Lately it looks as if our misadventure in Iraq might actually have an endgame. Even though Iraq has made plenty of subtle statements about the U.S. leaving, our gummint stubbornly refused to acknowledge that our welcome had worn out. I blogged about this a while back, noting the hypocrisy. But I guess our gummint can’t openly admit we need to leave if the request is just coming from Iraqi government officials, can they?

Well, earlier this month, a more pointed, yet still rather subtle, request came from the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, who strongly suggested that a timetable for our departure needed to be part of negotiations over a security agreement with us. This was followed up more emphatically in the wake of comments by Barack Obama, with Maliki seemingly agreeing that a pullout by the end of 2010 would be more than welcome.

Naturally, I believe we should never have been in Iraq. Afghanistan, sure– that’s a different story. That at least made some sense. Iraq was never anything more than a personal fantasy of Smirk and Shooter’s, a fantasy that became a horrible reality for the the thousands of American solders killed and wounded, and the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have been killed and mutilated in this bloodbath.

It’s not only the human carnage that has been a total waste. Whether there really is a pullout in the next year or two (the sooner the better, I think), think of all the money that’s been tossed down the toilet. Money that could have gone towards crucial needs and desires in this country. There’s a new book out, What We Could Have Done With The Money: 50 Ways to Spend the Trillion Dollars We’ve Spent on Iraq. I leafed through a copy at the bookstore recently, and it’s a depressing eye-opener.  Just last month, the House of Representatives, without any critical examination or conditions on the funding, passed a bill approving another $162 billion in war spending, without any timetables or restrictions. The Democrats (aka “Republican Lite”) are doing absolutely nothing to end this mess.

But in case you don’t buy the book, or you haven’t visited a bookstore or a library in a while, here’s a website you can look at. It’s a bit dated (the last time the figures were updated was in 2006), but it’s still pretty mind-boggling. Go look at “A Little Perspective on $87 Billion.” (That’s the amount of money Bush asked for in 2003 for the war. Now think about what the total is now…).

When you come back, let me know if you think it was worth it, and how soon you think we should get the hell out of the Middle East.

I’ve long wondered why the Dems won’t bother with impeachment. Sure, a good number of them talk a good game, but most either aren’t serious, or in the case of Nancy Pelosi, have stated that they’re not even going to bother with it. There are all kinds of reasons they throw out, and just about all of them aren’t worth reprinting, because they’re just excuses. Our Congressional representatives have abdicated their responsibility and if they aren’t going to pick up the ball, then we should have a Constitutional Convention to rewrite the document, and eliminate the sections dealing with impeachment. After all, in the past, impeachment has been used as a political tool, as a partisan football. In the one instance where impeachment was potentially going to be used (rightfully and judiciously, I might add), the potential impeachee saw the handwriting on the wall and resigned.

Now that we have leadership who deserve to be impeached, everyone’s treating impeachment like it’s a third rail. It isn’t– there’s quite a few of us out there who would have anyone’s back should they decide to follow through. Dennis Kucinich recently tried, and the Democrats tried to swat him down. Right now, his motion is in committee. I intend to help move it along for a variety of reasons.

Well,we’ve just been given another (good, and somewhat new… well, new to some people, I guess) reason to impeach: Richard Perle, one of the architects of our lovely, costly, and deadly romp in Iraq just admitted that the invasion of Iraq was illegal.

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

That’s just the opening paragraph, mind you. Most of us already knew it was illegal (and already saw it as a reason to impeach), and most of us already knew it was really about oil. It’s only been in the last few months that certain people have been uttering previously unutterable truths.

Speaker Pelosi? Madam Speaker? *ahem* Nancy? If starting an illegal war doesn’t constitute “high crimes,” then what does? Impeachment needs to be on the table, stat.

Most people in this country haven’t really had any influence on foreign policy, including Iraq, except for the letters, e-mails, faxes, and phone calls they make to their elected representatives. Motivated individuals sometimes schedule a meeting with public officials, but usually end up meeting with a staffer. Rallies, political organizations, online blogs and bulletin boards, and other similar forums also allow expressions of personal opinion, and a megaphone of sorts. But in the end, how much influence does it really have?

When it comes to Iraq, it seems like it amounts to very little. Even the election of 2006, cited by many pundits as a national response to issues both domestic and foreign, didn’t come with a checklist or poll; it merely had the names of the candidates for various offices. Any “message” sent is the interpretation of political scientists, talking heads, newspaper editors, and other similar “shapers” of the “vox populi” (or what they pretend is the “vox populi”).

Here in California, we voters may soon have a rare opportunity to actually “voice” our opinions on Iraq via the ballot box. The state Assembly last week voted to place a measure on the ballot during the February primary that urges Smirk to withdraw our forces from Iraq. While the resolution obviously would be non-binding, it would send a powerful message from the nation’s most populous state at a time when a tiny cabal within our gummint is seemingly hellbent on ignoring everyone else around them, and continuing an increasingly unpopular war that they began on the basis of numerous shaky, shifting rationales.

Naturally, there’s a divide: the bill’s supporters cite the debacle that is Iraq, and mention the need to give a voice to the people:

“If silence equals consent, we cannot remain silent anymore,” said Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley. “We need to give the citizens of California a concrete opportunity to express their hopes.”

The opposition states that it’s merely politics as usual:

“This is a political poll being done for political reasons at a politically expedient time,” said Assemblyman John Benoit, R-Palm Desert.

Shortly after the bill passed, political columnist George Skelton wrote in the Los Angeles Times about the topic, dissecting why he thought the governor wouldn’t approve the measure, and concluding that

[t]here’s a lot to debate. Too bad this probably won’t go to the February ballot. Californians should be allowed to sound off at the polls.

I generally agree with Skelton, except on one point. He notes that Schwarzenegger

fashions himself as a “people’s governor” who welcomes citizens’ input. But he can point out that the Iraq war is hardly a Sacramento issue.

Actually, Mr. Skelton, I think it is a “Sacramento issue.” It’s also a “Helena issue” and a “Baton Rouge issue” and a “Harrisburg issue.”

This war was waged in the name of the American people, who have every right to urge that their officials, from local officeholders to federal legislators, reconsider the actions they are taking in the name of the United States– a nation made up of fifty united states. This war was waged and is being waged with the blood of the soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice. These soldiers are from towns all across the nation: Clovis, CA; West View, PA; Mechanicsville, VA; Victoria, TX; Bay City, MI; Donalsonville, GA; and tens of dozens of other cities, suburbs, towns, and hamlets all across the land.

Some of these dead were part of the armed forces: the Army, the Marines, the Air Force. But quite a few others were members of their state’s National Guard.

While each state’s National Guard members are part of a larger federal force, they also primarily serve their own state. The huge numbers of National Guard members who have been called to Iraq and kept there means they are not able to assist their state at times of crisis. This was readily apparent during Katrina just two years ago. This was the case during the tornado in Kansas in May. If the next “Big One” should strike anytime soon, we here in California would be at a disadvantage. This is a point that the author of the measure made:

The measure’s author, Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, said members of the National Guard are needed at home.

“We are plagued by earthquakes and wildfires” in California, Migden said. “We don’t have adequate resources, personnel.”

To me, it’s a “Sacramento issue” just as much as it is a national issue. If this measure is on the ballot, perhaps it will inspire other state legislatures elsewhere to find their voices and lend them to their constituents. We haven’t had any kind of real referendum on the war; perhaps it’s time we did.

[As long as we’re discussing Iraq, there’s an important new article up at Salon by Sidney Blumenthal. “Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction” is a must-read. It may not be “news” to quite a few of us, who figured this out a long time ago, but it definitely bolsters the historical record on this tragic war, and further strengthens an already strong case for impeachment.]

It’s funny. Our gummint, and Smirk, in particular, claim that we are “guests” (*guffaw*) in Iraq, and that if we are ever asked to leave, we’ll immediately do so. This is a claim people have made in the past, including Bremer, back in 2004.

To wit:

“If the provisional government asks us to leave we will leave,” Bremer said, referring to an Iraqi administration due to take power June 30 [2004]. “I don’t think that will happen, but obviously we don’t stay in countries where we’re not welcome.”

It’s over three years later, and we’ve definitely overstayed our welcome. A year after Bremer’s statement, a number of deputies in the Iraqi government asked the United States and its “coalition” to leave the country. I noted the story at the time, observed that the welcome mat had been pulled, and thought it might be a good idea to exit, stage right, as quickly as possible. I also noted then that “…it’s pretty clear the country is heading towards civil war, if it’s not there already.”

Well, the country’s in a civil war, gang. They’re content to sit and wait us out. The moment we leave, whether it’s tomorrow or ten years from now, they’ll pounce on each other– each side believes it’s in the right and will triumph. Whatever happens in Iraq then will be ten times as ugly as it is now. But there’s no real purpose in our staying; if we stay, we continue to be the target for both sides, who simply want us to get the hell out of the way so they can have the *real* war.

Yet, we’re still there. Just a few days ago, we were asked again, this time by the Iraqi Prime Minister, to leave the country. Oh, maybe not in so blunt terms, but the intent was fairly clear:

“We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want,” he [PM Maliki] said.

That’s pretty clear to me. It’s a polite way of saying, “Leave already.”

Yet our gummint (or more accurately, the Republicans still clinging to Smirk) doesn’t seem to understand. I think the problem may be that the Iraqis are using diplomatic language. They need to get a children’s author– say, the crew that wrote the textbook containing “The Pet Goat” (aka “My Pet Goat”)– to sit down and write a nice letter, in simple words and pictures, telling Smirk and his buddies that IT’S TIME TO GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ.

As I write this, the Democrats, who seem to have finally found something resembling a spine, have forced the Republicans to face the specter of having to filibuster. Yep, Congress is following a grand old summer-time tradition– an all-night campout. Unlike the Boy Scouts though, their tent was completed sometime around the mid-19th century, and has tons of stuff, including plush chairs, sparking clean restrooms, and lovely hideaway nooks. Nearby, they’ve got a wonderful cafeteria, a cushy gym, and even an underground subway.

It’ll be interesting to see how this turns out come morning. The last time the GOP actually filibustered was in 1964, in opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Now they’re obstructing an end to this war– a war, that along with our expedition in Afghanistan, is costing us $12 billion a month, has resulted in tens of thousands dead, thousands wounded, a nation’s infrastructure destroyed, an emerging generation of enemies (all those kids with dead and injured parents, uncles, grandparents, cousins, brothers, and sisters aren’t going to forget us anytime soon… if this kind of thing happened here, would you?), and helped spark a civil war. Something tells me the Republicans aren’t going to be remembered kindly by history for being obstructionists right now.

Let’s sum this up a bit: short version– Congress, the welcome mat’s been pulled– again. It’s time to get out.