Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and John Warner (R-VA) have reached agreement on a compromise bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush’s Iraq escalation policy. Levin and Warner had co-sponsored competing anti-escalation resolutions, both of which risked failing to garner enough votes to break a conservative filibuster.

CNN’s Dana Bash reported moments ago, “What is going on as we speak, behind the scenes, Wolf, is Democrats and Republicans who oppose sending more troops to Iraq are trying to figure out how to join forces, come up with one single resolution that can get them the 60 votes that they need in order to pass that resolution, making clear to the president they disagree with his plan.”

Watch it:

The Levin/Warner compromise is unexpected and very significant. Robert Novak reported Monday that Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) had tried and failed to reach agreement with Warner late last week.

This new deal is likely to foil right-wing efforts to prevent the Senate from passing a strong anti-escalation resolution. Conservative leaders “had hoped to divide Senate opinion largely along party lines, to allow Bush to argue that any outright statement opposing his plan was politically motivated partisanship,” the Washington Post reported today.

Digg It!

Full transcript: Read more

The Bush administration claims that any congressional resolution opposing escalation would hurt the morale of U.S. troops. “It would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops,” Vice President Cheney said last week.

Cheney should spend less time on non-binding resolutions and more on equipping our forces. An audit by the Pentagon’s Inspector General released to Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) shows that U.S. soldiers have had to go without the necessary weapons, armor, vehicles, and equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan:

The Inspector General found that the Pentagon hasn’t been able to properly equip the soldiers it already has. Many have gone without enough guns, ammunition, and other necessary supplies to “effectively complete their missions” and have had to cancel or postpone some assignments while waiting for the proper gear, according to the report from auditors with the Defense Dept. Inspector General’s office. Soldiers have also found themselves short on body armor, armored vehicles, and communications equipment, among other things, auditors found.

“As a result, service members performed missions without the proper equipment, used informal procedures to obtain equipment and sustainment support, and canceled or postponed missions while waiting to receive equipment,” reads the executive summary dated Jan. 25. Service members often borrowed or traded with each other to get the needed supplies, according to the summary.

More bombshells are likely to come soon. Following a letter last year from Slaughter to the Pentagon, the Inspector General’s office reported two ongoing audits into the procurement of armored vehicles and body armor for American soldiers. “The results of those studies will be available in July and October of 2007, respectively,” Slaughter’s office says.

Digg It!

Admiral William Fallon — Bush’s nominee to replace Gen. John Abizaid as head of U.S. forces in the Middle East — yesterday refused to endorse Bush’s escalation strategy in Iraq. In questioning during his confirmation hearing, Fallon rebuffed repeated attempts by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) –an avowed proponent of escalation — to solicit his endorsement of the new Iraq plan:

GRAHAM: And you would support sending more troops to accomplish that goal?

FALLON: I don’t know how many troops are going to be necessary to effect the outcome that we want. But General Petraeus, in my conversations with him, indicated that he believes he needs these troops now, to get moving…

GRAHAM: And if he said he needed more, you would support him?

FALLON: I don’t know, sir. I haven’t been there yet, and I’m not in a position to make that judgment.

GRAHAM: Well, it’s his judgment about 21,500, does it make sense to you?

FALLON: I will better be able to give you an informed answer when I understand the situation better.

Moments later, responding to a question from Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), Fallon divulged he’s always “felt more comfortable in smaller numbers” rather than a larger force “decorating the landscape”:

FALLON: I cannot tell you with any degree of accuracy what percentage of troops or what the numbers are that are effective. And I believe that this is pretty judgmental. It’s pretty subjective, in my opinion, my experience. And it’s one that I am very anxious to gain an appreciation for from our ground commanders.

I’ve always been someone who felt more comfortable in smaller numbers of very effective capabilities than a large number of — whatevers — decorating the landscape. So we’ll be really interested in trying to find out where we really stand with these forces.

President Bush said of Fallon, “[He] has earned a reputation as one of our country’s foremost military strategists.” And like many other military strategists, he appears to have deep concerns about escalation in Iraq.