Folding: House Dems Cave In On Ending Iraq Funding

From Greg Sargent:

. . . Though the bill mandates withdrawal by Fall 2008 at the latest, it's going to be at least partly a disappointment to some House liberals. That's because language that was in earlier drafts that would have clipped funding after the deadline -- as opposed to merely declaring the war illegal -- has been taken out. House leaders will argue that the bill does do its job, because it declares the war illegal beyond a certain date. But liberal House sources say this removed language was critical in ending the war in practice, because it would enforce the war's end with the power of the purse rather than requiring a trip to court in hopes that judges will end the war.

Remember the Kosovo case Kucinich brought? A court case to end a war? Just pathetic. Let's see Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers sell this one.

This is simply horrible. Just horrible.

< Will Rove Testify On US Atty Scandal? | The Netroots On Iraq: Clueless >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The snakes have done (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Electa on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:57:49 PM EST
    it again, wiggled down to the ground on their bellies.  They are spineless.  Where do we go and what do we do?  The traditional tools of democracy for change simply aren't working.

    I have no answers right now on what to do (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:03:44 PM EST
    I am devastated by this.

    It was to be expected (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MacLane on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:16:44 PM EST
    Looks like there is a camel's nose in the big tent. Of course the Democrats would weasel out of anything resembling a coherent stand against the war. I'm no Republican either: in fact, ever since Bush vetoed Federal stem cell research, I decided to have absolutely nothing to do with them.

    Question: is this devastating enough to change parties, or abandon them altogether?


    No I disagree (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:25:01 PM EST
    This is a devastating loss for ending the war.

    This could guarantee perpetual war.

    The Senate must stop this.


    The Senate supports the war (none / 0) (#71)
    by Andreas on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:32:46 PM EST
    The Senate must stop this.

    The Senate is controlled by the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. In fact every single member of the Senate supports the war! (See US Senate votes 100-0 for $70 billion more in war spending)

    Why do you try to spread the illusion that it is interested in stopping the war?


    I am of two minds on that very question. (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Noor on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:34:03 PM EST
    I've leaned Green before, and I wish they and some of the other minority parties were a more potent force in American politics.  There's a benefit to the Dutch and German systems:  it takes a coalition to rule, and that means taking the opinions of all members seriously in order to get anything done.  I've long rued our winner-take-all electoral system, but this is in large part structural now.

    BTD, I'm dispirited over this too.  But regardless, I'm going to tell you what my husband said to me this evening about this betrayal:  it does not matter if we lose the votes.  It does not matter if the bill is vetoed, it does not matter if the override fails.  What matters is getting the votes, vetoes and failed overrides on the record.  The American people will then see who  kept faith with them and who did not.  It will come back to haunt them in a year and half.  The Republicans, and the Blue Dogs, will lose even more seats, and they will lose the presidency.

    I know it is cold comfort.  And offering a glass of Shiraz over the 'net isn't much help either.  Come to think of it, I need a second glass now....


    I agree with your husband. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:43:13 PM EST
    Oh rest assured (4.42 / 7) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:44:48 PM EST
    I wil be calling out the collaborators by name on this one.

    Including any members of the Out of Iraq Caucus that vote for this.


    My concern is as I stated before (none / 0) (#68)
    by TexDem on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:14:29 AM EST
    If we are in Iraq come January '09 it will be as a support base for our troops in Iran. By not forcing Shrubco out of Iraq they/he will take this as an implicit consent to go into Iran. They don't need encouragement from us by any halfas#ed  measures. We half to move the Overton Window by miles not inches. By doing these mealy-mouth actions they are only doing the administrations work for them, imo.
    It's time to call the Blue Dogs and their enablers out. If Hoyer is using them as cover then let's rip that cover away and expose him.

    Editor please (none / 0) (#69)
    by TexDem on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:17:05 AM EST
    have not half. WTF, where did that come from.

    Yes, also. (none / 0) (#48)
    by walt on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:37:23 AM EST

    It seems to me that the Democratic Party leaders are making some extremely controversial, very difficult maneuvers to force various GOoPerz, rethuglicans, fundagelicals, wingnutz, neocons, paleocons & fellow racketeers into "being on the record" against all of the various "end the war" options.

    So I agree with your husband--only more vigorously.


    Mighty powerful sentence there (none / 0) (#72)
    by PaintyKat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 03:07:54 PM EST
    Still laughing at the group descriptions but I believe you have found the silver lining and one I can agree with.  It is a step toward making these suckers own their own slaughter and mayhem

    Is Whitewater throwing any money at Democrats?  As we saw in Louisiana, this group has their foot into far more than just war in the MiddleEast.  They are part of the war against citizens who get in Bush's way as residents of LA can attest post Katrina.



    Totally agree (none / 0) (#59)
    by dead dancer on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 07:37:34 AM EST
    Since when is a second glass of wine not a good idea!

    And yes, lets get the b*stards on record.


    pish (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by buhdydharma on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:18:08 PM EST
    Cheer up!

    But seriously,

    This was the first battle, we know who the players are now. Support the Progressives, dis the Dogs, try to swing the balance and wait for Bush to need money again.

    In the meantime Invetigate, Impeach, weaken them through overloading, distracting and Congressional crisising them. The GOP Coalition and cohesion will weaken as the elections near.

    Hmmm and maybe dig up dirt on Republicant Sentors?


    Soory (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:24:07 PM EST
    You are reall ymissing the iomport of this.

    They REJECTED defunding 18 months from now!!!!

    They proposed and rejected my idea. It is dead in the water.

    It would have been better if the idea were NEVER presented.

    No one in the Out of Iraq causcus can in good conscience vote for this proposal.

    It guarantees perpetual war.


    wel s**t (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by buhdydharma on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:51:47 PM EST
    that pretty much leaves impeachment, then huh?

    Or surrender.

    Once you are done chewing folks out, get into the investigations.

    Remeber Bluto!


    Impeachment? (4.50 / 2) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:57:54 PM EST
    They won't impeach the dog catcher, and by dog catcher I mean Gonzo.

    Alternatives? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 08:53:33 AM EST
    Of course if they're too spineless to end the war there will be no stomach for impeachment either.  We must pressure the relevant committee chairs to take appropriate action though.  Now that the defunding initiative is dead in the water (absent unlikely action in the Senate) the only alternative is to get serious investigations going in the hopes that enough skeletons will be uncovered to make impeachment palatable to the leadership.  I fear though that they lack the courage to do anything but sit back and wait.  They are useless.

    Link to your proposal (none / 0) (#42)
    by PaintyKat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:04:24 AM EST
    Is there a link to your proposal?

    I feel like I am starting from behind.  Is there no chance this is an incremental step?  Can it be reviewed at some future date?

    Isn't it assumed Bush will veto it anyway and some may be saving the language of defunding?

    Isn't it better to compromise with Blue Dogs than lose the coalition?

    Can't understand why this is such a hopeless position, but the naysayers who are always waiting to kick the Democrats seem mighty happy with this decision by House Democrats.  I can imagine how the Pelosi detractors will be out in full hate.

    Does anyone have contact info. for the Out of Iraq Caucus handy?  If so, perhaps you can post it.  If not, I will do some digging.  I would like to formulate a list of actions we could get started with so that we don't feel stuck.

    Guess I will have to read more before I can know exactly what this means.

    In the meantime, don't let this become so personal and get you down.



    Please review my (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:36:02 AM EST
    6 most recent War in Iraq posts.

    No answers (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by vcmvo2 on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:31:03 PM EST
    You will come up with something - of that I'm certain. The other idea is to keep after them and don't give up. You have been heard by a lot more people than you realize. Buhdy wrote a diary about the defunding and polled on it - BTD's proposal won by a long shot!

    Thankls for stopping by (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:43:14 PM EST
    My e-mails to you seem to be blocked.

    I'm getting them now thanks! (none / 0) (#74)
    by vcmvo2 on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 11:33:47 PM EST
    I have an evil spamfilter :)

    Well, I suppose this might hold up (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:15:49 PM EST
    In a year, they could use this as an excuse to do what you want them to do now: cut off the funds.

    I'd rather they'd gone further, though.

    Excuse me? (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:22:21 PM EST
    But they need to announce that NOW!!! Not repudiate the idea NOW!!

    This is exactly  the OPPOSITE of what I want the me to do.


    My point is (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:26:32 PM EST
    if they won't spin this as being a real mandate, then we'll have to try and do it for them. I'm remined of the "gang of 14 compromise." We really lost, but Harry Reid made lots of people think we'd won.

    What? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:30:00 PM EST
    I ahvae no idea what you are taling about. A mandate? For Bush you mean?

    That Bush has a deadline from the people (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:32:13 PM EST
    who write checks. You and I know that it's toothless, but if we can try to spin it differently. That is, unless you still want to try and convince Pelosi to go with something stronger.

    My question is: how do we salvage what we've been given?


    Spin what? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:42:21 PM EST
    What are you taling about?

    You and I agree that the Dems just. . . (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:49:07 PM EST
    set a meaningless deadline, right?

    Well, the rest of the world doesn't know that, so let's hold Bush and the Democrats to it.

    Better yet, why you don't tell me how you think we should react. Just tell theHouse  Dems to go to hell? I don't think we're going to get anywhere with that.


    No (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:57:08 PM EST
    they did not set a deadline at all.

    I'm sure that's what Bush will argue (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:03:27 AM EST
    So what do we do now?

    I dunno (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:48:33 AM EST
    erg (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:03:01 AM EST
    I'm afraid I won't be any good at selling shoes. Back to fighting the good fight?

    I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:15:29 AM EST
    I do know that I am done with the "netroots leadership" and am looking to see if anyone is ready to take up the mantle.

    You (2.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 08:55:06 AM EST
    are uniquely situation to do so in the netroots IMO.

    I am getting physically sick (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by shpilk on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:26:34 PM EST
    thinking about this.

    I'm finishing up work, going home and I'm having a few stiff belts.

    My god, what is happening to my country?

    Makes me question why be involved... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:47:15 PM EST
    in politics.  Dems will not win veto-proof majorities soon.  Too many safe seats.

    Veto proof for what? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:50:25 PM EST
    What will Bush ever have to veto? He LOVES this bill.

    Time to think about (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by roboleftalk on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:06:45 AM EST
    folding the big tent and starting again with a smaller one, one that contains folks with some principles and guts.

    The caving Dems (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by leoncarre on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:21:00 AM EST
    Ted Koppel on last Sunday's Meet the Press:
    I have this feeling that on the one hand, the Democrats are making a great deal of hay out of saying we have to get out of Iraq, and indeed we do at some point or another. But the notion that the war will be over when we pull out of Iraq, and even when we pull out of Afghanistan, you heard what Gen. Abizaid had to say, it's not going to be over. It's going to be a different war, but the war continues

    Bush said it's going to be the next President's war.  And the Dems are caving towards perpetual war.  Do they know what they are doing??

    No. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Noor on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:37:47 AM EST
    Hell, no!!  They haven't got a friggin' clue.  They only think they do, and that's the scary part.  They're not part of the solution, and that means they are now part of the problem.  Dean can kiss the 50-state strategy goodbye if the Congressional Dems keep this crap up, because no one in the grassroots will believe another word that passes their lying lips.  I know I sure as hell won't.

    I think I'd better shut up now before I say things that might get me into trouble.  How much more FUBAR can this possibly get?


    What a SHOCK. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Maryscott OConnor on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:27:44 AM EST

    And thinking about my six year-old son (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:56:05 AM EST
    Peacefully asleep in his room on the other side of my office wall.  His dog asleep in bed with him.  The little dog that keeps him from feeling afraid of closet monsters and mummies and everything else in the dark and child's mind.  But the real monsters, they are war, and hatred, and ignorance, and having no excuse for any of it.  

    What kind of f*cking country and world am I training him to tolerate?  What kind of war will he be off fighting when I realize the consequences of my inaction?

    I hope it's not true.  I hope littering my reps with calls and emails and faxes will do something.  I just don't know right now.

    When will the Dem leadership learn? (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 02:34:24 AM EST
    Anything but complete capitulation gets them a savaging from the administration mouthpieces anyway. So why not at least do the right thing and make the savaging worthwhile?

    WaPo editorial smackdown - "The Pelosi Plan for Iraq: It makes perfect sense, if the goal is winning votes in the United States."

    They have it pegged, all right.

    Except (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 08:56:51 AM EST
    that it will lose them votes in the long run.

    They're counting on the fact (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:55:04 PM EST
    that there's no other game in town.

    Until that changes they won't need to either.


    what is so hard? (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by pyrrho on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 03:39:41 AM EST
    it's not like they couldn't vote to give extra money in the last minute, cave years from now even... their problem is they think the conservatives have good ideas on this... they don't like the cards they are dealt as the opposers of war.  Just a small number of conservatives spoil the resolve against war, and the result is war makes sense, seems the "conservative" thing to do.

    a reality check dictates that not killing people is the conservative thing to do...

    Nancy Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 03:46:05 AM EST
    The Price Of A Soul
    Kucinich's bill, if passed, would end US military involvement in Iraq within 90 days of passage
    Kucinich's plan would provide that "Not later than the end of the 3-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, all United States Armed Forces serving in Iraq shall be completely withdrawn from Iraq and returned to the United States or redeployed outside of the Middle East.".

    His plan also would establish a "Prohibition on Use of Funds To Continue Deployment of Armed Forces in Iraq", except where needed to ensure the security of Iraq and to provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of the Armed Forces from Iraq.
    Well Nancy, now you have a way. Or are you as bought, paid for, and owned, as the rethugs were and are by big oil and by those contractors and subcontractors mentioned in Sec. 2, Para. 3 of Kucinich's bill?
    There is a funny thing about selling your soul, Nancy.

    You usually get paid for it with something equally worthless.

    Thoroughly disgusted (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:54:45 AM EST
    Cheney and Bush and the rethuglicans were bad enough. The most deceitful bloodthirsty psychopathic killers and parasites ever to hold power in America. But after yesterday that distinction falls to Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party leadership.
    It was the best opportunity Pelosi et al had to bring the Mid East Debacle to an end and show the world that they stood behind all of the high sounding rhetoric that had enabled them to take back control of Congress in last Novembers mid-term elections, and they ignored it. Worse, they simply threw it away, while at the same time spitting in the faces of the voters who swept them into the power position that they now refuse to use to further those voters express wishes and intentions. Instead they have thoroughly betrayed the American people and the Iraq people.

    I could not be any more thoroughly disgusted than I am this morning.


    Lets face it... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 03:50:29 AM EST
    If the Democrats really wanted to end the war they can. And they can have most of the troops home before July 4 this year.

    If they want to.....

    Complicity. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 04:06:38 AM EST
    AP, March 12, 2007
    WASHINGTON - Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President Bush's authority for taking military action against Iran as the leadership concentrated on a looming confrontation with the White House over the Iraq war.

    Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

    End War - NOW! (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Peaches on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:47:12 AM EST
    End the war and end it right now. I have always said that about every war. Stop the killing. Its barbaric. I don't pretend to know how to do it. I know that I hate war. I don't know how to stop it. If I was alive when Abraham Lincoln was President I would have been an abolitionist. I would have hated slavery. But, I would have been torn, because I also hate war. We ended slavery, and at a great cost to our nation and many lives. How did Abraham Lincoln manage to navigate his way through his Presidency?

    Frederick Douglas was an abolitionist and he had some strong statements about ending slavery. He wanted the Slaves freed immediately. It was a moral issue. Lincoln also hated slavery, but he was not an activist or reformer. He was a pragmatist and a politician. He was concerned with what the people would allow him to do, but also with the longer view of changing the people's view of slavery over time. In the latest New York Review of Books a review by James Mcpherson of James Oak's book on the tension between Lincoln and Douglas offers this insight on democracy and the interdependent role of reformers and politicians.

    James Oakes believes that Lincoln possessed as much "anti-slavery conviction" as Douglass himself. "I have always hated slavery," said Lincoln in 1858, "as much as any Abolitionist." The difference between the two men was one of position and tactics, not conviction. Douglass was a radical reformer whose mission was to proclaim principles and to demand that the people and their leaders live up to them. Lincoln was a politician, a practitioner of the art of the possible, a pragmatist who subscribed to the same principles but recognized that they could only be achieved in gradual, step-by-step fashion through compromise and negotiation, in pace with progressive changes in public opinion and political realities. Oakes describes a symbiosis between the radical Douglass and the Republican Lincoln: "It is important to democracy that reformers like Frederick Douglass could say what needed to be said, but it is indispensable to democracy that politicians like Abraham Lincoln could do only what the law and the people allowed them to do.

    I am not so careless to compare Pelosi or Reid or any other Democratic leader with Lincoln, but it is fundamental to understand that politics is about gradual change. Bringing this back to the Iraq war, again I say, end it as soon as possible. But, we are talking about more than the Iraq war. Charging the democratic leadership with wanting perpetual war is pointless, because we already have perpetual war. This will be confirmed by my viewing of the NCAA tournament this upcoming weekend with constant stream of recruitment commercials from our military services. Its confirmed when I go to my community center and see the advertisements for the US army not only on the walls, but the "donated" equipment. Our society is immersed in war and getting ourselves out of this will take nothing short of a revolution, I hope short of another Civil War.

    The War in Iraq doesn't end easily, because too many people's livelihood depends on it. There are government contracts to fulfill and corporate interests to look out for. We all know by now that this is not about democracy, its about resources and power. We are committed in the Middle East and once committed, we are caught. This was why many of us so strongly opposed the invasion in the first place. We ended Viet Nam, but the cold War continued. Our Military continued to grow and investments were made, until our economy depended upon the military industrial congressional complex. If and when we are able to end this War in Iraq, through defunding or whatever means, we must also dismantle this complex if we are to see any lasting Peace.

    I might not make any sense to the proponents of War - who believe I am disillusioned by the power of love and hope - nor to the realist reformers, who are smarter than I and KNOW how to end this war, but in both cases I am reassured by the power of being fearless in the face of human imperfection. We go on, we live, we breathe and we laugh. My spring seedlings have made there annual appearance, as one more battle is fought in Washington and people line up to decide which side won. The vision is lasting Peace. Don't give up hope.

    They've also dropped the (4.71 / 7) (#3)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:09:34 PM EST
    requirement for Bush to get congressional approval before launching an attack on Iran:

    Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

    Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy....

    The Iran-related proposal stemmed from a desire to make sure Bush did not launch an attack without going to Congress for approval, but drew opposition from numerous members of the rank and file in a series of closed-door sessions last week.

    Rep. Shelley Berkley (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., said in an interview there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state.

    "It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," she said of the now-abandoned provision.

    Bush must be laughing his head off. Negotiate?

    And the Netroots is busy (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:11:08 PM EST
    PResidential straw polling and celebrating ending the Fox debate in Nevada next August. Woo hoo!!

    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by pico on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:23:18 PM EST
    There's a whole single diary generating a few comments here and there.  What do you want, a front page story or something?  

    Once a week woulod be nice (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:25:26 PM EST
    That's selling McJoan (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by prairiefire on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:46:37 PM EST
    and her many front page DKOS posts including her latest on this particular travesty a whole lot shorter than she deserves. I'm surprised at your comment.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:56:21 PM EST
    Maybe. I'll make it up to her with a nice compliment or two later.

    mcjoan's dkos FP (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by PaintyKat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:12:52 AM EST
    You better.



    Are they trying (3.66 / 3) (#12)
    by pico on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:25:03 PM EST
    to prolong this war to see if they can milk a second election out of it?  Because I don't see that as such a good idea.

    I do believe that is what they are doing (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:39:52 PM EST
    If that's true (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by roboleftalk on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:11:26 AM EST
    they are as sick as Bush and his ilk.

    I've got to go listen to some music or I am going to get violent.


    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 08:55:40 AM EST
    that's what they're doing.  And I think it will backfire.

    Can't bite my tongue anymore (none / 0) (#45)
    by mikeyshriver on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:24:40 AM EST
    Let me see if I am getting this right -- we are supposed to be outraged at the House Democrats because they are unable to rise above their petty squabbling over relatively inconsequential philosophical baises in such a maner as to effctively bring to a screeching halt this debacle of fairly epic proportions.  Right?

    The low point of these past few day's worth of back and forths I thought was that cluster of points that were demonstrating either a scant or undetectable awareness of the panoply of activities undertaken every yeas as  a part of the Congressional Budget and Appropriations process

    That was then. This is now.
    Not now -- this is now a whole new experience.  

    Politely, "Pot, kettle.  Kettle, pot."

    Don't get me wrong, I do lot find the compromise language to be what I want and what I believe should be done. Factions with in the caucus kept bringing this issue over language and unity and possible fractionating thereof to the table, not Leadership.

    But we have known all along that this internal struggle was probable.  Fine.  And it seems that we were right again.

    But what I find not even vaguely humorous is the inability of us turning that mirror of reality we keep holding up to everyone "out there" towards our selves, "in here."

    What exactly are you saying? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:33:15 AM EST
    You seem to make no sense to me.

    I find nothing that resembles what I have been arguing for in your comment.


    Not you I was speaking of. n/t (none / 0) (#52)
    by mikeyshriver on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:56:38 AM EST
    What ended Vietnam will end this (none / 0) (#49)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:44:35 AM EST
    People in the streets.  And the equivalent of Watergate (Fitz, where are you?).  Short of that, I don't even want to think about it right now.  Canada is looking nicer and nicer each day.  And I am more and more serious each day.  

    That the these Dem don't even have enough moral spine to keep him out of Iran, that they won't accept even a few scraps of their constitutionally mandated responsibility, holy shiite, what a bunch of cowardly and disgraceful political whores.    

    If this is true, politics is dead and gone.  Cremated.  Buried.  Forgotten with the morning scores.

    The only thing that will save us is art and artists willing to die for it.  And one need not take me literally.  At all.

    Grrrrrrr! (none / 0) (#50)
    by walt on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:50:32 AM EST
    BigTentDemocrat or puptentprogressive or lean-to liberal, this is worse than horrible [I don't like trying to post here & not use my natural vituperative language].  Murtha must be very close to an apoplectic cardiac event----as in thrombosis or infarction.  He's a retired Marine colonel, so the urge to choke the living fecal matter out of his colleagues must be verging on terminal.

    I do know & understand & comprehend that Pelosi & Reid want the rethuglicans on record, for a variety of political, legislative & publicity reasons.  But the delays are killing people, maiming & destroying lives----& they play politics with power struggles that can be ignored.  Just don't pass any budget bills.

    Damn it.

    On the record (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 07:46:47 AM EST
    What she has done is place herself and her caucus on the record.

    This is asinine.


    You'd prefer she fail at first blush? (none / 0) (#53)
    by mikeyshriver on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 02:08:12 AM EST
    This is bewildering. Where is it that I will find Pelosi being the factious contingent within the Democratic caucus, that these compromises were being made by Pelosi to make sure that Peloisi did not walk from the vote and leave the Speaker with egg on her face and our troops no better of than before the vote?

    Is it just me that keeps reading and following this issue who finds the (unacceptable take-home message to be that the House Democratic Caucus is neither as aggressive/progressive as its Speaker and that there is NO clear consensus among the House Democratic Caucus that the November election results were a wake-up call the THEM as much as tit was to the Bush Administration?

    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 07:40:22 AM EST
    You prefer this failure, not me.

    I hear you - It is bewildering (none / 0) (#73)
    by PaintyKat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 03:40:02 PM EST
    I can't seem to bump into too many folks interested in in finding solutions so much as being gleeful that the anticipated failure is fueling their general antipathy for the Democratic Party and some folks look for every opportunity to denegrate Nancy Pelosi.

    Pelosi has what she has to work with and that is the reality.  It is frustrating to me for the Netroots to believe it is more important and speaks for "the people" but then denigrates everything in its path.

    My comment is a general statement of frustration and as I pointed out somewhere else, I am probably too process oriented and desire action more than emotional celebration the Democrats have failed as expected.

    We have been saying this war was barbaric since 2003 but it has continued as Bush and Cheney increased the reasons for outrage, yet, the Democrats are supposed to have isolated this particular action and passed legislation with a date certain in which the war will be stopped and unfunded in just 6 weeks or they have already failed as was anticipated the whole time.

    I will go back and read BTD's six segments on the war and see if I can understand what I am missing but I don't understand why this is the very bill is the one that had to happen at this point.  

    If the point is to remind the public this is a GOP mess and it needs to end immediately, can't they continue to attempt adding it to every bill and publicizing who doesn't agree in the coalition?