The bar was too high?!? Clearly Reid thinks the Dems can do even less than the wimpy squeaks of challenge they've thrown at the thugs. BushCo is so beyond where these Dems could take them even on if they passionately wanted to.

What happens after you get what you want?? When the troops are fighting their way out as Sestak noted:

It took us 6 months to redeploy from Somalia safely after Black Hawk Down. With alot more troops (140,000) and thousands of US civilians, it will take at least that long to safely come out via the roads or by limited flights from Iraq.

So, when we talk about cutting off funding "for the troops," what are we really talking about?

We must be talking about their meals and armor and vehicles. But there are several problems with making that sort of claim. First, by cutting off funding after a certain date and demanding that the troops be brought home before that date, you are not denying them anything they need while they are deployed.

Second, we have never provided them adequate supplies and services, and the Congress Members who have pushed to cut off the war funding are some of the same ones who have pushed hardest to try to change that.

Third, the war funding has nothing to do with changing the level of equipment and services we provide the troops; the big bucks go to mercenaries, not troops; and the really big bucks go to the profiteers providing the worst services for the highest prices.

The proposal to cut off money for U.S. combat is particularly far-fetched

This was originally posted by inclusiveheart at doks:

inclusiveheart: Rep. Joe Sestak participated in a Live Blog two Saturdays ago at firedoglake to talk about his vote on the supplemental.  He said a few things that shed light on his perspective about defunding including:

Sestak: "I have never changed from a date certain, but I ran the Navy's 70 billion dollar program as an admiral. The operations and Maintance account of our military will run out of funds in July; even the congressional research office states that. That is how the gas, bullets, etc, are provided for men and women in battle. We are presently taking money from the gas, etc, of those troops training in America and using that money until it runs out in July for troops in Iraq (by law, you cannot shift money between procurement accounts into money to operate and provide supplies to our troops; there are legal firewalls preventing that). It took us 6 months to redeploy from Somalia safely after Black Hawk Down. With alot more troops (140,000) and thousands of US civilians, it will take at least that long to safely come out via the roads or by limited flights from Iraq. There was no back room deal. This is one purely where we would would run out in July of the resources needed to protect our troops. There would be more causualties than one might imagine, if we tried, in the next 40 days, to get everyone out."

Yeah Charlie Cook is very sharp. I really doubt that he talked to Sestak but who knows? In any event Cook has a pretty good track record that is second to now of any blogger on the net.

And what he is saying is true regardless of what others say:

anti-war voters are very unlikely to defect to the GOP, stay home, or participate in another narcissistic exercise like backing Ralph Nader.

I mean who in their right mind can argue with that? What, Dems and Independents against this war are going to flock in droves to the War Mongering, Bomb Bomb Bomb, Repub candidates? Please!

And they are going to elect a Repub congress that they know are the ones along with Bush's veto who are keeping this was going? Double Please!

Are we to believe that they will blame the Dems for not stopping the war when it is in fact they know it is the Repubs and Bush who are keeping it going and the Repub Presidential candidates who will keep it going? Triple Please!

Common Sense says that will not happen just like Cook says. And then there are those that say none of the above will be considered by the voting public and they will vote the opposite of their desires and install those who will keep the war going.

Some of it was on that, sure.  A lot more was on the corruption of Congress, and the fact that the Republican majority had completely forgotten about its base.  The things that irritate you about the current Democratic majority not heeding the base?  Multiply that by six years, and you have the 2006 elections.  

Throwing the whole lot of them  (with few exceptions) on the street becomes more appealing every day.

sorry.  my issue with levin is that he discredits himself by admitting his position on the issue is shaped by how he will be perceived.  he should articulate his position on the issue like this:  "I can't support cutting off funding because I believe it would be turning our backs on the troops."

If he says it like this, "I can't support cutting off funding because I don't want to be perceived as someone who turned his back on the troops," then the only thing he has done is announce to the world that he is more worried about how he will be perceived than what he believes is right.

This is an endless cycle. The congressional Dems fail to stand their ground, the blogs scream spineless, and when Nov. comes we're told that we'd better behave or the republicans will getcha.

I've got news for the Dems., the indies don't have to accept their guilt trips. The number one issue is Iraq, and it will be Iraq for a long time. If those voters don't real progress in real terms, they may just decide to stay home.

Way to be leaders, Dems:

Just 27% of Americans now approve of the way Congress is doing its job, the poll found, down from 36% in January, when Democrats assumed control of the House and the Senate.

And 63% of Americans say that the new Democratic Congress is governing in a "business as usual" manner, rather than working to bring the fundamental change that party leaders promised after November's midterm election.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), the first woman to hold that position, has also failed to impress many Americans. Only 36% approve of the way she is handling the job, the poll found.

In contrast, 46% of Americans in the current poll said they approved of the way Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia handled the job after he led the GOP into the majority in 1994.

The poll also found continued public unhappiness with President Bush, whose approval ratings have been stuck below 40% since last year.

• Cambodia - In late December 1970, Congress passes the Supplemental Foreign Assistance Appropriations Act prohibiting the use of funds to finance the introduction of United States ground combat troops into Cambodia or to provide U.S. advisors to or for Cambodian military forces in Cambodia.


• Vietnam - In late June 1973, Congress passes the second Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY1973. This legislation contains language cutting off funds for combat activities in Vietnam after August 15, 1973.


• Somalia - In November 1993, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act includes a provision that prohibits funding after March 31, 1994 for military operations in Somalia, except for a limited number of military personnel to protect American diplomatic personnel and American citizens, unless further authorized by Congress.


• Bosnia - In 1998, Congress passes the Defense Authorization Bill, with a provision that prohibits funding for Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless the President makes certain assurances.

From Ted Koppel:

I ran into an old source the other day who held a senior position at the Pentagon until his retirement. He occasionally briefs Senator Clinton on the situation in the Gulf. She told him that if she were elected president and then re-elected four years later she would still expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq at the end of her second term.

If Cook can explain how looking politically cynical, spineless, losing independents and deflating your base is good politics...

That is all we are hearing for the democrats anymore is excuses of why they did not do anything that the voters told them they wanted in the 2006 election.

They said they could not do anything when they were the minority , and hell now that they are the majority the republican minority is doing more then they did when the were the minority and now that they are the majority. Now wonder they did not support Lamont against the republican candidate Lieberman , they agree with Bush and his policies.

We need to get more information on the background of our democrats in the primary elections , so we do not let the (republicans) falsely run as our democrats in the general elections.