...for our ruling elites, the suffering and death of innocent people, American, Iraqi or of any other nationality, are not of primary importance. In the perverse scheme of their priorities, such matters appear well down on the list. Their major and often sole concern is political power: its acquisition, its maintenance and its expansion. Tactics of only one kind are their concern: the means by which their own power is maintained and enhanced.

It is deeply regrettable, and also inevitable - since the world of political blogs cannot be other than a reflection of the larger culture - that this same indifference to human pain and suffering infects the approach of the great majority of political bloggers. For all their ferocious opposition to the Bush administration and to Republicans generally, [some] liberal and progressive bloggers act as if they are largely indifferent to bringing about a quick end to the incomprehensibly deadly Iraq occupation. They certainly demonstrate no sustained, serious effort to pressure Congressional Democrats into defunding the war - or into acting to oppose an attack on Iran in every way possible.  The concerns of these bloggers and the Washington Democrats are perfectly coextensive: they will condemn the Iraq war and act to block an attack on Iran only to the degree such actions will not endanger their perceived political opportunities in 2008.

When Bush vetoed the bill, and the Democrats failed to override it, they immediately began talking about concessions: giving Bush the money he wanted and removing any timetables for troop withdrawals. Simply refusing to fund the war (including by filibustering) wasn't considered.
...
This whole dynamic of riding the anti-war vote to power, then voting to fund an ongoing war while claiming to be ending it, reflect the conflicting necessities the Democrats face. As representatives of U.S. imperialism, they are committed to maintaining U.S. global dominance.

Shank: So why has Congress been so timid in exercising its authority to fund or not fund the war?

Kucinich: I think that's a question that requires a deeper understanding of the primary process that produced candidates that may not have been so strongly in favor of ending the war. But the surge that happened in the November elections was a profoundly anti-war surge that carried in all the Democrats, whatever their positions were. And now we find ourselves in this paradox: the American people demanding an end to the war and the Democratic Congress saying "hey, not so fast, here's a Democratic version of the war that we want you to look at as opposed to a Republican version of the war."

I think that as the American people realize what's happened here they're going to be outraged and they're going to lose faith in the Democratic Party.

1. Keep blocking any attempt to end the war
   
2. Allow GOP Senators and Reps who are in danger of losing their seats over the war to come out against the war (but not enough to change #1)
   
3. Keep claiming that progress is being made.
   
4. Hand the problem to the new President.
   
5. If the new President is a Democrat, blame him/her for losing the war after he/she withdraws the troops.

Bush has a 30%+/- approval rating. Pretty safe to say that all of them are repubs.

But on Iraq 34% of repubs disapprove of his handling of Iraq according to a CBS-NYT poll April 20-24.

So as far as the public is concerned 34% of repubs have already broke from him.

Now as we know congress as a whole is behind the curve compared to the public. That's true for either party. So already there is soft pressure on the repubs from 34% of their party. That number will grow as Iraq gets worse.

So given that we need approximately 35% of the repubs in the Senate to override a veto it is just a matter of time before public pressure will probably move enough Senators over to our side.

Same math holds true for the House. And already in both chambers we have see real and significant signs of movement.

So when Armando says:

The GOP base will hold the line on all Republicans. They will never ever break with Bush.

Wrong wrong wrong!

A third of them already have broke from Bush.

i'm siding with MB on this one.

You take two possibilities.   Here are two possibilities.

1.  Dems unifying behind Defunding.

2.  Repugs joining dems and parting with the president on progressively more and more aggressive legislation on the issue.

if you said no. 1, you're not being honest or you're being naive or dumb or both.  or all three.

i wouldn't know.

if we learned anything from reid/feingold it is that dems will never unite behind defunding.

keep making your phone calls.  keep using your "sticks".  all you're doing is giving webb's and tester's staffers headaches.  they're not going to change their mind just cause a blogger called them a coward.

The Democratic leadership thinks they can win by funding the occupation so that it will still be going on next year for them to run against.

To do that they have to pay for it.

With American lives. And Iraqi lives.

As soon as they do the electorate will blame the occupation on the Democrats.

The Republicans are a top down authoritarian organized machine. Not many will flip. They are laughing at the Democrats fighting amongst and dividing themselves.

The DLC, when they lose next year, will blame their loss on people who advocated defunding and ending the occupation by saying that there was no unity behind continuing to fund death to run against.

Wonderful scenario.

The only way out of it is the Democratic Leadership defunding the occupation. By do that they will cut the feet off the Republicans.