Which idiot limited the discussion to impeachment  or not? Who says that's was the the only game in town and where does the line form to stooge slap this individual to the cybercity limits and back?

The broader discussion shouldn't be a wonky one, but in essence and form that we need to hold this corrupt administration to account for their lies and criminality.

Maybe short sighted panicky Dem wonks can't seem to view anything that's going on as existing outside their pathetic weenie power struggles  in the very tiny Kingdom Of Wanky Wonka. I want my government back, my franchise back, my sanity back and I want to eat this GD tofu burger without choking on the newscast I just saw. At the very least, if I'm going to live with this level of piss offedness and certain knowledge that the planet's on the skids, I want a diet of Fricken Meat and WAY more Crap That's Bad for me.

If Dems -- including the controlling Chicken Wing of the party -- wanted a media- and public- friendly discussion that didn't rest on the I-word, they should demand instead Accountability. It not only makes running dems and the party overall look like grownups, but it forces the braintrust to start acting that way too. I've run out of patience for having the choice of an infantile ruling party and an adolescent one that wants to assume control and which "leaders" throw fits when engaged by anyone who criticizes them even when they blunder horribly.

On Accountability Before There's Even An Impeachment Debate, suggested serving: "We can't know where we are on (Taboo I-word) without a full accounting from President Bush and this administration on Iraq."

This would also cover his cover, meaning not just the CYA douchebaggery from the Exec miscreants but the circled wagons and enablers who weren't shy about riding his coattails then but are wiping the crud off themselves and, ideally, half onto "clean" opponents in upcoming contests with the "everybody's dirty" BS that's assumed with a dirty game where the cheaters rigged every aspect of the game.

And just to take the blinkers off the doofuses huddled in the Dem brain trust, this isn't just batting around abstract BS like framing the precious Dem Hooey or keeping grimy base paws off the Dry Powder, which continues to be used so sparingly I can only assume some Dems mean to employ it only when the partei rules the world.

(I consider myself locked out of party matters, but I do wish the Silly Boys Club up top would quit imperiously treating messages from the rabble as interloping on important party business.)

My concern goes beyond giving a hoot about the Dems, which are currently so low on my respect scale, my view is that if I have a party to support same time next year, I will. Otherwise good night and good luck.

As and someone whose rights have been (ab)used by both parties as barter, I want to know WTF has happened both with my franchise and the taxes that allegedly fund it in action. I care way more about that than who's shaking it harder, GOP or Dem leadership.

But here's why Congress and the pre- and post-empowered Dems keep getting turfed back to First-Square Go (as in, do not cross) while the Bush Gang and the cronies on its coattails continue to proceed merrily along doing WTF they wanted all along, regardless of polls, public discontent or the now risible absence of an effective opposition. It's all a matter of continuing to scrub the scoreboard of incremental gains/losses, so that the Dems keep going back to zero, either by getting thugged there or voluntarily, in milquetoasty fashion, by fear of merely being called stupid names by the bullies and their media trumpets.

From Glenn Greenwald today (Fred Hiatt defends the administration's mild, restrained secrecy):

For at least the fifth time in the past year, the Justice Department yesterday invoked the once rarely cited state secrets privilege to argue that a lawsuit alleging government wrongdoing should be dismissed without an airing [..cf..]

Unlike prior administrations which used the privilege to prevent the disclosure of specific documents, the Bush administration has used it as the equivalent of a nuclear weapon to argue that one case after the next alleging that they broke the law must be dismissed lest national secrets be jeoparadized. Thus, with regard to every major issue of legal and political controversy [...] the administration has invoked this privilege to block any judicial scrutiny of the legality of its behavior, thereby placing itself, by definition, beyond the rule of law. (Fred Hiatt defends the administration's mild, restrained secrecy by Glenn Greenwald, Salon 07/15/2007)

with the dems lying on their backs like a whipped dog.

too much of demfromct 'strategy', and some of these other 'strategies',

are just more shaving / hemming / hawing / ducking / dodging

THAT is what people are sick of!!

I just read that there are about 149 million americans working -

how many tens of millions would be fired on wednesday for screwing up on monday?

80 million?  120 million?

guess how many make less than the congresscritters of DC who can't do anything but hem and haw?

WTF, this ain't rocket science

NO leadership = NO support. PERIOD.

In the end you have to start thinking that the people get the representation they deserve. What else can all this come down to?

This is a president and an administration that sent the country to war on lies, that used torture, that suspended habeas corpus, that kidnaps people off the streets and holds them incommunicado in dungeons, that is like a cancer politicizing the entire machinery of government to perpetuate its own power, that has overseen the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top 1%, that spies on whoever it likes without regard for the law...and STILL only 46% are in favor of impeachment? And STILL Dems can't round up enough votes to put any brakes on? And they sign on 97-0 to a legal rationale for attacking Iran? And CNN has man-in-the-street interviews on withdrawal from Iraq that show people don't understand the situation, or don't care, don't understand their own form of government, or are ready to turn over their democracy to a strongman who will protect them, and on top of that blame the Democrats for "not supporting the troops and the president"!

It presumes -- prematurely and unfortunately, imo -- Dems taking over an Imperial Emperor/Presidency, which unilateral expanded power is preserved by congressional inaction today.

I don't want to live under a super-empowered Mega-Prez and two weakened other branches. I don't care if it's an idiot iron-fisted one like we have now or a "better" Queen Hillary or Young King Obama one.

As for giving both Warner-Lugar and Reed-Levin both and up and down vote - sure - if...

Durbin counts the votes and tells Reid that Warner-Lugar would fail to pass as he did with the Graham amendment. If it is even close to passing with no guarantee that it won't then of course he should not let it see the light of day.

To let it pass would be the most foolish thing the Dems could do and I am shocked that giving it that chance is being endorsed in this diary. If it passes then kiss off September or any time after. Bush would be in full control with an amendment to back him up. Again what is Armando thinking to even consider letting this pass. Some consolation that the Dems voting for it would have to explain themselves. Who would have to explain himself is Reid for letting it go to a vote at all.

Personally, as I have stated, I think the best POLITICAL, not just policy, course for Dems on Iraq is to provoke a binary showdown on the issue through the use of the Spending Power. I think the showdown can come next Spring if Dems announce their intentions now.

Oh really! Announce it now? That's just great. So come September when a new funding bill is due Bush will know that is the last money he will see? Sure. Why not just hand him what he really wants which is long term funding because that is what the September debate will be all about. Forget trying to get Repubs to join us in a bill to end the war. That won't even be on anyones lips. It would be all about long term funding to make sure the threat posed by the Dems is dead. The Repubs who do not want to vote with us and who would never vote with us will join Bush to change the September meme in a NY second.

Hell even a good percentage the Repubs who will join us would retreat to long term funding. And the public would scratch their collective heads and say "It's possible that enough Repubs are going to vote with the Dems to end the war. Why in the hell are the Dems cutting off funding without even trying to get enough Repubs first?!!!" Politically a non-starter. Sorry that pig won't fly.

It's good to be king. From the NY Post:

IRAQ'S ambassador to the United Nations, Hamid al Bayati, likes the high life. Bayati, who's been on the job for just over a year, is said to be living in a $22,000-a-month apartment at Trump World Tower on First Avenue. He's renting while the Iraqi U.N. Mission and official ambassador's residence on East 79th Street undergo a $40 million renovation. Where did the Iraqis get the cash? Newsmax.com reports the U.N. Security Council is paying with funds it once used to finance the now-terminated U.N. Iraq arms inspectors. When asked about the lavish use of the cash, Bayati refused comment. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Zalmay Khalilzad shrugged off the Iraqis' lush lifestyle by telling reporters, "$40 million is not a lot of money." According to U.N. documents, the U.S. delegation approved the transfer of the cash from the Security Council to Iraq. All of this comes as the federal Government Accounting Office reported the war in Iraq is costing American taxpayers $12 billion monthly.