House Backs Pelosi's Iraq Spending Bill

After weeks of bitter wrangling, the House voted Friday for Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plan to attach benchmarks and an exit timeline to funding for the continuation of the Iraq War.

The vote was 218-212, with anti-war progressives who had initially objected to the Pelosi plan because it continued to fund the war, helping to provide the margin of victory.

216 Democrats voted for the spending bill, as did two Republicans -- Maryland's Wayne Gilchrest and North Carolina's Walter Jones, both veteran war critics. Among the Democrats who voted for the measure were many who, in the past, had opposed supplemental funding requests from the Bush White House, including Wisconsin's Tammy Baldwin, Michigan's John Conyers, Washington's Jim McDermott and Massachusetts' Jim McGovern.

198 Republicans voted against the bill, as did 14 Democrats. Some of the Democrats who opposed the bill were southern conservatives who essentially support President Bush's handling of the war. But eight of the "no" votes came from anti-war Democrats, who object to any additional funding of the war joined them -- including Georgia's John Lewis, Ohio's Dennis Kucinich, California's Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson and Lynn Woolsey.

Several anti-war Republicans, including Texan Ron Paul and Tennessee's John Duncan, also voted "no."

One anti-war Democrat, California's Pete Stark, vote "present."

On Thursday night, Lee, Waters, Watson and Woolsey had released a statement that said, "After two grueling weeks of meetings, progressive members of Congress brought forth an agreement that provided the momentum to pass a supplemental spending bill that, for the first time, establishes a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq."

As such, Waters, a founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said to anti-war members: "We have released people who were beginning…to be pulled in a different direction. We don't want them to be put in a position where they look like they are undermining Nancy's speakership."

Lee said, "I have struggled with this decision, but I finally decided that, while I cannot betray my conscience, I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war."

By suggesting that anti-war members could give their votes to Pelosi, the four California progressives provided significant aid to the speaker's effort to pass the spending bill. Pelosi needed roughly 218 votes to prevail, and she could not have gotten near that number without the support of anti-war Democrats who had voted against previous supplemental spending measures.

When it became clear that their specific support would not be needed to get to the 218 figure, however, Lee Waters, Watson and Woolsey cast votes of conscience against further funding of the war. How would they have voted if Pelosi's bill had faced defeat without them? That's a question that will continue to be asked. Lee almost certainly would have cast a "no" vote, as she did when the bill was considered by the Appropriations Committee. The others might well have voted "no," as well. But they did not have to face the stark question of whether they wanted to cast the votes that killed a measure that, while too soft for their tastes, still expressed a measure of anti-war sentiment.

The dispute over the bill opened serious divisions within the anti-war movement. some of which will be slow to heal. While Lee, Waters, Watson and Woolsey -- who had been some of the most vocal critics of the bill -- ultimately cast "no" votes, other anti-war members such as Vermont's Peter Welch voted "yes." As the representative of a state that has espressed strong opposition to continued funding of the war, Welch and others like him are likely to feel heat at home.

But, just as many in the anti-war community have complaints about the Pelosi package, the Bush White House is also unhappy.

Even though Pelosi's bill provides the White House with the money the president requested, Bush has promised a veto of any measure with benchmarks or a timeline.

The Senate has begun consideration of a spending bill with a tougher timeline. If it passes such a measure, the House and Senate bills will have to be reconciled before going to the president's desk.

Translation: This fight is a long way from over.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (191)

1. YOU ANTI AMERICAN TRAITORS JUST VOTED FOR YOUR EVENTUAL DEFEAT. THE PRESIDENT WILL VETO THIS AND YOU WILL HAVE ACHIEVED NOTHING. THE SURGE IS WORKING AND THE WAR WILL BE WON. THEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL SEE CLEARLY AGAIN WHO IS OUT TO PROTECT THEM AND WHO CARES ONLY ABOUT POWER AT ANY COST NO MATTER WHAT IS DOES TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

   FUCK ALL YOU LIBZ....

   Posted by looneylefties at 03/23/2007 @ 1:31pm

2. note how nichols characterized the progressive vote as one of "conscience." interesting choice of words, which leads me to suggest that those progressives were, although compassionate and honest, thoroughly impractical.

   come on, a firm deadline on exit by next year? sounds fine to me. anything is good at this point.

   Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 1:37pm

3. i wonder if zero marched last sunday? i wonder if he has called any of his congressmen and women to voice objections? i wonder if he even really cares about ordinary iraqis or palestinians?

   pretty easy engaging in this while sipping coffee in your posh seattle apartment.

   Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 1:38pm

4. It is typical of Dems to vote for surrender

   and some republicans, evidently.

   hey liberty, can you tell us who we would be "surrending" to if we set a firm date for withdrawal?

   Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 1:40pm

5. it is unconstitutional for Congress to attempt to take over the role of Commander-in-Chief with the proposed timelines for withdrawal.

   they don't want to "takeover" the role of the so-called Commander (strange name for a guy who deliberately dodged military service, and the lied about it); they merely want to oversee and deliberate his (clearly moronic) decisions regarding our two wars.

   Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 1:43pm

6. if the democrats didn't win in november, we would be so head-deep in shit right now....fortunately, we're starting to see a bit clearer. there's actually some hope.

   me? i think pelosi's bill is just fine. a deadline? great idea. benchmarks? sure. what more do people want? and if there is more that you want, then call your fucking senators.....

   Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 1:45pm

7. DD, they (congress) can cut funding, which they are too cowardly to do, other than that, they can't micromanage the Pres on the war, as the Senate will prove shortly, when they kill this idiotic bill.

   Posted by davebarlett at 03/23/2007 @ 1:46pm

8. It'll be interesting to hear the Monkey-in-Chief's response in a few minutes. Wonder what worn-out cliches he'll turn to this time.

   Posted by BlueTexan at 03/23/2007 @ 1:52pm

9. HE WILL SHOVE IT RIGHT BACK UP YOUR ASSES LIBZ....COUNT ON IT.....THIS IS WAR AND PUKES LIKE YOU HAVE TO BE CRUSHED LIKE THE GRAPES YOU ARE

   Posted by looneylefties at 03/23/2007 @ 1:54pm

10. Liberty, DaveBarlett and whoever else:

    Can't micromanage the pres? Somebody better!

    How the hell can you guys respect this faux commander who invaded without the forces needed to hold the territory until a new regime was in place?

    Thank God almighty that someone has actually put together something resembling a step in the right direction, after four years of a blind man directing traffic.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 03/23/2007 @ 1:54pm

11. Chimpy: "If we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us home...just like they did to Spain and England."

    Except of course, the terrorists bombed the trains in Spain & England while both countries still had army contingents in Iraq.

    Posted by nathanhale at 03/23/2007 @ 1:55pm

12. when they kill this idiotic bill

    apparently "idiotic" = 218 votes

    dave, do you have a better idea? one that actually has a chance of passing both houses of congress AND avoids presidential veto? if your idea is more "extreme" (read: anti-war) than this bill, how far do you think it will go? seriously.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 1:56pm

13. Looneylefties is the perfect voice of support for this war. So clear, so true, so full of poo.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 03/23/2007 @ 1:58pm

14. Thank God almighty that someone has actually put together something resembling a step in the right direction

    thank you! apparently the "progressives" on this site want a more demanding bill than this one, despite the fact that this seriously undemanding bill barely passed the house.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 1:58pm

15. Anti-American traitors, votes for surrender, brave patriots - don't bother with the rational argumentation and civil discourse ladies and gents. It's all about whining and flag waving. Here's a thought. When the President vetos the bill, forget the half-measures and deauthorize the war. It's the prerogative of Congress, and it is the appropriate next step.

    Further, if you are so fired up about the war, join it. The Army is taking people age 42 and below - the fact you aren't there says volumes. Oh, and before you move to the ad hominum attacks, I'm a veteran and have served in the Persian Gulf. Have you?

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/23/2007 @ 1:58pm

16. keep in mind, any member of congress has the ability to draft legislation. evidently, those progressives who drafted legislation to get us out of iraq (either immediately or by year's end) weren't able to shore up the required support. pelosi, with a more moderate proposal, was able to do so.

    so who is more effective? pelosi or barb lee?

    can any "progressive" honestly answer this question?

    Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 2:02pm

17. Hey Naderites, bow down before an intelligent person.

    The Democrats PASSED the bill, so SHUT UP, shut your dammn mouths.

    14 Democrats and 198 Republicans voted in favor of more rope for the Republican Party.

    One day, when the Republicans are a tiny, insignificant little runt organization, you Naderites will probably forge a minority coalition with the Republicans. The Green Party, which Nader ran against and said is "part of the problem", kicked Naders ass in 2004, got way more votes than him. These Greens and the Democrats will be the 2 major parties. Ralph Nader called Green Party members "part of the problem".

    They did it, Naderites, SO SHUT UP.

    Posted by conshame at 03/23/2007 @ 2:04pm

18. Naderites, ARE "part of the problem", along with the Republicans.

    Posted by conshame at 03/23/2007 @ 2:05pm

19. It is typical of Dems to vote for surrender. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/23/2007 @ 1:38pm

    No, this isn't a vote for surrender. Your foolish President is waging a losing war. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were sworn enemies of Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden wanted to bait the US into invading and occupying a predominately Muslim Middle Eastern country to verify his claims that the US wanted to take over the Middle East. This Administration has played right into his hand. The result? Anti-Americanism is at its highest level, Iraq is a recruiting ground for new Al-Qaeda membership and the Iraq War is the perfect training for these new terrorists.

    Troop withdrawal is the last thing the terrorists want. That's not surrender - that's the only smart thing to do. Fortunately for them, there are enough imbeciles like you in this country that they will never have to worry that we will withdraw.

    Posted by bjkron at 03/23/2007 @ 2:06pm

20. "The Senate has begun consideration of a spending bill with a tougher timeline. If it passes such a measure, the House and Senate bills will have to be reconciled before going to the president's desk.

    Translation: This fight is a long way from over."

    Yes....as I noted on the other thread...WAY before we get to Bush vetoing it (if he really will), we've got the Senate and Conference to get it through.

    What happens if it goes to Conference, and the Senators strip the September '08 deadline....or more sneakily add a "BEGIN to withdraw by 9/2008" to it, thus allowing Bush to being a VERY slow pull-out of the "Surged" troops, but merely dropping it back to pre-January 07 levels.

    Or Bush could cave...sign the "Out by Sept 08" Bill....and then say "to hell with you" in September of '08 and keep the troops...

    aftet all, what would the Democrats do to him?

    Posted by Mask at 03/23/2007 @ 2:06pm

21. Darla - Barb Lees proposal was better. Better to fail on a real bill than to pass mush. Barb Lee is a Democrat.

    Posted by conshame at 03/23/2007 @ 2:06pm

22. THE LIBERAL CRACKUP IS A BEAUTIFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD

    Posted by looneylefties at 03/23/2007 @ 2:06pm

23. Murthas proposal of tying funds to readiness.

    Posted by conshame at 03/23/2007 @ 2:07pm

24. BRING IT ON YOU SHIT FOR BRAINS TRAITORS....BRING YOUR LITTLE IMPEACHMENT ON....IT WILL GO AS FAR AS THIS ANTI AMERICAN BILL THAT BARELY PASSED TODAY

    Posted by looneylefties at 03/23/2007 @ 2:09pm

25. Democrats are as much a part of the problem as Republicans. If both parties have bad policies, then it only makes sense to go with a third party - which makes sure the people closest to you lose and have to take you into account next time around. Upset about it? Too bad.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/23/2007 @ 2:10pm

26. Darla - Barb Lees proposal was better. Better to fail on a real bill than to pass mush. Barb Lee is a Democrat.

    it doesn't matter if it was better or not. doesn't anyone here understand this? what matters, conshame, is that something passes which limits our involvement in a quagmire. period. i personally probably would have supported lee, but it would have been for naught. clearly (clearly!) lee's proposal was not winnable. i don't care if it's a vote of conscience.

    let's consider the best possible scenario in conshame's world: all progressive dems vote against pelosi's bill (lee included), and the bill fails, leaving us with no progress whatsoever.

    watch this:

    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/03/dem_rep_obey_ri.php

    Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 2:11pm

27. Hey Loonie:

    Put up or shut up. Enlist and quit blogging.

    Posted by bjkron at 03/23/2007 @ 2:11pm

28. HE WILL SHOVE IT RIGHT BACK UP YOUR ASSES LIBZ....Posted by LOONEYLEFTIES 03/23/2007 @ 1:54pm

    Aludra says, Chimpy is a Midnight Cowboy!

    Posted by nathanhale at 03/23/2007 @ 2:12pm

29. THIS IS WAR AND PUKES LIKE YOU HAVE TO BE CRUSHED LIKE THE GRAPES YOU ARE

    Posted by LOONEYLEFTIES 03/23/2007 @ 1:54p

    I have seen how well your kind fights wars. I ain't skeered.

    Seek counseling, please.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/23/2007 @ 2:19pm

30. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/23/2007 @ 1:38pm

    What happens when repubs fail to win wars? they get the funding pulled. Amazing the amount of ineptitude the right will put up with.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/23/2007 @ 2:21pm

31. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/23/2007 @ 2:15pm

    How is doing exactly what Bin Laden wanted us to do anything other than an utter, complete failure? Anything we do that goes against Bin Laden's plan is a step towards success - a "turning of the corner" if you will. That is not surrender.

    Posted by bjkron at 03/23/2007 @ 2:23pm

32. They did it, Naderites, SO SHUT UP.

    Posted by CONSHAME 03/23/2007 @ 2:04pm

    Define Naderites, and get a grip. Most people working the hallowed halls are not fit to carry Naders piss bucket.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/23/2007 @ 2:23pm

33. Sure. Terrorists including Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, Anarchists, Criminals, and Iranian Revolutionary Guard just to name a few.

    so, logically, in your mind we are engaged in a fight until the death (of either side, or both sides)?

    here is a brief narrative that i'm sure you've forgotten (correct me if i'm wrong):

    1. nyc is attacked by 19 al qaeda terrorists. all terrorists die in the attack.

    2. a political party in afghanistan once sheltered the now dead terrorists.

    3. usa removes political party (taliban) from afghanistan (temporarily). dead terrorists' old friends (al qaeda) flee into pakistan.

    4. usa gives up on the pakistan thing (al qaeda rests a bit)

    5. usa invades (!) iraq.

    6. al qaeda laughs hysterically while sipping mint tea and smoking good kif in the mountains.

    7. usa gets bog down in civil war between some other guys (who had no connection to #1).

    8. al qaeda says, "lets go kill americans". they said they wanted to "Bring the fight to us".

    9. usa thinking about iran

    10 al qaeda laughs hysterically.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 2:25pm

34. how dumb is this administration's "intellectual" foreign policy experts? anyone care to lob out some terrible insults?

    Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 2:27pm

35. Posted by DARLADOON 03/23/2007 @ 2:25pm

    Need to add in there whenever the terrorist laugh, that Bush and Cheney are laughing too.

    Beginning to think they are on the same team.

    Any more developments from Seymor Hersh's article about Cheney and gang funding sunni terrorist to fight Iran and Shias?

    Posted by BlueTexan at 03/23/2007 @ 2:28pm

36. and now they want iran? if anyone has caused that region of the world more chaos than george fucking bush, then please let me know that person? he is a fucking menace to the world.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 2:28pm

37. Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/23/2007 @ 2:15pm

    sorry Frank. Pure BS. Gore lost all on his own. To a boy cheerleading, drunk driving, draft dodging religious nut job incapable of fighting his way out of a paper bag. Sad.

    LUVVY, you mean that list of groups that were not a threat in Iraq till "stuff happened"? You do realize that MORE Iraqis than not claim life was better under a dictator than under Bushes compassionate gaze?

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/23/2007 @ 2:30pm

38. bush is an authoritarian, as are all of his followers. that's how authoritarianism works.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 2:31pm

39. Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/23/2007 @ 2:17pm

    The usual: all caps and all crap.

    Posted by nathanhale at 03/23/2007 @ 2:32pm

40. NEWS FLASH for the neo cons!!

    One of AL Qaidas goals was to get the US bogged down in an un-winnable war in the ME. To accomplish this goal they spent 19 men. Then you joined them and gave them more than they could ever dream of, a recruiting station in downtown Baghdad. Great job!!.

    Next you will attempt to elect an actor as president.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/23/2007 @ 2:33pm

41. At least Thompson never named names. He just carried Nixons piss bucket till it sloshed on his loafers and he couldn't avoid the smell anymore.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/23/2007 @ 2:36pm

42. Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/23/2007 @ 2:34pm

    the people of Florida voted for whom they thought was best. Guess what, a tiny, tiny fraction of them voted for Nader. Gore lost all by his lonesome self. He could have run a real campaign, but he did not.

    Get over it. I don't like the results any more than you do, but blaming Nader is like blaming the media for the catastrophic success in Messopotamia. Don't join that crowd.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/23/2007 @ 2:39pm

43. How about Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, Achmanedijad, Khomeni, Arafat, Saddam Hussein, and on and on

    i expect it from them, but not from us!

    Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 2:40pm

44. LUVVY, how many of those groups/people have 170,000 troops stationed in anothers land? How many of those groups have been crippled by the GWOT? I count one, AL Qaida, and they are a small but potent force in the Detroit like (what a moron I have fro a rep) Iraq.

    Failure has many fathers, but one sticks out in the deadbeat Dad file. Chimpy (we Never made that sign!!) McFlightsuit.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/23/2007 @ 2:43pm

45. the leftist bloggers remain as lemmings to surrender to world terrorism.

    World Terrorism? what the fuck is that? liberty, you are the primary reason why i can't travel anywhere, anymore, outside of the united states, without being ridiculed. you are the very caricature of our pathetic reputation abroad. you perfectly encapsulte everything that is so very sad about our country.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 2:44pm

46. Never seen a congress fight so hard to keep a doomed war going, in the face of public opposition and a green light to end it.

    never seen a person (yourself) fight so hard to make a point, and not have one.

    the public is opposed to the war, but they are most definitely divided (in various regards) in terms of how to end it.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 2:45pm

47. Leftists prefer defeat and dishonor to actually defeating evil.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/23/2007 @ 2:40pm

    Speaking only for myself, I prefer a competent Commander in Chief. It appears that the "right" prefers defeat and incompetent rule with zero checks and balances.

    4 years, LUVVY, 4 years to win a war in a nation the size of California that had basically zero military capability. How the hell do you call that success?

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/23/2007 @ 2:46pm

48. which makes sure the people closest to you lose and have to take you into account next time around. Upset about it? Too bad.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 03/23/2007 @ 2:10pm

    And what about those who may actually be in favor of Pelosi's bill? They shouldn't be taken into account? Even if their numbers are more numerous than those that want a quick pullout?

    Please note, I would personally favor an exit next week. However, the way to be "taken into account" is to convince more to get behind your position as you move forward - not by blowing up the whole ship when you do not get everything you want.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/23/2007 @ 2:46pm

49. "Tommy Franks and the coalition forces have demonstrated the old axiom that boldness on the battlefield produces swift and relatively bloodless victory. The three-week swing through Iraq has utterly shattered skeptics' complaints."

    (Fox News Channel's Tony Snow, 4/13/03)

    Promote Tony according to the new Bush Principle.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/23/2007 @ 2:49pm

50. 4 years to win a war in a nation the size of California that had basically zero military capability. How the hell do you call that success?

    and not just the american military ("the greatest on earth") did bush have behind him. he had the entire news media, the politicians, etc. and STILL couldn't "win"?

    Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 2:49pm

51. Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/23/2007 @ 2:47pm

    Best vote I ever cast. Nader has saved more lives than any other person I can think of. He has won more Supreme Court cases than any other person, and any other group other than the Jehovah's Witnesses. Nader may be a bit of a loon, but he is a class act that talks the talk and walks the walk.

    BTW, to the best of my knowledge, Chimpy has LOST more Supreme Court cases than any other President.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/23/2007 @ 2:51pm

52. Finally, it is unconstitutional for Congress to attempt to take over the role of Commander-in-Chief with the proposed timelines for withdrawal. If Congress wants the troops out by a certain date they should indicate so by funding restrictions or a cutoff date for funding. That is their Constitutional role.

    That is simply not true, Congress is complete within its rights to set the scope of hostilities. Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170 (1804) involved a statute that had authorized the US navy "to seize 'vessels or cargoes [that] are apparently, as well as really, American' and 'bound or sailing to any [French] port' in an attempt to prevent American vessels transporting goods to France. The act authorized the President to issue orders pursuant to it. The Executive, however, issued an order permitting the seizure of ships "bound to or from French ports".

    The Flying Fish was sailing from, not to, a French port when it was seized by a US navy ship. The Supreme Court held that the order (from the Navy Secretary) was invalid as Congress could legitimate circumscribe the scope of hostilities.

    I would also add that the proposed timelines are, in fact, conditions for the appropriation of the monies in questions. Consequently one could also argue that it falls within Congress' money power.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/23/2007 @ 2:52pm

53. Posted by DARLADOON 03/23/2007 @ 2:49pm

    And, don't discount, he had "the coalition of the willing [to be bribed]".

    Posted by nathanhale at 03/23/2007 @ 2:52pm

54. Where was the Congress for the last four years?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/23/2007 @ 2:46pm

    Praying. Faith based war.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/23/2007 @ 2:53pm

55. As a follow-up, polls show 15-20% favor an immediate pullout.

    Again, I fall in this category, but why should all the demands of this subgroup be taken into account over a majority any more so than all of the demands of the 30% who will wage this war forever?

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/23/2007 @ 2:54pm

56. Leftists prefer defeat and dishonor to actually defeating evil.

    It is actually the neocons who gave us both defeat and dishonor by 1) starting a war that had insufficient legal or strategic justification and 2) botching it as badly as possible. What you call "surrender" is nothing more then pulling out of a war that has 1) enhanced the stature of Islamist militants, 2) done nothing to thwart them since the overwhelming percentage of our adversaries in Iraq are Iraqis and 3) diverted resources from places like Afghanistan where there is a strategic interest.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/23/2007 @ 2:55pm

57. Posted by BRUNOWE 03/23/2007 @ 2:52pm

    But watch for the continued speaking of this lie until it attempts to gain a foothold. We all know the drill, the talking heads will march out and keep spewing lies hoping the populace won't actually ask questions. See David Brooks performances on the News Hour Re: Plame.

    RICHARD CHENEY, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." AKA The Howler Monkey.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/23/2007 @ 2:58pm

58. Darla -

    Come on. You know Liberty by now. When he gets fired up, he uses platitudes like "defeating evil"

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/23/2007 @ 2:59pm

59. Perhaps you have a personal problem relating solely to you when your travel. I don't have that problem, Maasch says he doesn't have that problem, Freihit says he doesn't have that problem. My mother-in-law and the others on our mission team in China right now are not having problems.

    Must be you.

    the reason why you don't have that problem is because you don't speak chinese.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 3:00pm

60. Posted by BRUNOWE 03/23/2007 @ 2:55pm

    I second that one. What Liberty cannot grasp is that our "defeat" occured when the first bombs were dropped.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/23/2007 @ 3:00pm

61. Perusing through today's bickering I pose a question for skellums like LL and Co. If Bush is so good for the world, why is he hated so? If the USA is indeed "civilization's last hope", why is the government of said country so distrusted and disliked? Why does the United States of Eden continue to accumulate so much disfavor in a world that is apparently so much better off thanks to the efforts of the current cartel in Washington?

    LL names a few names from al-amriki's extensive (if not endless) catalogue of enemies, yet the threat of the common cold claims more American lives each year than the combined efforts of the demons he mentions - in their entire history of existence. The US has always insisted on chasing spooks the world over, inventing a whole menagerie of shaitans, devils, Hitler Juniors, anti-Christs, ect., claiming to have slayed hundreds in their conquests - thus saving the ungrateful world from disaster and destruction countless times - yet somehow the world can't see anything but a bully crying wolf when not scared of its own shadow. Control of the nomenclature and means of communication explains much of this bunkum passed off as self-defense and foreign policy...

    Posted by chimichenga at 03/23/2007 @ 3:01pm

62. zero might be right about that, but why then is he so surprised when he doesn't get his wishes (read: immediate or end of year withdrawal)? if they are indeed merely wealthy and connected hacks, then surely he should expect lesser of them.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 3:02pm

63. My mother-in-law and the others on our mission team in China right now are not having problems.-LUVCOMMUNISTS

    HAHAHA. Hangin' with the commies over there while slammin' 'em over here, eh rev? Boy, you make my day every time I see you around. I am surprised you don't have a bidness deal with Mooktada. You know 'Ol Mookie, the guy your policies have given rise to. Didn't you mention Achminijad too? Seems he has more power in iraq than Chimpy. Great job!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/23/2007 @ 3:02pm

64. Did anybody notice that, of the several blogs here on the atrocious conditions at Walter Reed, there was not a comment to be found by LVLIBERTY1 that indicated any solidarity with the wounded troops? LVLIBERTY1 won't stand up for the returning wounded, but he'll stand up to demand that the war must go on.

    Posted by nathanhale at 03/23/2007 @ 3:04pm

65. LvLiberty-the "Leftists prefer defeat and dishonor to actually defeating evil" statement is incorrect.As you know,the Democrats and the left do wish to strike back at those who attacked us on 9/11 and do wish to defeat your kind.The left does wish to defeat evil.The left and many in middle America plus some moderate Republicans don't want involved in a civil war.Not all the Democrats who voted for this are leftists.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/23/2007 @ 3:05pm

66. the entire weight of the people

    Posted by ZERO 03/23/2007 @ 3:00pm

    What exactly do the "entire weight of the people" want?

    15-20% want an immediate pullout; about 35-40% want a pullout within a year; about 35-40% want to stay at all costs.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/23/2007 @ 3:06pm

67. David posted this at his blog and I've excerpted some of it:

    The House Vote on the War

    As I was between media gigs today....

    This legislation has divided Democrats and progressives..... So the question lingers: is there much here beyond symbolism?

    As a fierce debate ensued in the days before the bill hit the floor, I was often asked where I stood....

    In retrospect, I wonder if the Dems should have tried to engineer a cleaner loss than a muddy win......

    A fanciful scenario? Perhaps. But now the Democrats have to explain a bill that is rather hard to explain--while explaining why there is a serious division within their ranks. In any event, this is not a fair situation.....--especially in politics--is not fair. And this dilemma, alas, is not going to disappear with this vote.

    Posted by David Corn at 12:31 PM

    This commentary exemplifies one reason I readup on his views. He covers the entire spectrum of the Far Left and w/out question, is addicted to tossing out grenades that no one knows for sure if they are the smoke or the shaped-IED types! However, he always seems to be able to stop, take in the Big Picture, and avoid going over the cliffs with the loonies he incite!

    My take on this `victory'? You heard me before....your threshold for measuring successes is consistently LOW! Razor-thin (3 razors to be exact) margin......David is spot-on: "muddy win".....but even this "win", came at just the end of the 1st Quarter! To be honest, I'm enjoying the Demo show in Congress!

    Posted by Happy at 03/23/2007 @ 3:07pm

68. Lets see, Hamas wins the election in Palestine, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Mooktada in Iraq, Achminjad in Iran, Chavez in Venezuela, N. Korea gets The Bomb, civil war beaks out in Iraq, Islamic terrorism is up, China is more powerful and owns more US debt, Chimpy backs losing sides in Somalia, gives Sunnis money.

    Loooooking goooood. Hows that Plan working Neos? Is this what you meant to do?

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/23/2007 @ 3:08pm

69. 15-20% want an immediate pullout; about 35-40% want a pullout within a year; about 35-40% want to stay at all costs.

    clearly, some facts are too inconvenient for pseudo-intellectuals like zero.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 3:09pm

70. Bush charges the Dems are engaging in "political theater" at the same time he has soldiers in uniform lined up behind him. If that's not "theater" I don't know what is!! Those soldiers and/or vets were like set props for his little Friday news "theater." Hilarious!

    Posted by BlueTexan at 03/23/2007 @ 3:10pm

71. LUVVIES personal experience is that the VA is fine. He needs no other input.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/23/2007 @ 3:11pm

72. Posted by HMAN23 03/23/2007 @ 2:59pm

    WTFU [wake the fuck up]! "defeating evil" is not a platitude with these guys. These are people who believe in the literal Bible, who believe in angels, satan, good, evil, armageddon, the whole schmeer.

    Posted by nathanhale at 03/23/2007 @ 3:13pm

73. Why doesn't Bush don his flight-suit again? That was such a Superman moment.

    "The war winds down, politics heats up.... Picture perfect. Part Spider-Man, part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan. The president seizes the moment on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific." (PBS's Gwen Ifill, 5/2/03, on George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech)

    "We had controversial wars that divided the country. This war united the country and brought the military back." (Newsweek's Howard Fineman--MSNBC, 5/7/03)

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/23/2007 @ 3:13pm

74. Posted by NATHANHALE 03/23/2007 @ 3:13pm

    I could really use one of those winged horses.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/23/2007 @ 3:15pm

75. this ruling is not relevant to the role of commander-in-chief in deploying forces in battle.

    It is totally relevant. The opinion dealt with Congress' right to define the scope of the war that it is authorizing. This is doing the same, requiring that troops be out by August 2008. The role of the C-in-C regarding deployment deals with what forces can be committed to the battle, not if he can fight or not. Your ichships could be assigned to blockade duty, whick could be sent to patrol on the high seas, etc.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/23/2007 @ 3:16pm

76. Posted by NATHANHALE 03/23/2007 @ 3:13pm

    I'm awake and I agree! Maybe platitude was the wrong choice of words.

    I typically do not engage Liberty when he gets all "Revelations" on us.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/23/2007 @ 3:18pm

77. Just wait till we invade Syria and find the wmd's. Then the left will have to eat it's shorts.

    Blinded by the Right

    Caught up like a w in a case of Bud-Lites

    Blinded by the right

    Pages in the summer and a teenage diplomat

    in the troops with the Mook as the ascendent pumps his way into harat

    with a rock on my shoulder, feelin kinda bolder

    With this very unpleasin', sneezin' and wheezin,

    I tripped the merry-go-round

    the war crashed to the ground

    Blinded by the right.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/23/2007 @ 3:23pm

78. f you want to end the war, obviously this is a meaningless date. See above questions.

    It isn't meaningless at all. The bill, as passed, got the minimum number of votes necessary to pass. The onus is now on the more conversative Senate and White House if they block it. The idea that one could just not pass a bill overlooks the fact that there are enough Democrats and Republicans in the House who would insist on some sort of bill that they could take the initiative away from Pelosi and pass a bill with no restrictions.

    Further, the point of the polls isn't that the public keeps changing it's mind about what calendar year the withdrawal should be then the fact that there is a large chunk that wants a phased withdrawal instead of an immediate one.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/23/2007 @ 3:24pm

79. Good point on the timing of the polls Zero, but why no increase in the "immediate" numbers come 2007? Given your assumption, many would say in 2007, "I did that poll last year and wanted out within a year, so I am changing to immediate."

    Like I said earlier, I personally wish the bill was stronger, but I am willing to take less than I wanted so long as it is in the right direction.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/23/2007 @ 3:28pm

80. Posted by BRUNOWE 03/23/2007 @ 3:24pm

    Nice point in your last paragraph.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/23/2007 @ 3:30pm

81. Actually, the Democrats could simply filibuster any spending plan that didn't fund the war exactly along the terms of, for example, a 6-month pullout deadline.

    First, you can't filibuster in the House. Second, you're assuming that Pelosi could swing a majority of members behind a six-month deadline.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/23/2007 @ 3:30pm

82. why it is that 18 months is desirable, whereas 12 is not? Or why 12 months is more or less desirable than 6 or 14?

    Posted by ZERO 03/23/2007 @ 3:19pm

    Easy. She knew she would not get the votes for less and wanted a bill over nothing at all.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/23/2007 @ 3:31pm

83. ....come Nov., 2008. America will have a democratic president and a much more democratic controlled House and Senate.....

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/23/2007 @ 2:57pm | ignore this person

    ZERO chance for your 3-legged `Dream Team'! One major benefit of all the investigations the Dems are now enjoying (actually, me too!), presumed to continue right up to Nov. `08, is to remind folks the downside of having 3-legged `Dream Team'. You loonies have made such a huge deal of `oversight'....now, you think people would trust a Dem legislative branch to oversight a Dem Executive branch? Does the name William Jefferson mean anything? That large `middle/independent' voter segment will ensure that your dream stays just that. Most likely, a GOP Prez and a Dem/Dem or Dem/GOP Congress/Senate after Nov. `08!

    Posted by Happy at 03/23/2007 @ 3:32pm

84. Posted by HMAN23 03/23/2007 @ 3:18pm

    But, see, that's why Walter Reed doesn't faze them. They don't care about the returning wounded, they only care about continuing the war, thinking it's their prophecy playing out. It's also why torture doesn't faze them: it's another tool for them to defeat evil, like torturing witches to get to the confession (and the accomplices) before burning them at the stake.

    Posted by nathanhale at 03/23/2007 @ 3:33pm

85. Folks, again.....remember your Constitution...

    it's not "House passes, then Bush signs/vetos"...it's "House passes, then it goes to the Senate, then to Conference, THEN they see if it gets out of the Congress, THEN they see if Bush signs or vetoes it".

    Plus the extra "Then we wait until SEPTEMBER 2008" to see how Bush does or does NOT implement what is in the bill....that's important too.

    Not sure why so many here, who are normally so suspicious of Bush, can't see that even SIGNING the bill, in its present form (not assured when the Senate gets done with it)...may be meaningless.

    Pelosi has given Bush until March 2008 to "give assurances" that things are improving. If he does, then it goes to July, then the countdown clock to "full pull-out" by September.

    So...obviously only July 2008 matters. So what happens, Bush starts a sloooooooooooooooow pull-out of the "Surged" troops. And violence picks up, and he claims (or Gates would be better) that "they can't meet the September 2008 deadline".

    So....what does Congress do? Impeach him? Not TWO months before the Election, especially in a non-incumbent election when Congress itself is up for election and Reps and Senators want to get back home, not stay in DC fighting out impeachment bills and a trial.

    Cut funding? Nope, again "Dems taking bullets from our brave troops" doesn't make for a good campaign slogan...for Dems.

    Many are concentrating on the fact that Pelosi imposed a "deadline"....few are concentrating on the fact that that deadline...is nearly meaninless even if inacted.

    Posted by Mask at 03/23/2007 @ 3:40pm

86. John McCain and Traitor Joe, (Lieberman), just held a joint press announcement that they would defeat the House's bill tomorrow in the Senate.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/23/2007 @ 3:16pm

    Tah-dah!

    Posted by Mask at 03/23/2007 @ 3:41pm

87. MASK, Bush has already pledged himself to veto this bill, so it represents a climb-down for him if he signs it. Second, although it's clear the Bush won't issue the various certifications required by this statute in good faith, each one becomes a rallying point for opposition to the war.

    Cut funding? Nope, again "Dems taking bullets from our brave troops" doesn't make for a good campaign slogan...for Dems.

    They won't have to cut funding, the Executive won't be able to spend money on this. Further, it won't be just the Democracts who have a problem with this. Do you think that the Republicans are going to sign aboard a Constitutional confrontation just to back a lame-duck President in the twilight of his administration? Finally, the deadline becomes an issue since the Presidential candidate are going to have to committ themselves on it. If Bush thumbs his nose at the law, his successor won't have the same leeway.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/23/2007 @ 3:49pm

88. Posted by SRJENKINS 03/23/2007 @ 2:10pm | ignore this person

    WHAT third party? it takes decades to build a viable third party. we don't have the time.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 3:58pm

89. Did you feel the same way when Clinton vetoed the 1996 Defense Authorization Bill?

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/23/2007 @ 2:36pm | ignore this person

    not Clinton again. can you make an argument for five minutes without Clinton?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 4:02pm

90. "Third term for Bush - in prison."

    Posted by chimichenga at 03/23/2007 @ 4:03pm

91. How about Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, Achmanedijad, Khomeni, Arafat, Saddam Hussein, and on and on

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/23/2007 @ 2:38pm | ignore this person

    which one of these attacked the US?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 4:04pm

92. well, it's obvious that zero is not in the reality-based community if he actually feels that pelosi is solely responsible for the mess in which we are currently mired, or that she is using people's lives as 'political football'. that is just slander of the highest order. it's gross, mean-spirited and counter-productive.

    the editor of the bay guardian just said that pelosi was a "jerk" for not being "civil" (she certainly wasn't uncivil) with the dozens of people camped out on her front lawn the last month. she never had them removed or anything; she just didn't confront them and bow in front of them. but, yet, on this matter, she is a cop-out because she won't go with the predictable, loony lefty proposals offered by their caucaus (which stood no change in either chamber of congress).

    zero is a LOONY of the highest order.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 4:04pm

93. the election in Florida was stolen, Frank and Crab. repeat, the election was stolen. Gore did not lose that election.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 4:05pm

94. why don't we all take zero at his word: withdrawal (for sure) by end of '07. that is the proposal.

    how many here honestly think this proposal would pass the House? the Senate? the president?!

    Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 4:06pm

95. I prefer defeat and dishonor to actually defeating the evil within me.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/23/2007 @ 2:40pm | ignore this person

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 4:06pm

96. How about Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, Achmanedijad, Khomeni, Arafat, Saddam Hussein, and on and on

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/23/2007 @ 2:38pm |

    Which of these has the US government funded? 1) Al-Qaeda 2) Saddam Hussein 3) Plus many more of your favorite psychos and dictators!

    Posted by bjkron at 03/23/2007 @ 4:07pm

97. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/23/2007 @ 4:04pm | ignore this person

    Don't expect a truthful response to this question, despite the fact that it's plain and clear. The US would have declared the moon an enemy satellite and communist tentacle/Red training camp if the Soviets had landed there before they did...

    Posted by chimichenga at 03/23/2007 @ 4:09pm

98. what is zero's idea of an effective politician vis a vis the iraq war? i'm very curious.

    would it be proposing something that has no chance of success? or a balanced compromise aimed solely at success?

    Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 4:10pm

99. A point regarding the Senate. A measure setting March 2008 is a withdrawal deadline got blocked 50-48, one vote short of passage. Could a September deadline swing just one more vote? If so, then the Republicans would be in a position of filibustering the supplemental for the armies in the field.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/23/2007 @ 4:10pm

100. Most likely, a GOP Prez and a Dem/Dem or Dem/GOP Congress/Senate after Nov. `08!

     Posted by HAPPY 03/23/2007 @ 3:32pm | ignore this person

     pure fantasy. notgonnahappen.I imagine you predicted a big win for the Tories in 2006

     Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 4:13pm

101. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/23/2007 @ 4:13pm

     Yes, he an Maasch had the same handicapper.

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/23/2007 @ 4:15pm

102. Frank, weren't you just arguing about whether or not Nader cost Gore the election?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 4:15pm

103. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/23/2007 @ 4:13pm | ignore this person

     But fantasy fuels their foozling, posturing as good government...

     Posted by chimichenga at 03/23/2007 @ 4:15pm

104. impeachment would most certainly make it more difficult for democrats to shore up republican support for anti-war measures......that is most obvious.

     Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 4:16pm

105. All of them have attacked the US.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/23/2007 @ 4:21pm | ignore this person

     no, they haven't.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 4:31pm

106. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/23/2007 @ 4:19pm

     In truth, I could care less what terms you use.

     "And by the current wave of sentiment shown here, the leftist bloggers remain as lemmings to surrender to world terrorism.

     Leftists prefer defeat and dishonor to actually defeating evil."

     It just keeps getting funnier every time I read it.

     This is a keeper.

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/23/2007 @ 4:34pm

107. let's not forget that pelosi's proposal was also supported by 218 other people. it was opposed by almost as many (who, incidentally, also opposed health care for veterans, the renovation of walter reed, equipment and training resources, AND a firm deadline for withdrawal).

     it's not perfect, but can anyone else think of a better proposal WITH a realistic chance for success?

     Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 4:34pm

108. LVLIBERTY1 03/23/2007 @ 4:21pm

     Suppose we take it as a given that these groups have attacked the US.

     Is it not then inexcusable that Hamas has been elected as the government of the Palestinians and Iran has undertaken a nuclear program while we have been mired in Iraq?

     Bush is a fool and he endangers this nation more each day. How can you support him?

     Posted by MyParadigm at 03/23/2007 @ 4:35pm

109. JR -

     You just don't get it. The world is so much simpler when you judge everything in a black and white.

     Bush/Cheney and the rest are in the Hall of Justice.

     Thoes against their policies are in the Legion of Doom.

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/23/2007 @ 4:37pm

110. Posted by HMAN23 03/23/2007 @ 4:37pm | ignore this person

     ever since I heard about that original sin thing, I haven't been so big on that evil thing. my favorite biblical moment came when Liverty told me that Jesus favored the death penalty. that was when I became absolutely sure that he is a nutcase. case closed.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 4:43pm

111. Leftists prefer defeat and dishonor to actually defeating evil. I prefer the lunatic visions of armageddon.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/23/2007 @ 2:40pm

     Posted by nathanhale at 03/23/2007 @ 4:43pm

112. Leftists prefer defeat and dishonor to actually defeating evil."

     It just keeps getting funnier every time I read it.

     This is a keeper.

     Posted by HMAN23 03/23/2007 @ 4:34pm | ignore this person

     I liked my version better.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 4:44pm

113. Bush is a fool and he endangers this nation more each day. How can you support him?

     he supports him because he has the authoritarian mind. that's what authoritarianism does to the masses: it turns them into little robots. but liberty will always deny this (denial is the first step).

     not only that, but liberty would be such a downer at parties. could you imagine, sitting in a hot tub in humboldt, in the cool air, smoking herb, getting a foot rub, and listening to this guy? what a buzz kill this guy is.....who wants to be a buzz kill?

     Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 4:44pm

114. MASK, Bush has already pledged himself to veto this bill...

     Posted by BRUNOWE 03/23/2007 @ 3:49pm

     Yes....THIS bill, which is likely NOT the bill that will come out of the Conference Committee with the Senate. And so what if he does, and so what if he does sign a "pure House" bill? Going to go down in the polls?!??!?

     As for September of '08....What do the Dems do if Bush says "We're having trouble...we can't finish the pull-out by September"? The law is signed, the money is spent by then. Who CARES about "the Republicans" backing Bush...they just don't have to HELP the Democrats, whose response would be....what?

     Would they say "Mr President, you're violating the April 2007 Supplemental Spending Bill...uh....uh....we're going to impeach you for that!" To which Bush says (to the public) "I'm trying to get our troops out, but they're 'pinned down' and need some more time...but Congress won't give it to THEM!"

     And if that doesn't work, he says "Pffffft" (Brooklyn salute) and says (to himself) "Bring it on, you pansies. You want to spend YOUR re-election time in Congress...not back in your districts/states raising money...to try to 'get me' in the next two months before I skip off to Crawford....fine by me"

     Again, this "minor victory" or "muddied victory"...is no victory, and may be even LESS of a victory after the Senate gets through with it.

     And the possibility of NO bill....with an "emergency 'temporary' spending" bill "until the actual bill is passed"...isn't far-fetched either. Congress could pass a $20 Billion ($5 billion of domestic spending folded in), "three month" bill with NO restrictions "set to expire by July 2007".

     The possibilities are endless. And the one I'm betting on is...Reid tells Pelosi he can't stop McCain and Lieberman and they have to pass the $125B bill...with NO deadline. Reid takes the heat (he's safe until 2010), while John and Joe call it "bipartisan opposition" on Chris Matthews and Meet The Press.

     Posted by Mask at 03/23/2007 @ 4:45pm

115. LvLiberty-You've stated in the past that you believe in the use of nuclear weapons as a terror tool for the US to use in the form of nuking China and then threatening the USSR.That and many other of your posts gives me the idea that you are no different than the terror groups you mentioned.I know you've justified your beliefs in the same way these terror groups have with the "me good/you bad" thing,but that attitude solves nothing.You're just two sides of the same coin.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 03/23/2007 @ 4:47pm

116. LvLib:

     If we are so "good" and the terrorists are so "evil", how would Jesus want us to torture the terrorists? What voltage do you think Jesus would want us to apply to their genitals?

     The Jesus I was raised to believe in preached "turn the other cheek". The Jesus I was taught about as a child did not lift a finger against those who were torturing him, even though he was the omnipotent son of God. He even used his power to heal one of the soldiers who arrested him.

     How do you rectify your faith with this war?

     Posted by bjkron at 03/23/2007 @ 4:48pm

117. LL,

     You may think a few random carbombers are evil, but I tend to think killing millions in Indochina, one-quarter the population of East Timor, 30.000 in Nicaragua, 150.000 in Guatemala, 75.000 in El Salvador, 3.000 in Chile, thousands in Colombia thanks to Plan Colombia and your friendly, murderous ally, Uribe, 3.000 in Panama, hundreds of thousands in Iraq... Yet you can't get it through your star-spangled halo that Bush and the US are hated for the memories of these facts, whether it be Suharto, Pinochet, Rios Montt, Saddam, the Shah, Somoza, Duvalier, ect. And you claim to have married a guanaca (Salvadoran), yet have no idea why millions want the Yankees to go home and stay home, knowing full-well what their extended stays tend to produce.

     But why do I argue "evil" with such a great gospeler? - especially one who sees no evil in nuking Russia and China in retrospect when contemplating Cold War strategy...

     Posted by chimichenga at 03/23/2007 @ 4:49pm

118. The only security LL cares about is his own. And as if I had to point out, LL's little reiteration above is nothing of the sort - rather, it is a lousy attempt to cover the baseness and anti-Christian hatred and violence he's preached here on numerous occasions, many times including the justification of perfunctory nuclear strikes...

     Posted by chimichenga at 03/23/2007 @ 4:56pm

119. That doesn't infer use against civilian populations as you leftists want to ascribe to me.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/23/2007 @ 4:50pm

     The article you quoted (as support of your endorsement of nuclear attacks on China and Russia during Korea) on Truman weighing the nuclear option....mentioned nuking not just major Chinese cities, but Moscow, Leningrad, etc. Note, this was YOUR citation, not mine or anybody else's.

     Second, your attempt to "walk it back" by claiming that you "only supported nuking depots or concentrated troop locales" doesn't negate civilian casualties as any FALL-OUT would have effected (and would in the future) MILLIONS with radiation sickness and death.

     Third, if pressed, I have no doubt you'll "walk it back" again if asked about "small strategic nukes if it is in our security interests"...given the same fall-out problem at the least, and the fact that any strike you can name would likely devastate a civilian area (you would no doubt call "a few thousand" casualties "acceptable").

     Fourth...WWJN......Who Would Jesus Nuke?

     Posted by Mask at 03/23/2007 @ 5:03pm

120. Iran seems to be on the hit list for even many Democrats including all the Dem candidates except Kucinich.

     evidently, "on the hit list" means "requiring congressional approval beforing attacking"

     gee, those pesky democrats, always seeking accountability!

     Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 5:04pm

121. Liberty's ramblings on good and evil are exacly why we are in the shit we are in.

     If you redacted portions, you would not be able to tell the difference between his quotes and someone like bin Laden's.

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/23/2007 @ 5:05pm

122. it's interesting to see liberty refer to the bible as a factual document. no wonder he's so clueless on other (reality-based) matters.

     you know, liberty, most of us don't read the bible and think "non-fiction", dude. get a grip. smoke some pot. get laid, chill out.

     Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 5:06pm

123. Posted by BJKRON 03/23/2007 @ 4:48pm | ignore this person

     there was a little episode with the stoning of the adulterous woman, no mention is made of the man she was adulterous with, where Jesus is reported to have have said, which one of you is without sin, to throw the first stone.

     a perfect example of liverty as Taleban.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 5:08pm

124. Saddam never attacked the US. neither did most of those on liverty's list.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 5:09pm

125. LL,

     No, we're all wrong when it comes to pointing out your imbecilities and hatemongering. Hell, you even dishonor your wife (God bless her for enduring the torture of having to listen to your folderol on a daily basis) and her people by justifying the raping of her nation thanks to US-trained-and-financed death squads, such as the Atlacatl Battalion, famous for their work in El Mozote. But knowing well the people of El Sal, I'd wager your wifey's family has a nickname for you - El Loco o El Chiflado, if not El Comemierda...

     Posted by chimichenga at 03/23/2007 @ 5:11pm

126. Posted by DARLADOON 03/23/2007 @ 5:06pm

     I imagine it would be pretty hard to chill out in the hot tub when the guy next to you is screaming:

     EVIL IS COMING!!! EVIL IS COMING!!!

     WE ARE ALL . . .

     GOING . . .

     TO DIE!!!!

     ARRRRRRRGGGHHHHHH!!!

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/23/2007 @ 5:11pm

127. 1. I have never said that I disagreed with torture.

     2. I have written on the Nation on several occasions the mistaken notion by liberals that Jesus would oppose the death penalty. That Jesus agreed with the death penalty and wars against evil is quite clear in scriptures. Of course, I can only cite one verse in support of this contention.

     3. Jesus didn't fight against His own torture and execution because he was a pacifist Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/23/2007 @ 5:00pm

     Posted by nathanhale at 03/23/2007 @ 5:13pm

128. Jesus might well nuke the world when He brings final judgment. Peter certainly believed that even though he didn't know the word nuclear at the time (2 Peter 3:10-12). Peter says that the Lord will literally melt the earth with a great noise and the elements will melt with fervent heat. This, of course, is based on the same evidence that has Muslim suicide bombers thinking they have seven dozen virgins waiting in heaven for them.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/23/2007 @ 5:12pm

     Posted by nathanhale at 03/23/2007 @ 5:17pm

129. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/23/2007 @ 5:12pm

     Or maybe he didn't know the term "global warming"

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/23/2007 @ 5:17pm

130. LL,

     There is certainly no shortage of hogwash and bullshit here, but when you emit your own it comes so naturally and instinctually, making me question the mental state of your supposed parishoners. If they haven't come to your house with torches and pitchforks after having their faith in JC so perversly twisted and up-ended, then they're probably half-wits, empty-heads, dumbskies, imbeciles, mentally insane or deafmute. That or you're just another Jim Jones...

     Posted by chimichenga at 03/23/2007 @ 5:18pm

131. As for September of '08....What do the Dems do if Bush says "We're having trouble...we can't finish the pull-out by September"? The law is signed, the money is spent by then. Who CARES about "the Republicans" backing Bush...they just don't have to HELP the Democrats, whose response would be....what?

     To which Bush says (to the public) "I'm trying to get our troops out, but they're 'pinned down' and need some more time...but Congress won't give it to THEM!"

     The Republicans have to help the Democrats otherwise they are associated with the same degree of incompetence and mendacity that the Bush administration will have displayed in your hypothetical (after all, how many people are actually going to believe him). The idea of the insurgents actually being able to block a withdrawal is to absurd to be politically viable. Further, the withdrawal has to commence sooner then that, so any foot-dragging will give the Democrats more than two months.

     Posted by brunowe at 03/23/2007 @ 5:19pm

132. If I was going to write a chapter on the end of the world, I would use "melting heat" too - it sounds so much more dramatic.

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/23/2007 @ 5:20pm

133. I wish I had time JR to show you the error of your statement but I am about to make a 4 hour drive and don't have time. You could google it and see the truth. - LL

     There are no doubt evildoers, djinn and manifold sprites and bugbears out there, LL, so do us all a favor and take the back roads, late at night - preferibly one with no street lamps that runs along the Pacific Highway and is highly prone to fog...

     Posted by chimichenga at 03/23/2007 @ 5:26pm

134. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/23/2007 @ 5:26pm

     At least all the other cars on those dark roads will know he is coming. He'll be the one leaning out of his window screaming:

     OUT OF THE WAY!!!

     EVIL IS COMING!!! EVIL IS COMING!!!

     WE ARE ALL . . .

     GOING . . .

     TO MELT WITH GREAT NOISE AND FERVENT HEAT!!!!

     ARRRRRRRGGGHHHHHH!!!

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/23/2007 @ 5:32pm

135. I read this on msnbc.com:

     "Bush appeared at the White House alongside veterans and family members of to accuse Democrats of staging nothing more than "political theater" that delays the delivery of resources to soldiers fighting in Iraq."

     Not that making speeches on the war while veterans and family members on the screen behind you is "political theater" or anything.

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/23/2007 @ 5:33pm

136. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/23/2007 @ 5:26pm | ignore this person

     liver-ty lives in Lost Wages, not anywhere near the pacific coast highway.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 5:33pm

137. Liberty -

     JR and the rest of us would love to respond too, but we all have to get a meeting of The Socialist Association of Lemmings to Surrender to World Terrorism.

     Tonight's topic is pretty important - How Liberals Prefer Defeat and Dishonor to Actually Defeating Evil.

     Posted by Hman23 at 03/23/2007 @ 5:36pm

138. LvLiberty-Did you notice that you had a Bible verse to justify the evil in your heart in the same way the jihadists have a Koran verse to justify the evil in their hearts?Different sides of the same coin.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 03/23/2007 @ 5:45pm

139. Kyle Sampson to testify under oath next week before Congress.

     Important development in attorneygate!

     Posted by BlueTexan at 03/23/2007 @ 5:52pm

140. LvLiberty-I've read the old testament and that god/allah is evil.I was simply pointing out how much you sound like the jihadists and your response was quite the same as I would expect from a jihadist.In fact, it was quite similar to what jihadists say when you hear them on t.v.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 03/23/2007 @ 6:24pm

141. that "political theater" commentary was an immediately recognizable bush rhetorical strategy.

     to him, anyone who goes through all the appropriate legal and ethical obstacles, in order to oppose his strategy in iraq, is engaging in "theater,"; but giving a 5 minute speech in front of veterans and children (!) isn't.

     THAT is delusion. period. the man is deluded.

     anyone care to disagree?

     Posted by darladoon at 03/23/2007 @ 6:25pm

142. 3. Jesus didn't fight against His own torture and execution because it was prophecied in Isaiah 53 and it was for that reason that He came into the world. To have fought against it would mean disobeying the Father.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/23/2007 @ 5:00pm

     Didn't God send Jesus to Earth to set an example for humans to behave? The example he set is not to resist even when you are being attacked. Your triumph will come later - not through violence. Jesus never condoned violence of any kind - including state violence.

     I am relieved you are against torture.

     Posted by bjkron at 03/23/2007 @ 6:33pm

143. Why does the speaker of the house have trouble getting enough votes to pass the only bill she needs to pass during her entire reign of terror? She's not in charge, anyway.

     Because the Speaker of the House is democratically elected and not a dictator. Hence her pick, John Murtha, losing to Steny Hoyer.

     Aw, hell - we all know the truth. AIPAC will be OK with a deadline set a year-and-a-half in the future.

     And you can point out where AIPAC has said this, or is this another conspiracy theory? And let's hear Pelosi explain to all the people who have to die over the next year and a half that her "leadership" was sufficient.

     And let's hear how you could have improved on it? Not what you wish would happen but what you could get done in this Congress?

     Posted by brunowe at 03/23/2007 @ 9:01pm

144. Yes.

     LUVVY= American Jihadist/Taliban. Very little difference between our enemies and those calling the most vociferously for their defeat. Well done Nobody, HMAN!

     Yes.

     Posted by crabwalk at 03/23/2007 @ 9:19pm

145. pure fantasy. notgonnahappen.I imagine you predicted a big win for the Tories in 2006

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/23/2007 @ 4:13pm | ignore this person

     Close but not quite.....predicted a small GOP victory until the Foley `scandal'! Now, I do want to give the Dems some credit for pulling it off.....all legal too! I hope some GOP operatives are stockpiling some such `weapons' to be released at just the needed moment!

     You loonies need to thank the Congressional pages for your so called Nov. `mandate', thin as it is! You have your $90k worth of William Jefferson and we have our Foley's Folly!

     Posted by Happy at 03/23/2007 @ 9:39pm

146. Though the spending bill is not perfect, it is progress. While Bush will Veto, this is a sign of being forced into a corner: he is vetoing the funding he so needs for his dirty war. Looneyleftyz, you are a typical, raving conservative, who does nothing but attack people with different viewpoints. But hey, that doesn't bother me, you are intitled to your opinion.

     Posted by lovetheusa at 03/23/2007 @ 10:07pm

147. after Bush, dems 50%, Tories 35%.

     we're going to shrink the repub party down so small, that we can drown it in the bathtub.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 10:17pm

148. nuke 'em Jesus. liverty is a nutcase. he has no congragation, at most he has a cult. I for one am done with this wannabe Elmer Gantry. get thee behind me Satan.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 10:23pm

149. Posted by HAPPY 03/23/2007 @ 9:39pm | ignore this person

     you live in a dream world. 2008 is wake up time. the repubs will go the way of the Whigs. look it up/

     Posted by johannesrolf at 03/23/2007 @ 10:25pm

150. I'm jumping in a little late here.

     First, I think LoathLiberty and Looney are the same person. That poor individual has a split personality and both halves are insane. One half thinks himself pious and intellectual, and the other half blasphemous and philistine. Think about it.

     Second, I heard long ago that there were two things you didn't want to watch being made. One was sausage, and the other was laws in congress.

     This bill with all its worts is about as good as it was going to get with congressmen and women being paid off with sausage(pork) for votes. I think Speaker of the House Polosi knows just what will happen with the future of the bill. The Senate may pass something, maybe the Repugs will filibuster, maybe Joe Momentum will become a Repug (isn't he one now?). Everyone know the president will cast his second veto of his presidency (Stem Cell Research being the first) because congress won't follow his orders.

     I always taught my kids about bargaining, start with a good fair deal. If the other won't accept, take a little away, if they balk at that, take even more way.

     Speaker of the House Polosi is in a bargaining position with the president. If the president balks or Vetos the bill, come up with a new one with the same money for the troops, but with a six month shorter pull out date. The president balks again, same deal in money, but another month off the pull out date.

     While this is going on, Speaker of the House Polosi speaks to "We the people" to tell us we want the war to end and we want to support the troops but the president is just too stupi..er intransigent and it is he that is not supporting the troops.

     "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen ..." Ralph Waldo Emerson

     Posted by COProgressive at 03/23/2007 @ 11:26pm

151. Third parties have no chance in this country. The system prevents it. All they do is get incompetent presidents elected as Ralph Nader insured in 2000.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/23/2007 @ 2:15pm | ignore this person

     Ross Perot would disagree. Clinton scrapped his rather extensive domestic agenda in favor of deficit reduction after Perot won 19% of the vote in 1992. The Republicans ran on a balanced budget amendment in 1994 and tried to outdo Clinton (at least for a few years) in deficit reduction.

     George Wallace would also beg to differ. Getting 13% of the vote in 1968, winning the few states that went for Goldwater in 1964, and coming in second in other Southern states helped to push the GOP in a more Southern and conservative direction.

     The Socialist Party never came close to winning one electoral vote, but many of their ideas, such as Social Security, unemployment insurance, female suffrage, the public works programs of the New Deal, and the abolition of child labor were adopted by both major parties.

     The Populist Party won 9% of the vote in 1892, and were quite successful in the Great Plains and the Rocky Mountain states. They advocated many ideas that were adopted by the Democrats and Republicans, including the federal income tax (16th Amendment), direct election of Senators (17th Amendment), primary elections, referendums, ballot initiatives, and regulation of the banking and railroad industries.

     Posted by green2006 at 03/23/2007 @ 11:48pm

152. you live in a dream world. 2008 is wake up time. the repubs will go the way of the Whigs. look it up/

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/23/2007 @ 10:25pm | ignore this person

     That's a little premature. The Democrats rebounded from losing three consecutive Presidential elections rather decisively in the 1980s.

     Posted by green2006 at 03/23/2007 @ 11:52pm

153. You have your $90k worth of William Jefferson and we have our Foley's Folly!

     Posted by HAPPY 03/23/2007 @ 9:39pm

     Sorry, "we" have no such thing. Tell ya what Hap, when he gets indicted you may slander him all you want. Till then he has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law. or are you a judge and jury?

     Posted by crabwalk at 03/24/2007 @ 04:58am

154. And "you" have more than just Foleys Folly, methinks. Why just this week you have the former deputy sec of interiors lies exposed. Merely the latest in a long series of crimes and mismanagement by your boyz. These are just the ones that worked directly for chimpy:

     * Scooter Libby - Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff - resigned after being indicted for Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, and Making False Statements in connection with the investigation stemming from the leak of a CIA operative's identity. GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY

     * Lester Crawford - Commissioner, FDA - resigned after only two months on the job. Pled guilty to conflict of interest and making false statements.

     * Brian Doyle - Deputy Press Secretary, DHS - Resigned in wake of child sex scandal. Pled no contest to 32 criminal counts.

     * Claude Allen - Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy- resigned, pled guilty to shoplifting from Target stores.

     * David Safavian - former head of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at the Office of Management and Budget - convicted of lying to ethics officials and Senate investigators about his ties to lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

     * Larry Franklin - intelligence officer, Defense - resigned, pled guilty to passing secrets to Israel.

     * Roger Stillwell - desk officer, Interior Department - pled guilty to failing to report Redskins tickets and free dinners from Jack Abramoff.

     * Frank Figueroa - senior DHS official, former head of anti-sex-crime Operation Predator - pled no contest to exposing himself to 16-year-old girl in Florida mall. Girl says he fondled himself for ten minutes. Figueroa forfeited his badge, gun, and access to databases; employment status pending internal DHS review.

     * Darleen Druyun - senior contracting official, U.S. Air Force - pled guilty and sentenced to nine months in prison for her role in the Boeing tanker lease scandal.

     * John Korsmo - chairman, Federal Housing Finance Board - pled guilty last year to lying to the Senate and an inspector general. He swore he had no idea how a list of presidents for FHFB-regulated banks were invited to a fundraiser for his friend's congressional campaign. On the invites, Korsmo was listed as the "Special Guest." Got 18 months of probation.

     * P. Trey Sunderland III - chief, Geriatric Psychiatry, Nat'l Institute of Mental Health - admitted to a criminal conflict of interest charge for failing to report $300,000 received from Pfizer, Inc. *As of 12/11/06, still employed by NIMH.

     line up for sheering in bldg 18, please.

     Posted by crabwalk at 03/24/2007 @ 05:02am

155. A long journey may begin with a single step but I think we're now in a steady jog on our way to ending this war. The Cumblunder in Chief needs to break out that flight suit he wore on the aircraft carrier and a bottle of Jack Daniels for a good cry.

     Social Security, Free Trade of the Americas, Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan and chiefly the Iraq War... what a failure. What a complete and utter fuck. We'll have to wait until January 2008 to end this futile war but those seeds are being sewn in the here and now.

     Posted by wilderallen at 03/24/2007 @ 06:52am

156. It was designed to leverage a revolt in both countries in which more democratic forces would have a greater opportunity to overthrow both Communist governments.

     ---Yes, because, as we've learned...NOTHING makes people turn on THEIR OWN government and towards the people who are attacking them, than air strikes against them.

     It could have affected several million people but I remain convinced that MacArthur was correct given the many tens of millions murdered under Communist regimes since that time.

     ---Define "affected", LL. Also the exact figures involved in "several million" and "tens of millions".

     Jesus might well nuke the world when He brings final judgment. Peter certainly believed that even though he didn't know the word nuclear at the time (2 Peter 3:10-12). Peter says that the Lord will literally melt the earth with a great noise and the elements will melt with fervent heat.

     ----Neat dodge. But I think you know I'm referring to Jesus ordering the nuclear annihilation of SOME of his children...by other of his children in a bizarre strategic policy that believes that you "incite revolt" in people by killing thousands or even millions of them.

     You know, sort of along the lines of "If we take down the World Trade Center and kill thousands, their people will revolt and demand that they will pull their military base out of Saudi Arabia...and God would support it!" Hmm?

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/23/2007 @ 5:12pm

     Posted by Mask at 03/24/2007 @ 08:04am

157. Green, those are good points about 3rd party candidates. I believe you could have added Henry Wallace

     in none of these cases however was there any followup.it took the greens, pun intended, more than 20 years to establish themselves in germany, and that in a country that had more than two parties, and coalition gov'ts.

     my point about the repugs demise was that never in the history of polling has a party dropped so precipitously, and we're not just talking about control of the white house.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 03/24/2007 @ 09:30am

158. Green, those are good points about 3rd party candidates. I believe you could have added Henry Wallace

     in none of these cases however was there any followup.it took the greens, pun intended, more than 20 years to establish themselves in germany, and that in a country that had more than two parties, and coalition gov'ts.

     my point about the repugs demise was that never in the history of polling has a party dropped so precipitously, and we're not just talking about control of the white house.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 03/24/2007 @ 09:30am

159. The Democrats could have ended the war and thrown the president a thorugh defeat had even a handful of them voted against funding. It would have been a delicious site to see the war stopped in its track by over-reaching Repbulicans and a handful of antiwar Dems.

     It was a clarifying moment with MoveOn and CLW and others emerging as traitors to peace - which is nothing new for Eli Pariser and his contingent at MoveOn.

     The Dems can still stop this or any other funding of the war with a filibuster in the Senate. See:www.filibusterforpeace.org. Let them not claim in 2008 that they lacked the power. In 1971, John Kerry said, "We should start now to talk about filibustering for the saving of lives and of our country." Where are he and the other "antiwar" Senators now?

     Posted by jvwalshmd1 at 03/24/2007 @ 12:16pm

160. Nancy Pelosi Speech to American Israel Public Affairs Committee;

     Text of Remarks http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=47885

     5/24/2005 12:11:00 PM

     WASHINGTON, May 24 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee at their 2005 Policy Conference last night. Pelosi discussed the relationship between the United States and Israel and the continued effort for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Below are her remarks:

     "Thank you, Amy Friedkin, my dear friend for so many years. Californians, North and South, are proud of your great leadership at AIPAC. And to Bernice Manocherian, President of AIPAC, thank you. All who care about peace in the Middle East are grateful for your strength and wisdom in guiding AIPAC. As a native of Baltimore, I take special pride of your incoming President, Howard Friedman, who will continue in the tradition of outstanding leadership at AIPAC.

     "I also want to acknowledge all of the students who are here. It is great to see so many young people taking such an interest in public affairs, especially on one of the critical issues of our time: peace in the Middle East. This spring, I was in Israel as part of a congressional trip that also took us to Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. One of the most powerful experiences was taking a helicopter toward Gaza, over the path of the security fence. We set down in a field that belonged to a local kibbutz. It was a cool but sunny day, and the field was starting to bloom with mustard. Mustard is a crop that grows in California, and it felt at that moment as if I were home.

     "And then we were told that the reason we had to land in that field, as opposed to our actual destination, was because there had been an infiltration that morning, and they weren't sure how secure the area was. And that point alone brought us back to the daily reality of Israel: even moments of peace and beauty are haunted by the specter of violence.

     "While in Israel, we met with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Vice Premier Shimon Perez. From them and from other leaders, we heard something I had not heard in a long time: cautious optimism. This was an attitude quite different from the one that confronted us when I spoke to AIPAC two years ago.

     "One thing, however is unchanged: America's commitment to the safety and security of the State of Israel is unwavering. America and Israel share an unbreakable bond: in peace and war; and in prosperity and in hardship.

     "Prime Minister Sharon's leadership of Israel at this crucial time has been remarkable. He has brought Israel through an extremely challenging period, and now he has made the difficult decision that it is in Israel's national security interest to disengage from Gaza.

     "In the next few months, Israeli settlers will be evacuated entirely from Gaza and from four settlements in the northern West Bank. This courageous decision is gut-wrenching for Israel.

     "Israel's decision can be a decisive milestone on the road to peace. If the Palestinians agree to coordinate with Israel on the evacuation, establish the rule of law, and demonstrate a capacity to govern, the world may be convinced that finally there is a real partner for peace.

     "Any progress on the Roadmap for Peace must be based on real change on the ground, as evidenced by the establishment of an accountable, and reconstituted Palestinian security force that prevents terrorism, not promotes it.

     "Fortunately, Palestinian Authority President Abbas is no Yasir Arafat. He has condemned terrorism in Arabic, stating that it prolongs the day that the Palestinian goal of statehood can be achieved, and, at least as significant, stating that terrorism is immoral. He has begun to restructure the security services. All that is commendable.

     "But he has not removed Arafat's corrupt cronies from positions of power, nor has he moved to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. That is, I am sorry to say, cause for concern. President Abbas has said his goal is to establish the rule of law, but he has done nowhere near enough to realize that vision, and now he is confronted with a huge challenge: by the end of summer, Israel will be out of Gaza.

     "Can Gaza become a pilot case for self-government for a Palestinian state? Or will it become a terrorist haven, a launching pad for rockets into Israel? President Abbas must act, for his own good, against those he must know are his enemies and are the enemies of the aspirations of the Palestinian people.

     "The United States, just as Israel, wants to see him succeed. That is why I was so pleased when President Bush dispatched Jim Wolfensohn to help with the Gaza withdrawal. It is why I supported additional aid to the Palestinians in the Emergency Supplemental bill that recently passed Congress.

     "There are those who contend that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. This is absolute nonsense. In truth, the history of the conflict is not over occupation, and never has been: it is over the fundamental right of Israel to exist.

     "The greatest threat to Israel's right to exist, with the prospect of devastating violence, now comes from Iran. For too long, leaders of both political parties in the United States have not done nearly enough to confront the Russians and the Chinese, who have supplied Iran as it has plowed ahead with its nuclear and missile technology.

     "Proliferation represents a clear threat to Israel and to America. It must be confronted by an international coalition against proliferation, with a commitment and a coalition every bit as strong as our commitment to the war against terror.

     "The people of Israel long for peace and are willing to make the sacrifices to achieve it. We hope that peace and security come soon - and that this moment of opportunity is not lost. As Israel continues to take risks for peace, she will have no friend more steadfast that the United States.

     "In the words of Isaiah, we will make ourselves to Israel 'as hiding places from the winds and shelters from the tempests; as rivers of water in dry places; as shadows of a great rock in a weary land.'

     "The United States will stand with Israel now and forever. Now and forever."

     Posted by OneVote at 03/24/2007 @ 12:28pm

161. "The United States will stand with Israel now and forever. Now and forever."

     You really think Pelosi wants to bring our troops home with the "Iran" issue yet unresolved? Take a look at the text of the supplemental. Its got lots of wiggle room for US troops to stay right where they are, such as "limited" special operations and "training" of Iraqi troops. Haven't we been training Iraqui troops for the last 3 1/2 years? I am going to call this as a flat out victory of Bush and not a "New Day" for America, except for of course it will be a very nice "New Day" for those on the receiving end of Nancy's pork which she so carefully instructs us in her "bill" are not "earmarks." Nancy....a rose by any other name....in this case if it smells like earmark pork it is earmark pork. Thanks for breaking yet another campaign promise to the American people to discontinue and clean up earmarks.

     Posted by OneVote at 03/24/2007 @ 12:40pm

162. GENERAL PROVISIONS - THIS TITLE

     Sec. 1901 (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that units should not be deployed for combat unless they are rated "fully mission capable".

     (b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be used to deploy any unit of the Armed Forces to Iraq unless the chief of the military department concerned has certified in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services at least 15 days in advance of the deployment that the unit is fully mission capable.

     (c) For purposes of subsection (b), the term "fully mission capable" means capable of performing assigned mission essential tasks to prescribed standards under the conditions expected in the theater of operations, consistent with the guidelines set forth in the Department of Defense readiness reporting system.

     (d) The President, by certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committee on Armed Services that the deployment to Iraq of a unit that is not assessed fully mission capable is required for reasons of national security and by submitting along with the certification a report in classified and unclassified form detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's deployment is necessary despite the chief of the military department's assessment that the unit is not fully mission capable, may waive the limitation in subsection (b) on a unit-by-unit basis.

     Sec. 1902 (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that Army, Army Reserve and National Guard units should not be deployed for combat beyond 365 days or that Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve units should not be deployed for combat beyond 210 days.

     (b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be obligated or expended to initiate the development of, continue the development of, or execute any order that has the effect of extending the deployment for Operation Iraqi Freedom of ---

     (1) any unit of the Army, Army Reserve, or Army National Guard beyond 365 days; or

     (2) any unit of the Marine Corps or Marine Corps Reserve beyond 210 days.

     (c) The limitation prescribed in subsection (b) shall not be construed to require force levels in Iraq to be decreased below the total United States force levels in Iraq prior to January 10, 2007.

     (d) The President, by certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services that the extension of a unit's deployment in Iraq is beyond the periods specified in subsection (b) is required for reasons of national security and by submitting along with the certification a report in classified and unclassified form detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's extended deployment is necessary, may waive the limitations prescribed in subsection (b) on a unit-by-unit basis.

     Section 1903. (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that Army, Army Reserve, and National Guard units should not be deployed for combat if the unit has been deployed within the previous 365 consecutive days or that Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve units should not be redeployed for combat if the unit has been deployed within the previous 210 days.

     (b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be obligated or expended to initiate the development of, continue the development of, or execute any order that has the effect of deploying for Operation Iraqi Freedom of ---

     (1) any unit of the Army, Army Reserve, or Army National Guard if such unit has been deployed within the previous 365 days or;

     (2) any unit of the Marine Corps or Marine Corps Reserve if such unit has been deployed within the previous 210 days.

     (c) The limitation prescribed in subsection (b) shall not be construed to require force levels in Iraq to be decreased below the total United States force levels in Iraq prior to January 10, 2007.

     (d) The President, by certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services that the redeployment of a unit to Iraq in advance of the periods specified in subsection (b) is required for reasons of national security and by submitting along with the certification a report in classified and unclassified form detailing the reason or reasons why the unit's redeployment is necessary, may waive the limitations prescribed in subsection (b) on a unit-by-unit basis.

     Section 1904. (a) The President shall make and transmit to Congress the following determinations, along with reports in classified and unclassified form detailing the basis for each determination, on or before July 1, 2007:

     (1) whether the Government of Iraq has given United States Armed Forces and Iraqi Security Forces the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias, and is making substantial progress in delivering necessary Iraqi Security Forces for Baghdad and protecting such Forces from political interference; intensifying efforts to build balanced security forces throughout Iraq that provide even-handed security for all Iraqis; ensuring that Iraq's political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces; eliminating militia control of local security; establishing a strong militia disarmament program; ensuring fair and just enforcement of laws; establishing political, media, economic, and service committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan, and eradicating safe havens;

     (2) whether the Government of Iraq is making substantial progress in meeting its commitment to pursue reconciliation initiatives, including enactment of a hydro-carbon law; adoption of legislation necessary for the conduct of provincial and local elections; reform of current laws governing the de-Baathification process; amendment of the Constitution of Iraq; and allocation of Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects; and

     (3) whether the Government of Iraq and United States Armed Forces and making substantial progress in reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq.

     (b) On or before October 1, 2007, the President ---

     (1) shall certify to the Congress that the Government of Iraq has enacted a broadly accepted hydro-carbon law that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis; adopted legislation necessary for the conduct of provincial and local elections, taken steps to implement such legislation, and set a schedule to conduct provincial and local elections; reformed current laws governing the de-Baathification process to allow for more equitable treatment of individuals affected by such laws; amended the Constitution of Iraq consistent with the principles contained in article 137 of such constitution; and allocated and begun expenditure of $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis; or

     (2) shall report to Congress that he is unable to make such certification.

     (c) If in the transmissions to Congress required by subsection (a) the President determines that any of the conditions specified in each subsection have not been met, or if the President is unable to make the certification specified in subsection (b) by the required date, the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq and complete such redeployment within 180 days.

     (d) If the President makes the certification specified in subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq not later than March 1, 2008, and complete such redeployment within 180 days.

     (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act are immediately available for obligation and expenditure to plan and execute a safe and orderly redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq, as specified in subsections (c) and (d).

     (f) After the conclusion of the 180-day period for redeployment specified in subsections (c) and (d), the Secretary of Defense may not deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than the following:

     (1) Protecting Amercian diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the U.S. Armed Forces.

     (2) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions.

     (3) Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach.

     (4) Training members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

     (g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 50 percent of the funds appropriated by title I of this Act for assistance to Iraq under each of the headings "IRAQ SECURITY FORCES FUND", "ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND", AND "INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT" shall be withheld from obligation until the President has made a certification to Congress regarding the matters specified in subsection (b)(1).

     (h) The requirement to withhold funds from obligation pursuant to subsection (g) shall not apply with respect to funds made available under the heading "ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND" for continued support for the Community Action Program and Community Stabilization Program in Iraq administered by the United States Agency for International Development or for programs and activities to promote democracy in Iraq.

     Sec. 1905. (a) COORDINATOR FOR IRAQ ASSISTANCE --- Not later than 30 days after the enactment of this Act, the President shall appoint a Coordinator for Iraq Assistance (hereinafter in this section referred to as the "Coordinator"), by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, who shall report directly to the President.

     (b) DUTIES --- The Coordinator shall be responsible for ---

     (1) Developing and implementing an overall strategy for political, economic, and military assistance for Iraq;

     (2) Coordinating and ensuring coherence of Iraq assistance programs and policy among all departments and agencies of the Government of the United States that are implementing assistance programs in Iraq, including the Department of State, the United States Agency for International Development, the Department of Defense, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice;

     (3) Working with the Government of Iraq in meeting the benchmarks described in section 1901(b) of this Act in order to ensure Iraq continues to be eligible to receive United States assistance described in such section;

     (4) Coordinating with other donors and international organizations that are providing assistance for Iraq;

     (5) Ensuring adequate management and accountability of United States assistance programs for Iraq;

     (6) Resolving policy and program disputes among departments and agencies of the United States Government that are implementing assistance programs in Iraq; and

     (7) Coordinating United States assistance programs with the reconstruction programs funded and implemented by the Government of Iraq.

     (c) RANK AND STATUS --- The Coordinator shall have the rank and status of ambassador.

     Posted by OneVote at 03/24/2007 @ 1:01pm

163. The Democrats could have ended the war and thrown the president a thorugh defeat had even a handful of them voted against funding. It would have been a delicious site to see the war stopped in its track by over-reaching Repbulicans and a handful of antiwar Dems.

     It was a clarifying moment with MoveOn and CLW and others emerging as traitors to peace - which is nothing new for Eli Pariser and his contingent at MoveOn.

     The Dems can still stop this or any other funding of the war with a filibuster in the Senate. See:www.filibusterforpeace.org.

     Except that you're not going to get a majority in favor of either proposal. If Pelosi & Co. don't push this supp or something like that, a majority composed of Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans will do it themselves, probably without any conditions. Likewise you're not going to find 40 Senators who will back a total, immediate cut-off, even the country only has a small percentage in favor of that. I would also point out that a total cut-off would also mean cutting off the forces in Afghanistan as well.

     Posted by brunowe at 03/24/2007 @ 1:06pm

164. Some fool Called loonie lefty? Sounds like a Republican shill to me. I would have preferred a bill to force King...err.... President George to bring our boys home NOW but in life, you take what you can get. This Bill is a compromise, to be sure but it is a good start. We cannot stand by and let this Administration lie to us, raid the treasury, and continue to send our brave young men and women home in body bags from a civil war we have no business in. How did we get so disconnected from reality that we have such an evil, stupid man in the White House? This bill isn't perfect, but compromises rarely are. Our chicken hawk President and his six deferment Veep Shooter better finish up their ugly liitle War soon.

     Posted by gwats1957 at 03/24/2007 @ 1:16pm

165. Posted by BRUNOWE 03/24/2007 @ 1:06pm | ignore this person

     you know I would not mind a bit getting the troops out of Afghanistan. they have accomplished nothing. Al Qaeda has moved a little further to the east, a puppet gov't has been installed in Kabul, and we have taken the side of the warlords, who are no better, against the Taleban.

     there really is no plan. let these countries control their own destinies. the 9/11 plan was hatched in Hamburg Germany, the alqaeda training camps had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, what were they training them to use a boxcutter?

     the whole war there has been a farce. I mean really, send in 20,000 troops to a country the size of Texas? the US gave the Taleban $50 million, as a reward for their opium eradication, proving that they could have been dealt with.

     now? opium production is going through the roof. what NATO is doing in Afghanistan is beyond me, as that country is a bit far from the north atlantic. our disengagement from russia has been equally disastrous, and will come back to bite us in the ass.

     let's have some serious discussion, such as yours Bruno, and we will drive the shitflingers from this site with the ignore button. they like to push our buttons, so let's give them the hook, permanently.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 03/24/2007 @ 1:23pm

166. Another splendid example of why our troops won't be leaving any time soon.

     BBC 03/22/07

     Bolton admits Lebanon truce block A former top American diplomat says the US deliberately resisted calls for a immediate ceasefire during the conflict in Lebanon in the summer of 2006. Former ambassador to the UN John Bolton told the BBC that before any ceasefire Washington wanted Israel to eliminate Hezbollah's military capability.

     Mr Bolton said an early ceasefire would have been "dangerous and misguided".

     He said the US decided to join efforts to end the conflict only when it was clear Israel's campaign wasn't working.

     Israel was reacting in its own self-defence and if that meant the defeat of the enemy, that was perfectly legitimate under international law John Bolton

     The former envoy, who stepped down in December 2006, was interviewed for a BBC radio documentary, The Summer War in Lebanon, to be broadcast in April. Mr Bolton said the US was deeply disappointed at Israel's failure to remove the threat from Hezbollah and the subsequent lack of any attempt to disarm its forces.

     Britain joined the US in refusing to call for an immediate ceasefire.

     'Damn proud'

     The war began when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, but it quickly escalated into a full-scale conflict.

     BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall says the US-UK refusal to join calls for a ceasefire was one of the most controversial aspects of the diplomacy.

     At the time US officials argued a ceasefire was insufficient and agreement was needed to address the underlying tensions and balance of power in the region. Mr Bolton now describes it as "perfectly legitimate... and good politics" for the Israelis to seek to defeat their enemy militarily, especially as Hezbollah had attacked Israel first and it was acting "in its own self-defence".

     Mr Bolton, a controversial and blunt-speaking figure, said he was "damned proud of what we did" to prevent an early ceasefire.

     Also in the BBC programme, several key players claim that, privately, there were Arab leaders who also wanted Israel to destroy Hezbollah.

     "There were many not - how should I put it - resistant to the thought that the Israelis should thoroughly defeat Hezbollah, who... increasingly by Arab states were seen as an Iranian proxy," said UN special envoy Terje Roed Larsen.

     More than 1,000 Lebanese civilians and an unknown number of Hezbollah fighters were killed in the conflict.

     Israel lost 116 soldiers in the fighting, while 43 of its civilians were killed in Hezbollah rocket attacks.

     Posted by OneVote at 03/24/2007 @ 3:29pm

167. come on, a firm deadline on exit by next year? sounds fine to me. anything is good at this point.

     Posted by DARLADOON 03/23/2007 @ 1:37pm | ignore this person

     Maybe you should read the bill a little more closely. Doesn't it say that troop pullout will "commence" by 09/08. I don't interpret "commence" as a firm date of withdrawal. You should also read the other provisions and exceptions which provide for continued US troop presence. Glad you are okay with this bill, but please stop masqueradng as being against the war.

     Posted by OneVote at 03/24/2007 @ 3:34pm

168. "commence" by 03/08. Bush gets 6 months to "redeploy." Thats not by next year...thats 1 1/2 years. And I am not certain, but does redeployment mean we are bringing the troops home or moving them to lets say Afghanistan?

     Posted by OneVote at 03/24/2007 @ 3:45pm

169. The Liberal Democrats who voted against the bill were fools, perhaps driven to vote that way by fools in their districts. Denniss Kucinich demonstrated his inability to lead. I dont understand why Liberals dont unite against the common enemy.

     The Judean Peoples Front? No no, the Romans.

     Posted by conshame at 03/24/2007 @ 5:26pm

170. The Liberal Democrats who voted against the bill were fools, perhaps driven to vote that way by fools in their districts. Denniss Kucinich demonstrated his inability to lead. I dont understand why Liberals dont unite against the common enemy.

     The Judean Peoples Front? No no, the Romans.

     Posted by CONSHAME 03/24/2007 @ 5:26pm | ignore this person

     Yes, those "fools" who actually want a complete withdrawal within one year, instead of a partial withdrawal in late 2008, with the rest of the troops to serve under President Hillary's kinder, gentler occupation of Iraq.

     The voters do not exist to serve the Democrats.

     Posted by green2006 at 03/24/2007 @ 9:09pm

171. note how nichols characterized the progressive vote as one of "conscience." interesting choice of words, which leads me to suggest that those progressives were, although compassionate and honest, thoroughly impractical.

     come on, a firm deadline on exit by next year? sounds fine to me. anything is good at this point.

     Posted by DARLADOON 03/23/2007 @ 1:37pm |

     Right on, Darladoon. I think it's called "shooting oneself in the foot." I'm amazed that ideologically correct progressives and even farther leftists like some of those No-voting Dems have any foot left to shoot by now.

     Posted by w_m_bear at 03/24/2007 @ 10:18pm

172. OneVote -- You're worse than Rese used to be. Is it really useful to post the entire text, either of a speech or a congressional measure in this venue? Wouldn't just posting a link to these texts serve just as well? Wake up and smell the 21st Century!

     Posted by w_m_bear at 03/24/2007 @ 10:25pm

173. Yes, those "fools" who actually want a complete withdrawal within one year, instead of a partial withdrawal in late 2008,

     Please explain how they were going to bring this about.

     Posted by brunowe at 03/24/2007 @ 10:53pm

174. Yes, those "fools" who actually want a complete withdrawal within one year, instead of a partial withdrawal in late 2008,

     Please explain how they were going to bring this about.

     Posted by BRUNOWE 03/24/2007 @ 10:53pm | ignore this person

     That's the difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

     Let's say the Republicans have a majority in Congress. Suppose the position that their party's base holds on one of the foremost issues facing our country is supported by 58% of the American people. The Repubs would have almost unanimously enacted their base's position into law, with the support of about half of the Congressional Democrats. Their party base celebrates total victory.

     Let's say the Democrats have a majority in Congress. Suppose the position that their party's base holds on one of the foremost issues facing our country is supported by 58% of the American people. The Democrats don't even bring up their position for a vote. Their base says "pragmatism", "politics is the art of the possible", "sticking up for your principles makes you a 'Nader'", "red state Democrats", "the Democratic Party is a big tent", etc., etc.

     Posted by green2006 at 03/24/2007 @ 11:59pm

175. Who are the southern conservative Democrates that voted against the bill. They are Republicans, not true Democrates and they are harming the Democratic Party in the south. Let me guess: FLA., GA., ALA., SC,. MISS, and maybe TX.

     Posted by stone2126 at 03/25/2007 @ 12:44am

176. OneVote -- You're worse than Rese used to be. Is it really useful to post the entire text, either of a speech or a congressional measure in this venue? Wouldn't just posting a link to these texts serve just as well? Wake up and smell the 21st Century!

     Posted by W_M_BEAR 03/24/2007 @ 10:25pm | ignore this person

     Pray tell what "relevant" portions of my prior posts have I failed to include? If I express an opinion without support, then I have no doubt you will jump on my case for an opinion without factual support. I notice your posts here don't have any support for your summary judgments about left leaning Dems shooting themselves in the foot. Is this the 21st century...all form...no substance? I can see why you like the House bill.

     Posted by OneVote at 03/25/2007 @ 09:45am

177. Yes, those "fools" who actually want a complete withdrawal within one year, instead of a partial withdrawal in late 2008, with the rest of the troops to serve under President Hillary's kinder, gentler occupation of Iraq.

     The voters do not exist to serve the Democrats.

     Posted by GREEN2006 03/24/2007 @ 9:09pm | ignore this person

     This is precisely what the House bill works to accomplish. This bill is being marketed as a bring our troops home measure when in reality it allows for continued US occupation of Iraq and redeployment to other Middle East venues so we can "monitor" the situation. Bush gets a free pass till 09/08, then the Dem leadership is going to hold us hostage for the elections on who has the best plan to bring our troops home all the while blaming Bush for continued failure in Iraq...even when we gave him a chance to do something about it. Democrats own this war now. This is continuing to smell alot like Vietnam.

     Posted by OneVote at 03/25/2007 @ 10:06am

178. The Liberal Democrats who voted against the bill were fools, perhaps driven to vote that way by fools in their districts. Denniss Kucinich demonstrated his inability to lead. I dont understand why Liberals dont unite against the common enemy.

     The Judean Peoples Front? No no, the Romans.

     Posted by CONSHAME 03/24/2007 @ 5:26pm | ignore this person

     'Total Information Awareness

     The Judean Peoples Front? No no, the Romans.

     Thursday, December 15, 2005 The Judean People's Front According to Heather Hurlburt, we, of the progressive/liberal persuasion, are addicted to infighting - foolishly prone to internecine squabbles in pursuit of the "purest" vision of progressivism. Since Monty Python analogies are the theme of the day, allow me to suggest that we are like the myriad Jewish resistance groups in the film The Life of Brian who are so focused on bettering each other, and providing "the" way to liberation, that they fail to direct their attention at their common target: the Romans. Remember the unforgettable scene where two such resistance groups (the People's Front of Judea and the Campaign for Free Galilee), each on their way to kidnap Pilate's wife, meet up in the sewers and begin fighting with each other instead of going on to strike at the Romans. In the heat of battle, Brian attempts to restore sanity'

     My fellow "fools" and I are trying to determine whether you "Party Line Dems" are on our side at all. My thinking is that you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. The 2006 preelection rhetoric and promises of the Party are a far cry from what we are actually going to get out the Party and this House bill represents a two fat lies to the American people...1) we are going to bring our troops home & 2) we are going to stop earmarking pork and institute a practice of "clean bill" legislation from now on. We are not of the same Party my friend. You are in a different camp. The Romans are the entrenched two party system that caters to special interest groups at the expense of the American majority. I won't be fooled again.

     Posted by OneVote at 03/25/2007 @ 11:46am

179. Pray tell what "relevant" portions of my prior posts have I failed to include? If I express an opinion without support, then I have no doubt you will jump on my case for an opinion without factual support. I notice your posts here don't have any support for your summary judgments about left leaning Dems shooting themselves in the foot. Is this the 21st century...all form...no substance? I can see why you like the House bill.

     Posted by ONEVOTE 03/25/2007 @ 09:45am | ignore this person

     At least "summary judgments" don't waste a lot of time and space on a discussion thread. And I certainly wasn't faulting you for "failing to include" anything!

     Posted by w_m_bear at 03/25/2007 @ 11:50am

180. At least "summary judgments" don't waste a lot of time and space on a discussion thread. And I certainly wasn't faulting you for "failing to include" anything!

     Posted by W_M_BEAR 03/25/2007 @ 11:50am | ignore this person

     I see Bear...anything you don't agree with is a waste of your time but I think its presumptuous of you to assume that its a waste of time of others. Summary judgments without support are generally denied. Lets hear your support for your opinions. Anti-war progressives on this site at least are supporting their opinions and not buying into the Party Line soundbites which you are apparently limiting the depth of your analysis to. Dig deeper, you and your ilk are going to be held accountable.

     Posted by OneVote at 03/25/2007 @ 12:14pm

181. Take notice of how the wrong-wingers not only continue to frame the argument about the war, but the very manner in which they talk about it. Not only is it the same tired old lie--"Oh noes, the tahh-woah-wifts are gunna fowwow uf home if we weav Irack!"... They don't even bother trying to piece it into a semi-valid argument anymore. Nope, it gets right to the "anti-American" accusation bullshit--no detours anymore.

     Used to be, we'd get two or three sentences of wrong-winged bullshit before getting to the "anti-American" compliments. Now, they just start right off with it.

     Obviously, desperation really is setting in. I guess it gets hard to defend a party that starts and perpetuates nonsensical, illegal, unwinnable wars. But the wrong-wing paid hacks are nothing if not dedicated.

     I'm just glad I'm not a gutless, inhumane moron who has to try defending why we should remain in the middle of an Iraqi civil war, with no mission, clear objective, plan, or proposed resolution in mind. And to have to try stating why it's really about our security, rather than about empire and oil--wow! And on top of all that, to divert attention away from the fact that the whole mess was opt-in, whew!

     I can see why the soulless freaks have taken the gloves off. You can't win with them or without them, but at least this way you can handle the tissues more easily.

     Posted by Left is Right at 03/25/2007 @ 2:42pm

182. Chimpy and his handler Darth will probably have a new target this week: Chuck Hagel has basically come forward to say that impeachment remains on the table.

     What a gutless traitor that Hagel. What he do, like go to Vietnam and serve with distinction while the enuretic Dubya was AWOL in Texas....oh, never mind

     Posted by skeletonman at 03/25/2007 @ 3:56pm

183. STAY THE COURSE! STAY THE COURSE! STAY THE COURSE!

     Maybe that will make LvLiberty and company feel better.

     See? Just keep mouthing that over and over again and your blood pressure will drop and you will start to feel better.

     Posted by hhemwm at 03/25/2007 @ 10:15pm

184. Who are the southern conservative Democrates that voted against the bill. They are Republicans, not true Democrates and they are harming the Democratic Party in the south. Let me guess: FLA., GA., ALA., SC,. MISS, and maybe TX.

     Posted by STONE2126 03/25/2007 @ 12:44am | ignore this person

     I don't think it is quite that simple. Democrat does not equal Progressive. Let them vote their conscience. You may not agree with it, but that maybe what they believe and what they think their constituents want. The country is not uniformly against this war. . . much as I wish it was.

     Posted by hhemwm at 03/25/2007 @ 10:19pm

185. Skeletonman,

     As far as Senator Hagel is concerned, I am still waiting to see when he will either a.) put forward a concrete proposal to bring the troops home. or b.) actually support a bill doing so. As The Nation noted, the only Senate Republican to do so was Gordon Smith of Oregon. No Hagel.

     I want to see something from him.

     Posted by hhemwm at 03/25/2007 @ 10:21pm

186. Suppose the position that their party's base holds on one of the foremost issues facing our country is supported by 58% of the American people.

     That doesn't answer my question. It's been posted here that although a narrow majority favors withdrawal, that a large chunk of that wants it in about a year.

     Further, my question was about legislative process. If this supp got shot down, do you think the Lee amendment would've been what had gone through. How do you get 218 votes in the House for it or something like it?

     Posted by brunowe at 03/25/2007 @ 11:22pm

187. I think all of us anti-war progressives should just march down to the capital building and demand complete and unconditional defeat, retreat, and surrender. Who's with me?

     Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2007 @ 11:50pm

188. Good times, folks! Here's what all of us progressives have been fighting for!

     Wednesday, March 21, 2007 Democrat's Propose the Largest Tax Increase in American History Posted by: John Campbell at 7:49 PM

     Earlier today, I wrote a post discussing the Democrats proposed budget for next year. I briefly mentioned that this proposal is a sham to the American taxpayer. Having now listened throughout the day to their acrobatic attempts to justify it, I wanted to specifically tell you why it is so bad. Here we go...

     * Their budget proposes the largest tax increase in American history - The Democrat's budget calls for a tax increase of every tax bracket, slashes the child tax credit, raises the death tax, and reinstates the marriage penalty. And this is just a sampling, there is more. In all, the Democrat's plan will cost taxpayers over $390 billion in the next 5 years. What is particularly frustrating about this ill-advised action is that the Democrats are blatantly ignoring the economic consequences and fiscal benefits that lower taxes have brought to the treasury the past few years. Revenue has increased in double digits the last two years alone because of the economic expansion encouraged by reduced taxation. This revenue growth has been crucial in reducing the deficit. The Democrats refuse to recognize this, though, and instead they just want to tax us to death. This is a recipe for disaster. * Their budget proposes massive increases in spending, expansion of government - As highlighted above, revenue is not the problem, out of control spending is the problem. The Democrats, however, don't seem to care. Their singular goal is to spend more and make government bigger. In that spirit, their budget calls for a $42.5 billion increase in non-defense spending this year. Yikes. * Their budget proposes no offsets to pay for these increases - Despite these huge increases, the Democrats offer no way to pay for them except by raiding Social Security and raising taxes. This is completely irresponsible. Governing is about making tough decisions and ending governments programs that are ineffective and wasteful -- even if they sound good. Their budget, however, has expansion across the board regardless of effectiveness. Hardly fiscal responsibility. * Their budget proposes no fix to the AMT - In spite of their continued talk of fixing this increasingly oppressive tax, they have done nothing and are allowing it to continue to grow and adversely affect more taxpayers. * Their budget proposes no entitlement reform plan - The Budget Committee has heard testimony from several witnesses warning of the unsustainable growth of entitlement programs likes Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Repeated experts have said that if entitlements are not reformed, in the very near future, the budget will either be completely consumed by them or Congress will have to double current tax levels. Do we really want to saddle our children and grandchildren with our debt? The Democrats apparently do. * Their budget proposes no accountability standards - With all of these increases in expenditures, the Democrats are conspicuously silent on all the current waste in the federal budget. Instead of making the government more efficient with what it is already operating under, they are just calling for more money. I do not know of one business that operates in such a backward fashion. We need to promote efficiency and accountability -- not just blindly sign away taxpayer dollars to useless government programs.

     It is apparent from today that the Democrat's rhetoric during last fall's campaign that they would bring fiscal responsibility to Washington was exactly that -- rhetoric. We need serious reform proposals and decisive leadership, not the tax and spend days of old.

     Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2007 @ 11:52pm

189. The Democrat's budget calls for a tax increase of every tax bracket, slashes the child tax credit, raises the death tax, and reinstates the marriage penalty.

     Now that's what us progressives call PROGRESS!!! Slash them darn child tax credits!! Penalize people for marrying, by God! Hoorah!

     Posted by pontificus at 03/26/2007 @ 09:11am

190. I guess the thing I like most about our new progressive budget is how it slashes the child tax credits (almost as much as I like the reinstatement of the marriage penalty). We need to get those little bastards paying for my social security as soon as possible. My medicare, too. Oh, yeah, and my prescription drugs. I know I didn't kick in nearly enough to cover that during my working years, and I think they're all due to run out of money round about 2017. That's why we need those little buggers to start kicking in sooner, I may still be alive after that.

     Posted by pontificus at 03/26/2007 @ 10:06am

191. It's truly amazing that our proud progressives are STILL criticizing Pelosi, while the repubs are howling because they've been outflanked. IT"S WORKING, knuckleheads. the polls are solidly behind the dems, Bush will not veto this bill, is my prediction. if he does it will be he that is cutting off the troops, as they so dishonestly accuse the dems of doing.

     the attorneygate fiasco gives repubs a good excuse to distance themselves from Bush, which is their only chance of survival in 2008. the one who can distance himself the most, will win the nomination. and lose the election.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 03/27/2007 @ 1:33pm