strip out the policy prescriptions most disagreeable to the White House. The White House reiterated its veto threat of the overall package yesterday morning, demanding a new version stripped of policy prescriptions and domestic spending, including the bill’s $52 billion expansion of veterans’ education benefits. The supplemental appropriations vote is the last major clash on Iraq policy between Congress and Bush.

Had it become law, the House bill would have brought the total cost of the war in Iraq to around $660 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service, more expensive than any U.S. military effort except World War II.

As passed, the House bill would require troop withdrawals from Iraq to begin within 30 days, with a goal of removing all combat forces by December 2009. The Iraqi government would have to match U.S. reconstruction funding dollar for dollar, and would be required to offer the U.S. military the same fuel subsidies it provides its own citizens.

Basically as it stands, rather than continue to flush money in a situation that taxes our country’s resources and money more than we can afford, this bill will improve scholastic options for troops who have served, begin bringing the troops home as well as giving them more time off inbetween deployments to recouperate, and make the Iraqi gov’t begin to pull it’s actual fair share of the load. Sounds pretty reasonable to me, but of course reasonable dealings have never been the current admin’s strong point, as evidenced by the fact that the White House has promised to veto this thing to death should it even reach their door.

And while the improvement of educational benefits to the troops sounds like something anyone, regardless of political affiliation could get behind- leave it to Prez hopeful John McCain to try to use it as a tool for keeping the troops in the military (which in turn makes it all the more difficult to use the benefits to get to college, because, you know- deployments tend to make it hard to get to get to class on time).

The measure has attracted broad bipartisan support, but it is opposed by Bush because of its cost, its tax increase and fears that its generosity could entice service members to leave the military rather than reenlist at the end of their tours. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican nominee, has put forward a less generous alternative that would save its richest benefits for service members doing multiple tours.

But McCain’s efforts have run into bipartisan opposition — from lawmakers, veterans organizations and educators. Former homeland security secretary Tom Ridge, a close McCain ally, came out for Webb’s measure yesterday.

“I have tremendous regard for Senator McCain, but I can’t figure out where he is right now,” said Dartmouth College President James Wright, a former Marine who helped negotiate the Webb-Warner language. “It seems to me our posture as a nation cannot be to say to servicemen and -women, ‘We do not value you unless you reenlist.’ That wasn’t the contract they signed.”

But no matter what happened in the House, expect the Senate to sink the whole thing and bring it right back to war spending where this gov’t seems to think it belongs.

Popularity: 3% [?]

From the Chicago Sun-Times

Representatives of firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and lawmakers from Iraq’s main Shiite political bloc signed a four-day cease-fire Monday in an effort to end seven weeks of fighting in Baghdad’s Sadr City slum.

It was unclear if the agreement would be respected by all the extremists who have been fighting in Sadr City. Al-Sadr is thought to have influence over some of the militants, but not all of them. Many of those fighting Iraqi and U.S. forces are thought to have splintered away from al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

The U.S. military has repeatedly said its clashes are with rogue elements of al-Sadr’s militia and that the majority of the 60,000-strong Mahdi Army did not openly participate in the fighting, adhering to a general cease-fire ordered last August by al-Sadr.

The fighting was concentrated mostly in the southern part of the Shiite slum that is home to about 2.5 million people, and Iraqi officials have reported that hundreds of people have died in the fighting.

Clashes began in late March after militants responded to a crackdown by Iraqi troops in Sadr City by firing hundreds of mortars and rockets at the heavily fortified Green Zone housing the government and Western embassies.

Al-Attiyah said the cease-fire went into effect on Sunday and Iraqi forces will be allowed to enter the area as early as Wednesday and ‘‘take over the security there.’’

The statement said ‘‘the government will decide on the number of Iraqi forces to be deployed in Sadr City to achieve security, in order to refrain from asking help from foreign forces,’’ a reference to the U.S. military.

‘‘Any attack against residential areas, government offices and the Green Zone are prohibited from Sadr City or from another area,’’ the agreement said.

The cease-fire stipulates that Iraqi forces have the right to ‘‘impose the law and to pursue illegal situations.’’

‘‘No one and no side has the right to interfere in the work of these forces,’’ it said, adding that the government retained the right to pursue ‘‘those who carried out armed attacks against the government.’’

‘‘We have agreed on cease-fire and to end displaying arms in public,’’ al-Obeidi said. ‘‘But we did not agree on disbanding the Mahdi Army to hand over its weapons.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Who knew? There are no people who deserve our respect and care more than the families and friends of the deceased, regardless of the cause of their demise, and many would argue that’s it’s an even truer case to the families and friends of those who died while in service to their country. But for some unlucky number- the utmost care was not taken to ensure the proper somber note when our fallen brothers and sisters were cremated-

The U.S. military has, since 2001, cremated some of the remains of U.S. service members killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in a Delaware facility that also cremates pets, a practice that ended Friday when the Pentagon banned the arrangement.

The facility, in an industrial park near Dover Air Force Base, has cremated about 200 service members, manager David Bose said Friday night. It uses separate crematories a few feet apart to cremate humans and animals, he added.

According to reports no one is sure how many service members were cremated at the Friends Forever Pet Cremation Service, and there’s no evidence that would show any service member having been cremated in the animal crematory, however, the real issue stemmed not from which crematory was used, but from the feelings of shock and dismay caused in those who went to oversee the procedure, saying farewell to their loved ones.

The revelation came to light when an Army officer who works at the Pentagon traveled to Delaware on Thursday to attend the cremation of a military comrade.

Offended to discover that the facility was labeled as a pet crematory, the officer sent an e-mail late Thursday to superiors at the Pentagon that included a photograph of the signage.

It soon rocketed to the attention of (Defense Secretary Robert) Gates, who directed David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, to conduct “a comprehensive review of existing DOD policies and practices governing the cremation and handling of remains of U.S. service members,” (Pentagon press secretary Geoff) Morrell said.

As a result, in 2001 Air Force officials contracted with two local funeral homes to perform cremations, including with Torbert Funeral Chapels and Crematories, which oversees the facility managed by Bose, and another crematory that is located with a funeral home.

Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne directed Friday that the service “cease using the off-site crematory, use only crematory facilities that are co-located with licensed funeral homes, and have a military presence during the off-base process at the funeral-home facilities,” Morrell said.

Why it would’ve taken this 6-7 years for all of this to become an issue is debatable- is it really so bad that they were being cremated at this facility, given that they were cremated in proper human crematories with no signs of foul play, and if so… why did no one say anything until now? Was this just one man’s over-reaction? Or is it as deeply disrespectful as it sounds to find out that the very people we’re supposed to be honoring and holding in the highest regards are being cared for after death in a facility called Friends Forever Pet Cremation Service?

In my opinion the military should have known better than to outsource to this facility, when obviously as they’re using now- there were more traditional and fitting arrangements that could’ve been made. Odds are, when this service began, it was cheaper and easier than going to a traditional funeral home facility. But this is one place where surely Uncle Sam can afford not to be a miser.

Popularity: 3% [?]

No wonder we’re having such trouble finding bin-Laden (assuming anyone is really looking for the guy anymore) we can’t even really figure out if we’ve killed or captured a guy, when his is or isn’t in our presence.  We’re not really sure to tell the truth.  Confused?  I know I am.

Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq, has not been captured, a senior U.S. military official told CNN on Friday.

Iraqi authorities said Thursday that al-Masri had been captured in Mosul.

U.S. military officials were surprised about the report of Abu Ayyub al-Masri’s capture — first reported by Iraqi media and picked up by The Associated Press. And intelligence officials said they were skeptical, even though Iraqi officials said al-Masri was already in U.S. military custody.

Al-Masri (”the Egyptian”), also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, took the reins of the Iraqi al Qaeda offshoot in June 2006 after a U.S. missile strike killed his predecessor, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Since then, Iraqi officials have reported his death three times, his capture twice and a mortal wounding once.

So either the guy is a zombie, a magician, a figment of our imaginations, or- all these intellegence officials are completely lacking in intellegence.  Which do you think it is?

Iraqi officials have also misreported the deaths or capture of other high-ranking insurgents, Baathists or others, including al-Zarqawi before he was killed and Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri, the highest ranking former member of Saddam Hussein’s regime still at large.

Al-Duri, who was the King of Clubs (No. 6) on the U.S. military’s deck of most wanted regime officials, was most recently reported captured two weeks ago by multiple Iraqi officials. He had previously been reported killed in 2005 and captured the year before.

Wow… kinda helps you sleep at night knowing the Keystone Cops are working in conjuntion with Mr. Magoo to keep Iraq, and the rest of the world, safe and secure- doesn’t it?

Popularity: 2% [?]

In a wave of ignorance, famed horror novelist Stephen King inserted foot in mouth:

I don’t want to sound like an ad, a public service ad on TV, but the fact is if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don’t, then you’ve got, the Army, Iraq, I don’t know, something like that. It’s, it’s not as bright. So, that’s my little commercial for that.

[video]

Sorry, Stephen. Joining the Army and going to Iraq isn’t necessarily the fate of retarded monkeys. This holder of a B.A. English and Iraq veteran proves otherwise. That’s my public service ad to you.

Popularity: 2% [?]