And it's 1..2...3..what are we not fighting for?

Via Kevin Drum comes a piece in the NYT looking at the powderkeg of factional tensions in Mosul.

The Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is squeezing out Kurdish units of the Iraqi Army from Mosul, sending the national police and army from Baghdad and trying to forge alliances with Sunni Arab hard-liners in the province, who have deep-seated feuds with the Kurdistan Regional Government led by Massoud Barzani.

....“It’s the perfect storm against the old festering background,” warned Brig. Gen. Raymond A. Thomas III, who oversees Nineveh and Kirkuk Provinces and the Kurdish region. Worry is so high that the American military has already settled on a policy that may set a precedent, as the United States slowly withdraws to allow Iraqis to settle their own problems. If the Kurds and Iraqi government forces fight, the American military will “step aside,” General Thomas said, rather than “have United States servicemen get killed trying to play peacemaker.”

As one of Drum's commenters notes:

As I recall it, the program was: (1) increase troop levels (2) to reduce the violence to make space for (3) political reconciliation that will provide the foundation for (4) a reduction in violence not dependent on American troops (5) that will enable us to gradually withdraw without having to worry about whether Iraq will blow up again.

We never got past step 2. Now the reckoning.

That reckoning will involve violence, in more than one place and between more than just two factions, in the lead up to Iraq's provincial elections. The only real question is: how bad will it get? I totally understand Brig. Gen Thomas' wish not to have his people die policing a civil war six years into the U.S. occupation but doesn't this blow wide open the conservative talking point, so beloved of both Bush and McCain, that US troops have to stay in Iraq to help prevent such violence? Why are we still there?

Of course, if there's no new status of forces deal by January Thomas' plans become moot, since it's likely US forces would be confined to base anyway. In fact, they're using the threat of exactly that to try to strongarm Iraqi into accepting an agreement it isn't happy with. McClatchy reports:

The U.S. military has warned Iraq that it will shut down military operations and other vital services throughout the country on Jan. 1 if the Iraqi government doesn't agree to a new agreement on the status of U.S. forces or a renewed United Nations mandate for the American mission in Iraq.

Many Iraqi politicians view the move as akin to political blackmail, a top Iraqi official told McClatchy Sunday.

In addition to halting all military actions, U.S. forces would cease activities that support Iraq’s economy, educational sector and other areas _ "everything" _ said Tariq al Hashimi, the country’s Sunni Muslim vice president. "I didn’t know the Americans are rendering such wide-scale services."

Hashimi said that Army Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, listed “tens” of areas of potential cutoffs in a three-page letter, and he said the implied threat caught Iraqi leaders by surprise.

But if the US military is planning to stay out of any faction fights anyway, just how much of a threat is that?

Crossposted from Newshoggers

What the heck happened to Debbie Wasserman Schultz? I usually like her, but in an unprecedented move, Debbie will not support Democratic candidates over Republicans because they might get elected---Huh?

They're fuming at U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Weston, because she won't publicly join Democratic Party efforts to unseat the three Cuban-American congressional Republicans from Miami-Dade County. That's treason to some activists.

"I almost think it's a slap in the face. She needs to be held accountable," said Percy Johnson, a Democratic committeeman and president of the Fort Lauderdale Democratic Club. "Our thing as the Democratic Party is to elect Democrats. It's not to elect some Democrats, it's to elect Democrats at all levels: local, state and federal."

Wasserman Schultz is a co-chairwoman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's Red-to-Blue program, whose sole purpose is to replace Republican members of Congress with Democrats. But she has said she can't risk the consequences if she publicly works against U.S. Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Mario Diaz-Balart, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen — and they end up getting re-elected.

It's an election, Debbie. They expect you to work against them. That is politics. Your job as co-chair in the Red-to-Blue program is to help elect Dems instead of Republicans. That's not rocket science. What consequences could befall you? My god, wake up. If she doesn't change her tune, she should be removed from her position. And the DCCC should stand with us on this issue. It's really outrageous behavior on her part. And I'm seeing other bad behavior from her too...David has a great group of diaries that explain everthing you need to know...So does brownsox.

Action alert below with other bloggers joining in.

Continue reading »

(table updates automatically every two minutes)

[election 47]

We're going to try and leave this table up for the time being and see how it works. Click on each state to get a comprehensive breakdown of that state. The table will automatically refresh in your browser every 2 minutes, without you having to refresh the entire page. Isn't technology cool?

Update: John Amato: I just got off a conference call with the Clinton camp. They said that California is still too early for any results to come in. They said that they feel this primary will continue into the month of March and are happy where they are at this point...If Obama has a call I'll go on...

Brit Hume just asked his all star panel if Romney should pack it in. And Limbaugh cries....Why did the wingnuts take so long to try and torpedo McCain?

William the Bloody says that Mitt is on death's door. His fangs looked rather sharp.

Romney spoke to his peeps and is still in it to win. He's so happy that all three states he lived in voted for him. Yippie!

Hillary won Massachusetts and Obama won Connecticut. Hmmmm..

It looks like there was no Ted Kennedy effect in his home state. We'll see if he helped in CA soon.

Conservatives went to the Huckster instead of Romney---rebuking right wing talkies...

Download | play    Download | play   (h/t Heather)

On This Week with George Stephanopolis, the roundtable discussion turned to the recent "threats" by the Religious Right (who apparently renamed themselves Social Conservatives) to run a third-party candidate as a result of their distaste for the all-but-presumed Republican candidacy of Rudy Giuliani.  

While Claire Shipman suggests that this may be a tactical way for the Dobsons and Perkins of the Religious Right to re-assert to the Republican party the need to cater to them, seeing as the Republicans can't possibly win this election anyway, so splitting off the vote is more statement than a way to win, George Will has just one thing to say to them: Grow up.

Social conservatives should grow up. If they want to rally around somebody, why don't try that? Huckabee needs support and money now. If the social conservatives are half as important as they think they are, they would rally around one of these people [..] And then decide what you care about. If you care about judges, then you're gonna get satisfied by Giuliani, then get in line and play politics. But there's a vanity in this group right now. They call themselves "values voters." I've news for them: 100% of the American electorate are values voters; they vote their values...And this, this, kind of semantic imperialism that they have where they say "we vote values". Everyone else votes what?

Anyone have an idea why the Religious Right isn't throwing their support behind Huckabee?  Seems like he'd be just their type of candidate. 

Poll: Voters Want Paper Trail 

 A new poll shows growing support for requiring electronic voting machines to produce a voter-verified paper trail.  Just under half of all respondents -- 44 percent -- said they thought computerized voting systems are unreliable, up from about one-fourth of respondents in other studies. And almost three-fourths said the systems should produce a paper record that the voter can review. Sixty percent said they would vote for a presidential candidate this year who supports requiring a paper trail.. . read on