A few things ...

1) As expected, President Bush vetoed the supplementary spending bill yesterday. His rhetoric included states about "setting a date for failure" and "prescription for chaos and confusion".

The President is often portrayed as detached from events (or even reality), but even he must be aware the current state of affairs in Iraq is not exactly all neat and orderly ... and things have been getting worse, not better.

For me, though, the truly humorous part of his speech was "Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders."

What makes this such a howler is the administration itself engaged in _exactly_ this type of behavior, shuffling through commanders who's advice did not match up with the administration's desires. This point is brought home in the following letter (via VoteVets.org):

May 1, 2007

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

Today, in your veto message regarding the bipartisan legislation just passed on Operation Iraqi Freedom, you asserted that you so decided because you listen to your commanders on the ground.

Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear -- most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril.

The legislation you vetoed today represented a course of action that is long overdue. This war can no longer be won by the military alone. We must bring to bear the entire array of national power - military, diplomatic and economic. The situation demands a surge in diplomacy, and pressure on the Iraqi government to fix its internal affairs. Further, the Army and Marine Corps are on the verge of breaking - or have been broken already - by the length and intensity of this war. This tempo is not sustainable - and you have failed to grow the ground forces to meet national security needs. We must begin the process of bringing troops home, and repairing and growing our military, if we are ever to have a combat-ready force for the long war on terror ahead of us.

The bill you rejected today sets benchmarks for success that the Iraqis would have to meet, and puts us on a course to redeploy our troops. It stresses the need for sending troops into battle only when they are rested, trained and equipped. In my view, and in the view of many others in the military that I know, that is the best course of action for our security.

As someone who served this nation for decades, I have the utmost respect for the office you hold. However, as a man of conscience, I could not sit idly by as you told the American people today that your veto was based on the recommendations of military men. Your administration ignored the advice of our military's finest minds before, and I see no evidence that you are listening to them now.

I urge you to reconsider your position, and work with Congress to pass a bill that achieves the goals laid out above.

Respectfully,

Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA, Retired

2) In voting to defund our troops (thus depriving them even longer of life-saving MRAPs -- where's the outrage, Frank??), President Bush mentioned trying to bring members of both parties together to work on compromise legislation. This word, "compromise" ... I don't think it means what he thinks it means.

A compromise entails concessions by both parties in a negotiation. There has been discussion already of how the "get out of Iraq" side of the matter might compromise. Perhaps by tying funding to specific, measurable benchmarks for the Iraqi government, perhaps by quickly passing a short-term spending bill with no strings, etc.

On the other hand, there has been no discussion I am aware of of what the "stay in Iraq until our grandchildren die fighting there" side of the discussion might give up. The President has repeatedly said he will veto any supplementary spending bill that has "strings attached".

That's not a compromise, that's a demand.

Update: I see there some discussion from adminisration aides of having "non-binding" benchmarks on the spending bill. If they are non-binding, what's the point again? How is this a concession?

3) This paper co-authored by Nobel prize-winner James Heckman is (loosely) tied to my post yesterday.

The paper discusses the economics involved in early intervention programs for disadvantaged children, and pretty much proves beyond doubt that the earlier children from such backgrounds are placed in such programs, the greater their likelihood of success as teenagers and adults.

There are parallels with software engineering -- there is a large body of work supporting the notion that the earlier you discover a "bug" the cheaper it is (by orders of magnitude) to fix it. Not that children are "software bugs", but it makes sense that the sooner you can snag a child who might be headed down the road to trouble and redirect their energies to productive pursuits, the cheaper the overall cost to society.

While the paper is concerned with disadvantaged youth in America, the same argument would apply to disadvantaged youth anywhere in the world, I would think.

4) Pressure continues to ratchet for the resignation of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert after a scathing report was issued yesterday about his handling of the il-fated invasion of Lebanon last year.

There are interesting comparisons to be made between that conflict and its aftermath in Israel, and our four year involvement in Iraq. I had actually planned to make such a post, but then discovered Glenn Greenwald had already done so, and far more thoroughly than I could ever hope to. Read his comments here.