Harry Reid Finally Starts to Fight Smart

Harry Reid is finally coming to the realization reached months ago by the American people: That Democrats in Congress have been played for suckers by the Bush White House and its Republican allies on Capitol Hill.

The Senate Majority Leader's recognition of the realities of Washington in the Bush era--as evidenced by his decision Monday to set up a scenario that could clarify the role played by Republican senators in maintaining the president's exceptionally unpopular approach to the Iraq War--holds out the prospect that the politics of the debate over ending the occupation could change radically in the weeks to come.

Make no mistake, such a shift is necessary.

Despite the clear mandate they received last November--a mandate that, in a time of war and against a fierce campaign by the sitting President, restored the opposition party to control of both the US House and Senate for the first time since the "Republican revolution" of 1994--Congressional Democrats have for the past six months behaved as powerless bystanders in George Bush's Washington.

Instead of boldly challenging the most dysfunctional president in American history, using all the tools of the system of a checks and balances that was established to favor legislative oversight of the executive branch, Democrats have played the game by Bush's rules. And they have lost at every turn.

With a quarter of the term of the current Congress now done, it is clear that the cooperative approach adopted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and Senate Majority Leader Reid, D-Nevada, hasn't worked. It is not just that approval ratings for Congress are now below those of a failed president that Democrats were elected to challenge and constrain. It is that the disastrous war in Iraq, the central crisis of this American moment, continues to claim the lives of US troops and Iraqi civilians at an alarming rate.

The circumstance requires that Congressional Democrats change course. And their new priority should be to clarify rather than muddy the debate over Iraq.

That is what Reid is doing, at least tentatively, with his decision to, as he puts it, "highlight Republican obstruction" of Democratic efforts to bring the troops home.

Reid plans to do that Tuesday by refusing to allow Republicans to quietly make procedural moves to block voting on an amendment sponsored by Michigan Senator Carl Levin and Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed that would establish a withdrawal timeline. Instead, he plans to force the President's Senate allies to filibuster--at least for one night--in favor of continuing a war that even Republicans do not want to be associated with anymore.

"I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down," Reid declared Monday afternoon. "If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday. The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up or down vote on this amendment to end it."

Unless Republicans agree to a simple-majority vote on Levin-Reed, Reid has indicated that he will keep the Senate in continuous session through Tuesday night and into Wednesday.

The point is to make it absolutely clear that Republican senators--even those who say they want to start bringing the troops home--are doing everything in their power to prevent a Senate vote that might embarrass of challenge Bush.

It is not likely that one night of filibustering complete the process of exposing the Republican shenanigans for what they are.

But Reid's move is a step in the right direction.

Nothing highlighted the ineffectual nature of the Democratic opposition to Bush's policies more than Reid's willingness to politely allow Republicans to prevent votes on fundamental issues such as the war.

Again and again, Republicans threatened to filibuster--a move that involves endless speechifying and limitless debate--in order to prevent the passage of measures designed to being bringing US troops home from Iraq.

Again and again, the majority leader responded to the threats by seeking a cloture vote that, if successful, would trump the filibuster threat and allow a vote of the full Senate in favor of the anti-war position that the vast majority of Democrats and a reasonable number of Republicans say they favor. Cloture refers to the only procedure by which the Senate can place a time limit on debate, thus overcoming a threatened filibuster, and get to clarity. Cloture can only be achieved if three-fifths of the members of the Senate, normally sixty of them, vote for it.

Unfortunately for Reid, the Democratic caucus has just fifty-one members--a few of whom, like Connecticut's Joe Lieberman, are in the pocket of the Bush White House--and the majority leader has only a handful of Republican allies who are willing to break with the administration on cloture votes regarding Iraq.

Thus, when Reid has sought cloture, he has more often than not been thwarted by Republican leaders, who successfully hold enough of their members to prevent the limit on debate. Only when the White House has ordered Senate Republicans to back off and allow a vote, as happened on the supplemental funding measure that Bush would eventually veto, does Reid get the vote he wants.

Reid and his fellow Democrats have tried to portray the votes on cloture as true tests of the will of senators.

But the American people have not seen these procedural clashes as consequential. As a result, Republicans who wanted to play both sides of the Iraq debate--making vaguely anti-war statements that get big play in the media while quietly providing the behind-the-scenes votes the White House needs to maintain its policies--were able to do so.

There was no clarity. And more and more Americans came to see Reid and the Democrats as, at best, ineffective; and, at worst, in unspoken collaboration with Bush.

Reid appears finally to have recognized that problem--with a little prodding from Senate colleagues and grassroots activists.

North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, a principled Democrat from a rather red state who voted against authorizing Bush to go to war in Iraq and who "gets" the Senate as well as just about any member, raised the prospect of a new approach when he appeared last week on Air America's "Young Turks" program. Conrad explained that a Republican senator had recently told him the GOP leadership had adopted a strategy designed to "prevent any accomplishment" by the Democratic Congress. A key component of the strategy is to repeatedly threaten filibusters that force cloture votes -- on the theory that, try as Democrats might to portray those votes as meaningful, all that most Americans would know is that under Democratic leadership nothing was getting done.

Conrad suggested that it might be wise to put the procedural debates aside and let the American people see what is really happening.

"We have a narrow but clear majority in the United States Senate. We have a narrow but clear majority in the House of Representatives. And so we do have more of an ability to have our points of view heard than we did when we were in the minority. But it's also the reality [that] he President has the biggest megaphone, and, you know, until Democrats have the White House, they're always going to be at a disadvantage in terms of getting a message out," explained Conrad. "With that said, with that said, I think that we could do a better job making our points, and one part of that is to let the American people see just how obstructionist this Republican minority is being."

Asked if Democrats should abandon the polite approach of seeking cloture votes, losing them and then going on to other business, and instead begin forcing the Republicans to filibuster--thus displaying their true positions on ending the war--Conrad said, "Yeah, I think there's a growing consensus that we ought to do that."

Conrad's statement inspired activists, including the folks at MoveOn.org, to begin a push to get Reid and the Democratic leadership of the Senate to call the bluff of the Republicans.

Reid has not quite done that. He is still playing the cloture game to some extent, and a single night of forcing Republicans to show their true colors may not be enough to scare wavering GOP senators into breaking with their president and their party's Senate leadership.

But it is a start, potentially, of a new chapter in the war debate.

Reid is beginning to realize that Democrats have gotten nowhere by playing according to rules that favor the White House and its congressional allies.

He is moving toward a point of saying to Republicans: "It you want to filibuster in favor of continuing the failed occupation of Iraq, go for it. Show the American people exactly how determined you are to maintain George Bush's war."

By abandoning at least some of the inside-the-beltway politeness that gave Republicans an opening they have ably exploited, Reid is forcing members of the president's party who like to hint that they are anti-war but never vote that way to publicly and officially take a side. The more republicans engage in pro-war filibusters, the more they establish once and for all that -- no matter what they say about their supposed discomfort with the president's approach -- they see it as their job to prevent Congress from checking and balancing the Bush White House.

Like the southern senators who filibustered against civil rights legislation in the 1950s, Republicans who choose to rant on and on about how Congress cannot block the president's war making will expose themselves and their party to the harsh light of day--and potentially to the harsh response of the voters in 2008. And those Republicans who like to sound like critics of the war but who allow their party's leadership to maintain the filibuster will be exposed as the hypocrites they are.

If particular Republican senators do not like this scenario, they can pull together enough votes to assure Reid will have the sixty supporters he needs to avert the filibuster threat and get a real debate and a real vote on whether to end the occupation. Then, instead of allowing Republicans to abuse the cloture process to obstruct the will of the people, Reid can use cloture to quickly and easily remove the obstruction.

The key is for Reid to stop giving Republicans an easy out. When GOP leaders threaten to filibuster in favor of endless war, the majority leader must continually call their bluff. That will give the president's partisan allies in the Senate political ownership of his war -- and it will give the American people a clear picture of who wants to bring the troops home and who wants to leave them mired in George Bush's quagmire.

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

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 (161)

1. Give em hell Harry (and Kent)!!

   Posted by BlueTexan at 07/17/2007 @ 12:15am

2. NICHOLS: Despite the overwhelming mandate they received last November....

   Contrast NICHOLS' "overwhelming" with Sen. Conrad's:

   "We have a narrow but clear majority in the United States Senate. We have a narrow but clear majority in the House of Representatives....

   OK, so `Get-Rich-Quick-Land-Deal' Harry is a bit slow on the political front, according to Nichols: "Harry Reid is finally coming to the realization reached months ago by the American people....." Somehow, NICHOLS' endorsement of Slow Harry's shift in strategy is giving me the premonitions of another Dem debacle!

   Fundamentally, most Americans just know in their guts that Congress' oversight does not extend into setting war `timetables'! We are talking about wars, not some Affirmative Action goals at Univ. of Wherever! It's "Fund or NOT to fund, Stupid!"

   Posted by Happy at 07/17/2007 @ 12:31am

3. Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/17/2007 @ 12:45am | ignore this person

   Liars, hypocrites and cowards? This from a guy who was attempting to lecture people on hate in an earlier thread. But Rio, here's a thought for you. Since you're supporting your Dear Leader against the hordes, why are you not in uniform? Age and physical condition notwithstanding (learn Arabic - they'll find something for you to do), if you think sending others to their deaths is such a hot idea, are you so hypocritical or, dare I say, cowardly, that you refuse to join them in your pursuit?

   Posted by jmusolino at 07/17/2007 @ 01:09am

4. "Despite the overwhelming mandate they received last November -- "

   A mandate? To me it looks like the repubs were fired...the assisant managers are now the nacting manager until a replacement can be found or hired...I'd say the Dems are in danger of being fired too.

   Posted by john maasch at 07/17/2007 @ 01:18am

5. I wish it were true, Mr Nichols.

   But as you noted it is "for one night". Reid will likely "stand tough" and "force the Republicans to defend their obstruction to Reed-Levin...."for one night".

   Then the event will be over by Wednesday at lunch. Reid will say "See, see...see what I did!" and then the amendment will die a quiet and quick death.

   See, if Reid were serious, he wouldn't have said "If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday."

   He would have said "If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed, we will work straight through...until it does. Days, weeks, whatever. This failed war is too important and we sure as heck are getting anything ELSE done. We will stay in session until the amendment passes!"

   Not just one night, but as many nights as it takes. Quorum calls to keep the Senators in the Chamber. Speeches with referee whistle breaks in the middle to keep the gentlemen and ladies awake. A serious "bust the balls" move to end this war, no matter how uncomfortable it makes everybody.

   Because the troops in the field are a helluva lot more uncomfortable.

   Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 07:05am

6. Posted by MASK 07/17/2007 @ 07:05am,

   Gimme an amen.

   Posted by drhammer at 07/17/2007 @ 07:18am

7. Harry is a nice Old man but he does not know how to fight with people that don't have any HONOR. The people he is up against lie with no discomfort, cheat, steal, start wars just for the fun of it. These people have no Shame, Harry does not have a chance. Maybe a Lyndon Johnson would know how to kick Ass, not little Old Harry!

   Posted by gwazdos at 07/17/2007 @ 07:34am

8. We could demand that all Democratic political consultants now employed by Democratic Representatives be fired. If the Democratic "leadership" is also involved, they should be fired too. Because, they are incompetent and ignoring their Constitutional Duty to protect the Constitution. Does anyone in the upper tiers of Democratic Management have a plan beyond "Let's just sit tight."

   Sitting tight is not a good option right now. Who knows what this administration, with the !00% backing of Congressional Republicans, and the Supreme Court, is capable of? Are they just nuts, or, are they power-lusting tyrants? Maybe we better find out, soon.

   .

   Posted by rabblerowzer at 07/17/2007 @ 08:02am

9. Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/17/2007 @ 01:02am

   Don't forget Reagan...the Lebanese cut and runner!! What a wuss!

   Posted by BlueTexan at 07/17/2007 @ 08:02am

10. Impeachment is the quickist way to stop the occupation in Iraq:

    Pace: US Troops in Iraq Could Rise

    ROBERT BURNS | July 16, 2007 07:06 PM EST |

    BAGHDAD -- The U.S. military is weighing new directions for Iraq, including an even bigger troop buildup if President Bush thinks his "surge" strategy needs a further boost, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2007 @ 09:36am

11. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/17/2007 @ 09:36am

    HSUB, been waiting on you. Need you to translate this--(obviously it doesn't mean what it looks like it means)

    Sen. Russ Feingold---Daily Kos

    Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:41:41 AM PDT

    Last week I came here to discuss how I plan to tighten my legislation to end the open-ended military mission in Iraq so the Administration would not be able to exploit it and keep tens of thousands of troops, if not more, stuck in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. I appreciated all of the responses and of course I noticed that many of you advocated for the impeachment of the President as well as the Vice President and the Attorney General. I've been hearing some of those same comments in Wisconsin.

    It is clear that there are many people in this country, including myself, who demand accountability from this Administration for the terrible mess it made in Iraq and its egregious and even illegal power grabs throughout its six-plus years in power. I believe that the President and Vice President may well have committed impeachable offenses. But with so many important issues facing this country and so much work to be done, I am concerned about the great deal of time multiple impeachment trials would take away from the Congress working on the problems of the country. The time it would take for the House to consider articles of impeachment, and for the Senate to conduct multiple trials, would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to do what it was elected to do – end the war and address some of the other terrible mistakes this Administration has made over the past six and a half years.

    While some have pointed to Republicans' decision to impeach President Clinton, I am also concerned about the over-use of impeachment. And I am conscious of the fact that I would have a specific role to play as a sworn, impartial juror should an impeachment be tried in the Senate. If charges come to the Senate, I will approach them and the trial with the same seriousness that I had when I participated in the Clinton impeachment trial. I would not prejudge the case one way or the other should it come to this.

    I fully respect the anger and frustration many Americans feel with this Administration. I share much of it. But on balance, I think Congress's time is much better spent ending the war in Iraq, conducting the oversight that was absent for the last six years, and advancing progressive legislation.

    www.dailykos.com

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 09:57am

12. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/17/2007 @ 09:36am

    Don't you love Bush's strategy of the month club. It's amazing the how the reasoning and strategies for this war have bounced all the way from A to Z. They should start running bets on this in Vegas.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 07/17/2007 @ 10:02am

13. "I will approach them and the trial with the same seriousness that I had when I participated in the Clinton impeachment trial. I would not prejudge the case one way or the other should it come to this.

    I fully respect the anger and frustration many Americans feel with this Administration. I share much of it. But on balance, I think Congress's time is much better spent ending the war in Iraq, conducting the oversight that was absent for the last six years, and advancing progressive legislation."

    www.dailykos.com

    Maskerina, it sounds like he's attempting to structure/frame his 'fairness', also termed 'inoculation', so when impeach comes as he knows it is-- he'll not be accused of being on a vendetta and it stick, which is what the repub new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, already have now on their auto-reply... Not a hard one to read at all.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2007 @ 10:11am

14. Bush is correct. it will be up to the next pres to end this war. Bush is not capable of doing so. the first thing that needs to be done is to acknowledge the mistake of engaging in war in the first place. that is something Bush is never going to do. many more people will die. many more americans will die.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 10:13am

15. Posted by BLUETEXAN 07/17/2007 @ 10:02am

    Same product, different label, only in different sizes now to boot.

    However, can we say merc's fall off the truck...? Backdoor. hsuB doesn't need legislation to up the merc's whenever he wants, just redistributes the cash to big corp's. I heard there are more merc's there than our active military. Any truth to that?

    Stopping the cash-flow via impeachment is the only solution I can see as hsuB is thinking legacy for the next pres to lose ala Nixon and Veitnam. Only he's both Nixon and Johnson rolled into one, though this time, hsuB's only got the bad parts of both sans any redeeming qualities either had.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2007 @ 10:26am

16. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/17/2007 @ 10:11am

    Whew! Thanks, HSUB. See, I knew that Feingold couldn't possible mean that he thinks "Congress's time is much better spent on ending the war, conducting oversight, and advancing progressive legislation" when he was discussing impeachment and said...

    "I think Congress's time is much better spent ending the war in Iraq, conducting the oversight that was absent for the last six years, and advancing progressive legislation."

    But that he was lying so that he would "appear fair".

    Man, that's a relief! Good thing you're here to tell us what guys like Gore and Feingold "really mean"!

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 10:41am

17. But that he was lying so that he would "appear fair".

    Man, that's a relief! Good thing you're here to tell us what guys like Gore and Feingold "really mean"!

    Posted by MASK 07/17/2007 @ 10:41am

    Maskerina Maskerina Maskerina, now don't pull out that straw dildo no one but new cons want to see. Some people, though you can't believe it, can multi-task-- have foresight-- do oversight, inoculate, and legistale. He's clearly stating that he can and will impeach fairly.

    So Maskerina, are you saying since you don't have the ability to do more than one thing at a time, those that do -- are lying!?!?!

    Now that's one limp straw dildo you got there waving around. Why aren't you embarrassed?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2007 @ 10:53am

18. Mystery post:

    But that he was lying so that he would "appear fair".

    Man, that's a relief! Good thing you're here to tell us what guys like Gore and Feingold "really mean"!

    Posted by MASK 07/17/2007 @ 10:41am

    Maskerina Maskerina Maskerina, now don't pull out that straw dildo no one but new cons want to see. Some people, though you can't believe it, can multi-task-- have foresight-- do oversight, inoculate, and legistale. He's clearly stating that he can and will impeach fairly.

    So Maskerina, are you saying since you don't have the ability to do more than one thing at a time, those that do -- are lying!?!?!

    Now that's one limp straw dildo you got there waving around. Why aren't you embarrassed?

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/17/2007 @ 10:53am |

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2007 @ 10:56am

19. Hey FRANK....looks like Elizabeth Edwards is calling out your girlfirend.....www.salon.com

    "And then she (Hillary Clinton) says, or maybe her supporters say, "Support me because I'm a woman," and I want to say to her, "Well, then support me because I'm a woman." The question is not so much how she campaigns -- that's theater. The question is, what does her campaign tell you about how she'll govern? And I'm not convinced she'd be as good an advocate for women."

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 10:57am

20. He's clearly stating that he can and will impeach fairly.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/17/2007 @ 10:56am

    Yes but FIRST...he's clearly stating (on impeachment)...

    "But on balance, I think Congress's time is much better spent ending the war in Iraq, conducting the oversight that was absent for the last six years, and advancing progressive legislation."

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 11:00am

21. By now Reid should be weeks into this tactic and be bleary eyed behind a mound of product placement Starbucks cups begging on TV for the obstructionist Republicans to let the Senate have a simple up and down vote.

    I suppose it's better late than never, but one has to wonder if Reid has the cajones to lead at this point.

    Posted by freedomplease at 07/17/2007 @ 11:00am

22. "I fully respect the anger and frustration many Americans feel with this Administration. I share much of it. But on balance, I think Congress's time is much better spent ending the war in Iraq, conducting the oversight that was absent for the last six years, and advancing progressive legislation."

    I respect and admire Russ Feingold. We need more like him.

    And I think our representatives need to take a break from the suckling, buckle down, and do everything Russ mentions, plus impeach Cheney and his frat-boy sockpuppet.

    But it's kinda hard to spin the above quote as anything but bleeding steam off the boiler.

    Sorry, fellow itmfa'ers. That's how I read it.

    Posted by drhammer at 07/17/2007 @ 11:15am

23. Posted by DRHAMMER 07/17/2007 @ 11:15am

    Sorry, Doc. Feingold is right. In two months it'll be September, and Congress will need its full force and strength if it is going to push for an end to the Iraq War with a de-fund vote and garner enough Repubs to over-ride the veto.

    They CAN'T do that if it's an impeachment circus and Feingold is smart enough to know that you can't "do both".

    Unlike HSUBOBSESSED thinks, ending the war is pre-empted by impeachment...not promoted by it. And if it comes down to "justice for Dubya and Dick"...or saving American lives....there's only one choice.

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 11:56am

24. Zero,

    One Republican plan floating around is to send a lone filibusterer. The plan assumes that Tim Johnson can't show up and Lieberman will not show up....meaning that the Dems would have 49 plus the lone filibusterer makes 50. Harry Reid needs a quorum of 51 to have a vote.

    The plan assumes that defecting Republican's are not willing to do the all night thing in order to get an up and down vote on Iraq. Which they probably are not willing to do.

    Posted by freedomplease at 07/17/2007 @ 12:44pm

25. dems should have been flinging their own monkey wrenches when the pres's popularity got stuck under 30%. without 2/3 majority, some disatisfaction with them is absurd, but they could still be raising a firestorm and forcin republicans to go on record as either

    a) with the majority of the american public or...

    b) shameless bushy lapdogs...

    win/win for the dems, tie/lose for pubs...

    but to sit around still traumatized and skeered from 12 years of being kicked around is the WORST thing the dems could do....

    "but but but but....they....uh...republicans...skeered...powerful...might call us liberals or other bad names...uh...uh..."

    assertiveness training at camp cojones! get ole urmy there... "..yer ALL equally worthless to me!"

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/17/2007 @ 1:02pm

26. He's clearly stating that he can and will impeach fairly.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/17/2007 @ 10:56am

    Yes but FIRST...he's clearly stating (on impeachment)...

    "But on balance, I think Congress's time is much better spent ending the war in Iraq, conducting the oversight that was absent for the last six years, and advancing progressive legislation."

    Posted by MASK 07/17/2007 @ 11:00am

    Maskerina Maskerina Maskerina, well now, are you saying that congress hasn't been doing oversight the last 6 months? Nor are you saying that dems haven't been 'trying to end the occupation in Iraq', nor trying to pass progressive legislation-- except for repub obstruction and hsuB veto?

    Oh DUHHH, 'yes' they have been. Maybe not as hard as we all want them to ,but yes, to a degree they have been trying. So what now Maskerina? Dems have been spending their time doing what Fiengold says they should be spending their time doing, but is talking about impeachment.... uuUUUHHhhhmmmmMM, That can only mean that he DOESN'T or DOES want to introduce the new dialogue? UUUUuuuUUUUuHHHHHhhhhMMMM, now lets see, dems are already doing what Fiengold says they should be doing, but starts talking about being 'fair' about 'impeachment'... UUUuuuuhhhHHHmmmMMmm. Gee, I can't figure out why he even brought that up... UNLESS__

    NOW Maskerina-- TAKE THAT BLOND WIG OFF! (Voice ala Ronald McReagan)

    I guess I suppose that maybe he really means to make it clear that:

    "It is clear that there are many people in this country, including myself, who demand accountability from this Administration for the terrible mess it made in Iraq and its egregious and even illegal power grabs throughout its six-plus years in power. I believe that the President and Vice President may well have committed impeachable offenses."

    For no reason, but just to through it out there. Er, right, sSSsssSSSssUUuuuUuuuRRRRrrrrRRRrre.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2007 @ 1:08pm

27. er, throw

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2007 @ 1:12pm

28. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/17/2007 @ 1:08pm

    I know this is a toughie for ya, HSUB.

    Feingold is loved by John Nichols (as he loves impeachment...or atleast loves talking about it...maybe selling a book or two on it).

    And Russ just under-cut the whole "movement" by saying "Congress can spend its time better" than on impeachment.

    Now I expect John Nichols to ignore that. He can't try to spin it as anything but a rejection of impeachment, without looking like a desperate fool (or FOOLS...heheh)...but he can't "bad-mouth" ol' Russ without throwing out his "favorite Senator".

    So, in addition to Pelosi, Reid, Conyers, Emmanuel, Miller, Obama, GORE...we add Russ Feingold to the list. Odd thing is, almost NONE of those guys are the "Blue Dog"/conservative Democrats, but are mainstream or even liberals.

    Which makes you wonder how much THEY reject the idea!

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 1:20pm

29. HAPPY Fundamentally, most Americans just know in their guts that Congress' oversight does not extend into setting war `timetables'!

    Actually it does. It's an extension of Congress's funding power. It can state in a funding resolution that such monies shall only be spent to finance a draw-down to commence and/or be completed by a certain date and that such monies shall only support the presence in Iraq of a certain number of troops.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/17/2007 @ 1:29pm

30. He would have said "If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed, we will work straight through...until it does. Days, weeks, whatever. This failed war is too important and we sure as heck are getting anything ELSE done. We will stay in session until the amendment passes!"

    I hate to say it, but I agree with Mask, here.

    Reid has to hang tough for as many days, weeks, months as it takes to highlight the importance of the withdraw from Iraq issue and the Republicans' obstruction!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/17/2007 @ 1:31pm

31. does ANYONE read these MASK / HSUB exchanges?

    You two lovebirds should go get a room!

    Posted by freedomplease at 07/17/2007 @ 1:38pm

32. I, too, think that MASK has it exactly right. People are dying and these middle-aged duffers can't sit on their well-paid arses and get this, the most pressing issue to our country, resolved? And I mean resolved the way that the country (70%+) wants it resolved. Declare victory and get the hell out!

    Posted by The Goods at 07/17/2007 @ 1:40pm

33. TG,

    er, repub filabuster and hsuB veto = dems sitting on their arses?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2007 @ 1:50pm

34. And Russ just under-cut the whole "movement" by saying "Congress can spend its time better" than on impeachment.

    Posted by MASK 07/17/2007 @ 1:20pm

    No Feingold is undercutting no possibility of impeachment when he says:

    When ..."charges come to the Senate, I will approach them and the trial with the same seriousness that I had when I participated in the Clinton impeachment trial. I would not prejudge the case one way or the other should it come to this."

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2007 @ 2:00pm

35. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 07/17/2007 @ 1:38pm

    Funny guy or are you just prudish?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2007 @ 2:04pm

36. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/17/2007 @ 2:04pm

    more cheese 'n macaroni please!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/17/2007 @ 2:10pm

37. And I mean resolved the way that the country (70%+) wants it resolved. Declare victory and get the hell out!

    Posted by THE GOODS

    You forget that our government is not by, of, or for the people. This isn't Vietnam; much of the world's oil supply is over there.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/17/2007 @ 2:21pm

38. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 07/17/2007 @ 1:38pm

    It's a hoot, FREE.

    And I take HSUB's predictions on impeachment as seriously as I took yours---

    BLOG | Posted 06/14/2007 @ 4:27pm Comments for "Libby Is Closer to Jail; Now Comes Neocon Pardon-mania" by David Corn

    "Let me be crystal clear.....the downside of pardoning Libby is that Pelosi will suddenly find religion and presto impeachment will be ON THE TABLE again. It is that simple..."---Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/15/2007 @ 10:17am

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 2:53pm

39. This is not a polite Tea Party! I think we need a constitutional Amendment dumping this useless Senate, and going to a unicameral Congress. They are just playing games! All the Congress has to do is cut the funding for Iraq, and the war ends. I have a revolutionary proposal! Why don't we do what is good for the Country and quit worrying about the next election? I would also suggest that copying failure is not good politics. By the way, you did good on Bill Moyers.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/17/2007 @ 2:54pm

40. Unlike HSUBOBSESSED thinks, ending the war is pre-empted by impeachment...not promoted by it. And if it comes down to "justice for Dubya and Dick"...or saving American lives....there's only one choice.

    Posted by MASK 07/17/2007 @ 11:56am

    What if it's the same thing? What is congress' option when hsuB simply says "NO". He's CiC and says 'his' troops stay in Iraq period. Let history judge him, he believes he's doing the right thing he says. What's left for congress to do? Defund the troops while they're in harms way? Take hsuB's CiC power away via an amendment to the constitution? Like that'll happen. Impeachment is the sure way, but what if, as you say, congress spends months debating about ways to get hsuB to pull out with more and more funding conditions. It ain't really gonna happen as he wants in no matter what congress says. He'll take the money and keep our troops in Iraq simply because he can. Think of hsuB as an insane rapist with one single thing on his mind and he's right in the middle of his rape. He's got a death grip and the only way to get hsuB to stop from completing his goal is to take 'all' his power away-- that can only be with impeachment. I say congress is playing with the lives of our troops everyday they delay impeachment-- because hsuB will say "no" to 'any and all' legislation they somehow pass as per hsuB already established uncontested signing statements, want to take that to court for a few more years? And after years, the final solution would still have been impeachment, but because the hsuB lovers convinced enough fence sitters not to go down that road-- a few more hundred, if not thousands more of our troops died needlessly. Congress simply needs do the right thing and not miscalculate the extent of the hsuB/cHeney insane commitment to war. Impeachment is a sure thing, conditional funding legislation isn't. Unfortunately congress can only take the obvious steps to stop the occupation these next couple of months, until they realize impeachment is all there really ever was to do. Hope they don't punt when the light buld clicks out or more of our troops die.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2007 @ 3:04pm

41. er, bulb

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2007 @ 3:10pm

42. Posted by P. J. CASEY 07/17/2007 @ 2:54pm | ignore this person

    completely outta touch with reality.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 3:18pm

43. Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/17/2007 @ 3:07pm | ignore this person

    American involvement in Vietnam began with the fall of Dienbienphu in 1954 (if not earlier). During the first Eisenhower administration. JFK was junior Senator from Massachusetts, so how he initiated that war is a bit beyond me. At the time of his murder, there were approximately 17,000 US troops ("advisors", they were then called) in South Vietnam. LBJ increased the number of troops to a high of 575,000. Nixon widened the war into Cambodia, in the process destabilizing the government to such an extent as to allow the murderous Pol Pot to assume power. Reagan cleaned up nothing. In fact, that statement is utterly bizarre on its face. And that's your history lesson for the moment. Now, on one other matter, I'm still waiting for an answer to an earlier question that obviously you must have missed, so I'll repeat it below.

    Since you're supporting your Dear Leader against the hordes, why are you not in uniform? Age and physical condition notwithstanding (learn Arabic - they'll find something for you to do), if you think sending others to their deaths is such a hot idea, are you so hypocritical or, dare I say, cowardly, that you refuse to join them in your pursuit?

    Posted by jmusolino at 07/17/2007 @ 3:21pm

44. I totally agreed with this approach toward the Republicans who say that they are against the war but vote with the White House. Democrats need to be smarter and beat them at their own game. I suspected that the Republicans had a game plan and finally I saw it in press today. Democrats have to stop playing politics and fight for the people of this country. We need to stop being nice.

    Posted by marijana at 07/17/2007 @ 3:21pm

45. Smells fishy to me.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/17/2007 @ 3:36pm

46. Mask,

    urmmmm, I already gave you kudo's on your prediction and ate crow on mine....you were away, but when you came back I gave you ample instructions on how to reference it. Unlike you, I don't file posts....mine or anyone else's.

    Shall we go through the routine of how Nancy's more pathetic than even I assumed she was (and Bush is even more brazen) every time I point out how annoyiong you're being?

    I don't intend to ignore list you...or Hsub, but I can't keep scrolling through your endless Monty Python style "argument"....this isn't an argument it's just contradiction. No it isn't. Yes it is.

    Posted by freedomplease at 07/17/2007 @ 3:39pm

47. American involvement in Vietnam began with the fall of Dienbienphu in 1954 (if not earlier).

    when Japan was defeated the US asked the japanese military to stay behind in Vietnam, until the french could come back to reestablish their colonialism. this was a great betrayal of the vietnamese people and of Ho Chi Minh, who had been our ally in fighting the japanese.

    even earlier: it was when Japan occupied Indochina, read vietnam, that FDR said no further, and initiated the embargo against Japan. an act which lead directly to war between the two empires. it was the oil embargo that made war inevitable.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 3:44pm

48. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 07/17/2007 @ 3:39pm

    What do I get? I predicted hsuB's poll numbers would be in the 20's---- and they are, and they are!

    Maskerina said his poll numbers couldn't get any lower--- and they did and they did!!!

    Nope, I tried, but Monty Python I'm not. Being pretty much the opposite of British, it's no surprise.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2007 @ 3:50pm

49. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/17/2007 @ 3:04pm

    Okay, let's just say....I agree with Russ Feingold and all the other right-wingers who think "Congress has a better use for its time"...and leave it at that.

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 4:04pm

50. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 07/17/2007 @ 3:39pm

    Okay, FREE...I'll cut back on the fun for your sake.

    HSUB would still think impeachment was going to happen, even if Dennis Kucinich suddenly "got religion" and dropped his HR 333 (and its 17 of 435 cosponsors) bill.

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 4:06pm

51. On Vietnam and which President is to blame....

    I go with....Woodrow Wilson.

    Seriously...Ho Chi Minh petitioned Wilson after WW-1 to make the French leave Vietnam and establish a nationalist government and Wilson rebuffed him.

    Now Wilson WAS a Democrat...but he was also a racist and idealistically stupid, which (as we've seen, cuts across all party lines).

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 4:12pm

52. Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/17/2007 @ 4:11pm

    RIO, when a dozen, two dozen, maybe more good honest Love-America Republicans join those "Demoncrats" in forcing poor President Bush to "cut & run".....

    ya think maybe you'll give up this idea that it's PARTY that determines "evil nature"?

    Or will that mean those Republicans are now "Demoncrats"?

    Or have you got me on Ignore?...heheh

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 4:15pm

53. You've got so many things wrong in this article, it makes me sick.

    First off, this is not President Bush's war. It is my war, too. I have never been to Iraq, but I decided to support the US military going over there, and I haven't wavered in my support. I still believe we did the right thing and are doing the right thing. The Iraqi people need us over there; and Al-Queda hates us being over there. Iran and Syria are nervous about us being so close to their corrupt governments. I have friends in the military who are over there. I support them all and feel we can and will win, despite the heel-dragging opposition of democrat leaders. I knew things would be difficult, and going over there would be a mess with no quick fixes and easy answers. Yet through it all, I think it's a good thing that we are over there, despite the casualties. Were I younger, I'd enlist and go there myself.

    Next, I think you've got it backwards...the democrats in congress are going to be on display, showing how whiny they are. The democrats have been nothing but obstructionists and defeatist, hoping for the US to lose in Iraq, and even working towards it in every way they can. They feel like if this nation loses there, then they somehow will win from that. I cannot understand that mentality at all.

    History is going to view George W. Bush with an appreciative eye, in my opinion. Not only has he been diligent in his responsibilities in this war on terror, he has had to do it despite the bitter persecutions and obstacles placed before him by people in his own country. People in generations to come will look to him as a courageous leader, and with a grateful heart, because he did not waver in his responsibilities, despite the opposition.

    Finally, what are the benefits of leaving Iraq prematurely? Less US casualties? And Russia, France, Syria, and Venezuela will like America more? What kind of logic is that?! I say stay there, let's listen to the military commanders there and figure out how to best help the people and the country, and let's do the job right! (By the way, we still have troops stationed in Germany and Japan more than 60 years after the end of world war II, and those countries are our friends now...so I see no need to get out of Iraq at this time.) GOP Senators, stick to your principles, support the President, and do what is right!

    Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/17/2007 @ 4:17pm

54. HSUB would still think impeachment was going to happen, even if Dennis Kucinich suddenly "got religion" and dropped his HR 333 (and its 17 of 435 cosponsors) bill.

    Posted by MASK 07/17/2007 @ 4:06pm

    Nope, I still see impeachment happening. It's the right thing to do.

    If in some bizarre alternative universe where everything is upside-down and new con coordinated, impeachment were not to happen, we would no longer have a constitutional form of government but a true blue dictatorship.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2007 @ 4:24pm

55. Okay, let's just say....I agree with Russ Feingold and all the other right-wingers who think "Congress has a better use for its time"...and leave it at that.

    Posted by MASK 07/17/2007 @ 4:04pm

    You saying that's what he said doesn't make it so Maskerina. He said he'd be serious about impeaching hsuB as he was with Clinton. Now that is it.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2007 @ 4:29pm

56. As an registared Independent I don't know and don't care what either party says or does politically, but when it comes to the welfare of our nation and its citizens I see numerous reasons to despise both! ----Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/17/2007 @ 4:17pm

    RIO.....

    you're a lying sack of crap.

    How often do we hear about "Demoncrats", huh? Do we hear "ReTHUGlicans" from you much?

    You hate Democrats, blame them for everything, and let the Republicans off scot-free...and then claim to be an Indy.

    I am an Independent, voted for Bush in 2000, regreted it, and voted for Kerry in 2004. Voted Dem in 2006, and will vote for even Dennis Kucinich for Prez in 2008, given how badly the GOP has screwed things up.

    You may not be a "Republican", but you're sure as hell an "anti-Democrat" and that means you DO know and DO care what one party says or does politically.

    So....you're a liar.

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 4:31pm

57. Dim in AZ:History is going to view George W. Bush with an appreciative eye, in my opinion.

    hahahahahaha.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 4:33pm

58. By the way, we still have troops stationed in Germany and Japan more than 60 years after the end of world war II, and those countries are our friends now...so I see no need to get out of Iraq at this time.)----Posted by DJ IN AZ 07/17/2007 @ 4:17pm |

    That's funny, I must have missed the articles about how we were losing 3-10 troops a week in Germany and Japan for the last 60 years?!?!!??!?

    Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 4:34pm

59. Try 30-60 a week.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2007 @ 4:42pm

60. I am glad our Founding Fathers were God-fearing, righteous men. I wonder what they would think of the political parties today, particularly the Democrats.

    Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/17/2007 @ 4:43pm

61. Veterans' Affairs Secretary Resigns Huffington Post | July 17, 2007 12:29 PM

    Read More: Breaking Politics News, Jim Nicholson, Walter Reed Hospital

    Email Print Comments Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, Jim Nicholson, announced he will be resigning on October 1, 2007, according to a press release from his office.

    Nicholson has weathered a number of scandals, namely the massive loss of veterans' data in 2006, since he was sworn in as Secretary of Veterans' Affairs on February 1, 2005. Nicholson was also criticized for claiming the number of injured vets is overblown since "a lot of them come in for dental problems."

    Nicholson plans to return to the private sector. He did not release any definite plans.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2007 @ 4:49pm

62. Rio-You are quite full of BS with Nam stuff and I suspect you know it.Your "facts"exclude multitudes of other facts that you chose to ignore in order to do pro GOP propaganda under the pretense of being an independent.What Godless values do the Democrats have that the GOP doesn't have?Please respond by letting us know what the GOP has done to prove they don't have Godless values.Their words mean nothing.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/17/2007 @ 4:55pm

63. ....History is going to view George W. Bush with an appreciative eye, in my opinion....

    Posted by DJ IN AZ 07/17/2007 @ 4:17pm

    You are NOT alone in this opinion! However, the DeFund/Run threat from the Dems and some GOPs, CAN leave Iraq and the ME in a royal mess that obliterate Bush's extending the Iraq War, however noble, beyond just removing Saddam and holding the first election. That said, present trends in the ME is actually encouraging.....thanks to Hamas' overreaching and Sunnis turning against AQ! Bonus: Pakistan getting serious about its Islamic militant problem!

    Posted by Happy at 07/17/2007 @ 5:01pm

64. Godless values of the Democrats? Let me count the ways...

    Supporting and promoting the feminist movement. Supporting and promoting the homosexual lifestyle. Supporting and promoting abortion. Supporting and promoting the ACLU (which champions the removal of God from just about everything and everywhere). Supporting and promoting large government programs, which enslave people by causing them rely on the government for everything instead of becoming self-reliant.

    That's the short list. I'm sure others can come up with more.

    Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/17/2007 @ 5:02pm

65. What is intolerable is the multitude of lies and those ignorant or just myopic enough to continue to swallow and feed on them!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/17/2007 @ 4:17pm

    Don't be so hard on yourself, a LOT of people believed that sack of shit called bush.

    You are dumber than most, but there's a lot of you morons out there, Piss River my boy.

    try not to shit yourself in your raging fear. it's undignified. You can look up what that means on "the internets".

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/17/2007 @ 5:02pm

66. Posted by DJ IN AZ 07/17/2007 @ 4:17pm

    Looks like another Howling Monkey wingnut signed up. When do you ship out, oh supporter of bushes war?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/17/2007 @ 5:04pm

67. DJinAz-I noticed that you couldn't answer my question and couldn't come up with anything that shows that Democrats are Godless.I knew you guys had nothing,but it's fun to watch you lamely try try to come up with something.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/17/2007 @ 5:05pm

68. They represent the "moraless minority" generally and continue to prove what godless values they represent almost daily in my opinion.

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/17/2007 @ 4:37pm

    Like Vitter, Foley, Delay, Ney, Gingrich, Cunningham, Livingston... hell, the list is too long, and you know it.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/17/2007 @ 5:05pm

69. Rio-I noticed that you cut and ran from the tough questions,again.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/17/2007 @ 5:06pm

70. Dim in AZ: I wonder what they'd think of civil rights? I wonder what they would think of a huge, no gargantuan standing army establishment. I wonder what they would think of an illegal war of aggression against a country that was no threat to us.

    just what we needed around here, another braindead repub.

    repubs raus

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 5:07pm

71. Most of them would gladly string them up along with Benidict Arnold for the same reasons! Remember, some of the Demoncrats actually did serve their county courtesy of the draft!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/17/2007 @ 4:56pm

    Fuck you, and bring it on bitch. I'd love to hear you say that to my face, punk.

    And remember, most Rethuglicans DODGED the draft, starting with the dick & george show.

    When did you serve, bitch?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/17/2007 @ 5:08pm

72. Hmmm, Nobody.....I thought I did a good job of listing the "Godless" ideologies that liberals support. Don't you think that homosexuality, feminism, abortion, and the like are things that would take someone away from God?

    Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/17/2007 @ 5:13pm

73. dr Decibel...I think name-calling generally quits working after third grade, just for your information.

    Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/17/2007 @ 5:14pm

74. Thank God for the Information Age! I'm watching John McCain spouting the same old nonsense on C-SPAN2, and his lies are transparent thanks to Internet sources such as The Nation, John Nichols, and so very many other places. Blame the Iraqis, indeed! Why don't those damn Iraqis sign that Hydrocarbon Act? How ungrateful!

    Full-length books are the best defense of all to the propaganda, but the combination of internet resources, open media like C-SPAN, and much more, keep us strong even in the face of the blather blizzard that plagues these message boards. Blather on, jerks! This isn't the first time I've seen the irresistible force of the public's will to know reach critical mass, and that's what has already happened.

    Today's event by the Senate Democrats may not be the cure-all, but it's a strong step. The will of the majority is clear, and as Congress responds to it strongly, things will occur more rapidly. These questions of the occupation and administration excesses have roused the ire of the people. Now, instead of just Woodward and Bernstein, we have thousands speaking the truth to millions of homes throughout the nation.

    The impact of this is not lost on the typical middle-class families, and is keenly felt by the less privileged. The resistance of the Executive Branch and its enablers to the groundswell of opposition is being presented with new clarity, crystallized in its destructive potential for, among other things, those very sources of information that have empowered us in this fight.

    We have to succeed, ultimately, because we must succeed! And that simple fact is sinking in to every family, in every living room. Today, we'll take our stand to make an end to killing for killing's sake, and take it from there.

    Posted by Donald Weed at 07/17/2007 @ 5:18pm

75. Mr Weed, I don't think anyone in the US military is "killing for killing's sake", nor do I think that is what President Bush believes, advocates, or supports.

    Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/17/2007 @ 5:22pm

76. Don, you are correct. once the script changes, and it has bigtime, actions will follow. the new strategy of full speed ahead is short lived. america has had it with this war, and the repubs had better get out of the way, lest they be buried along with Bush.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 5:24pm

77. Posted by DJ IN AZ 07/17/2007 @ 5:14pm

    Thanks, when I need advice from a moron I'll look you up. Shouldn't you be over at Free Repubes.com?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/17/2007 @ 5:26pm

78. the democrats in congress are going to be on display, showing how whiny they are. The democrats have been nothing but obstructionists and defeatist, hoping for the US to lose in Iraq, and even working towards it in every way they can. They feel like if this nation loses there, then they somehow will win from that. I cannot understand that mentality at all.

    - DJ in AZ

    Grow up. Get a clue. You don't understand a damn thing, but thanks for proving it.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/17/2007 @ 5:28pm

79. Maybe its just a matter of the type of people that I associate with, or the fact that my town is a "military town" with a Marine base here....but contrary to what most liberals say on here, there is much support for President Bush and the troops in Iraq. Most people I know want the troops to come home, of course, BUT NOT UNTIL IRAQ IS A BETTER, MORE SECURE PLACE. Most people I know understand the necessity of the US being there, and are supportive of the cause. And most people I know understand how bad it would be if we left now. So I don't see where this overwhelming public disapproval of the war comes from, unless it resides mainly in California and New York.

    Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/17/2007 @ 5:30pm

80. Dr Decibels...you are most welcome. I always try to help out when there is a person in need, such as yourself. :)

    Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/17/2007 @ 5:32pm

81. "killing for killing's sake",

    Posted by DJ IN AZ 07/17/2007 @ 5:22pm

    Explain Haditha then, please. Explain the documented attitude that a dead Iraqi doesn't count....

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/17/2007 @ 5:32pm

82. Posted by DJ IN AZ 07/17/2007 @ 5:32pm

    The only thing I need from such as yourself is your absence.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/17/2007 @ 5:33pm

83. Posted by DJ IN AZ

    Maybe you should get out of your provincial little whole and see the world.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/17/2007 @ 5:34pm

84. Dr: Are you the one that said you were in a band and promised your wife you wouldn't cheat?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/17/2007 @ 5:35pm

85. "hole"

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/17/2007 @ 5:35pm

86. BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Three members of the 101st Airborne Division have been charged with murder in the May shooting deaths of three Iraqi prisoners, the U.S. military announced Monday.

    Pentagon sources told CNN the soldiers claimed the prisoners were attempting to flee at the time.

    All three face charges of murder, attempted murder and conspiracy in connection with the prisoners' deaths.

    They also are accused of obstructing justice and threatening a fellow soldier who witnessed the shootings, telling him they would kill him if he talked.

    hhhmmm DJ.... maybe they LIKE killing?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/17/2007 @ 5:37pm

87. US Soldiers Kill Three Iraqi Civilians

    Baghdad, Jul 13 (Prensa Latina) A patrol of US soldiers opened fire on a group of Iraqi civilians on Friday, killing three of them, and wounding five others, police reported.

    The US patrol was circulating in one of the streets of Fadiluya neighbourhood, east of Baghdad, when a roadside bomb detonated near the vehicle and their fear made them to open fire on people nearby, thinking they were rebels.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/17/2007 @ 5:38pm

88. TIKRIT, Iraq - Two American soldiers Thursday described in gruesome detail how their comrades allegedly killed three blindfolded Iraqi detainees, one of whom was covered in brain matter and another who spit blood during his dying moments.

    The soldiers testified during a military hearing to decide if the four soldiers should face a military court-martial on murder charges for allegedly killing the Iraqis after detaining them in a house on May 9 near Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad.

    hhhmm makes you wonder, huh DJ?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/17/2007 @ 5:39pm

89. Dr: Are you the one that said you were in a band and promised your wife you wouldn't cheat?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/17/2007 @ 5:35pm

    Sound engineer - married her, so I figure, yeah, that makes a promise not to cheat. So I didn't.

    It's called "morals" DJ..... look it up.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/17/2007 @ 5:40pm

90. DJ in Az-Why is it necessary for us to be in Iraq?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/17/2007 @ 5:40pm

91. Somebody documented an attitude, huh? Could it be someone who had an ax to grind, perhaps?

    Actually, a dead Iraqi does count for a lot. And if the US leaves prematurely, there will be a lot more dead Iraqis.

    I support the President and our troops. Bring the troops home, but not until the job is done. And may God bless the United States, and the people of Iraq too.

    Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/17/2007 @ 5:41pm

92. No wonder you talk the way you do. That's alright, though; it's what you do that counts, not what you say or the words you use. Hats off to you. That's not just discipline, that's stamina. (The lying old man claimed he doesn't cheat, but I'll give generous odds that he's lying.)

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/17/2007 @ 5:43pm

93. Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/17/2007 @ 5:43pm

    Well, I don't believe in beating around the bush. Especially with the tools that come here spewing nonsense.

    And yeah, I had some offers guys would kill for. Or only get to dream about.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/17/2007 @ 5:47pm

94. Does anyone question the timing of the homeland security report today which tries to frighten the bejesus how of old people, little children and republicans? Just happens to come out at a time when the senate is debating the war, hmmmmmm.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/17/2007 @ 2:36pm

    No, I don't. It makes perfect sense. If you happen to be a peckerwood named Karl Rove.

    Posted by skeletonman at 07/17/2007 @ 5:48pm

95. Somebody documented an attitude, huh? Could it be someone who had an ax to grind, perhaps?

    Posted by DJ IN AZ 07/17/2007 @ 5:41pm

    Just our soldier boys, if they have an axe, well.....

    Try doing some research. You'll be shocked. And yes, I have known several vets from VN who did enjoy wasting people. I don't blame them, I blame the situation. They don't shoot people much anymore, so I guess they got over it.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/17/2007 @ 5:49pm

96. Obviously, if US soldiers did such things, then what they did is wrong. Are you implying that all soldiers, or a majority of soldiers, or even a minority of soldiers, is engaging in that kind of activity on a consistent and systematic basis? Because that is what it sounds like, and I don't think that's the case.

    I've heard that the US actually pays money to the families of innocent Iraqis killed by US troops.

    First off, this shows that we do not have a desire to do such a thing, and that we feel very remorseful when something like this happens.

    Second, it also shows you that there is a monetary incentive for people who had a relative shot by US troops to claim that the people were innocent (not Al-queda or nationalist insurgents), in order to collect a financial reward.

    The things you've cited, if they are proven true, are definitely the rare exception and not the general rule. Please use some common sense when citing such excuses.

    Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/17/2007 @ 5:51pm

97. Are you implying that all soldiers, or a majority of soldiers, or even a minority of soldiers, is engaging in that kind of activity on a consistent and systematic basis? -----DJ

    Not at all. Just disproving your point.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/17/2007 @ 5:54pm

98. Please use some common sense when citing such excuses.

    Posted by DJ IN AZ 07/17/2007 @ 5:51pm

    You first. Don't even THINK of lecturing me about common sense. That is HYSTERICAL coming from a bushbot.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/17/2007 @ 5:55pm

99. Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/17/2007 @ 4:11pm

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/17/2007 @ 5:20pm

    The argument that 'we haven't lost enough guys yet' is utterly stupid - this would be akin to my saying to a patient rolling through the ER door where I work, 'you haven't lost enough blood yet for me to do anything about it. Go bleed some more and come back when you are really in trouble.'

    Frankgrits is right on both points - terrain and skill in the resuscitation of trauma both have their impact on survival.

    Where yet again Chimpco fails is in the care of 'him who shall have borne the battle, and his widow, and his orphan' (the words of Abraham Lincoln). Basically, Dimbulb and his neoconista chickenhawks have no use for anyone who suits up and has the temerity to come back home, especially those who come home less than they were in body, mind or spirit.

    Compassionate conservativism seems to be defined by these bums as 'gee, sucks for you, doesn't it?'

    Posted by skeletonman at 07/17/2007 @ 5:57pm

100. Obviously, if US soldiers did such things, then what they did is wrong. Are you implying that all soldiers, or a majority of soldiers, or even a minority of soldiers, is engaging in that kind of activity on a consistent and systematic basis? Because that is what it sounds like, and I don't think that's the case.

     Posted by DJ IN AZ

     It's called guerilla was, slick. That's what happens. Any and all of us are capable of it. War is not a John Wayne movie.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 07/17/2007 @ 5:57pm

101. That's not just discipline, that's stamina. MTSpence

     I like to think of it as "force of will"... that and knowing what a tasty piece I had at home waiting for me. Who also, by the way, made sure to never get herself in a situation where she might be questioned as to her behavior. I figure a good woman deserves a good man.

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/17/2007 @ 5:58pm

102. What are the benefits of pulling out of Iraq immediately, instead of staying? Please explain your thinking to me on this.

     Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/17/2007 @ 5:58pm

103. Posted by DR DECIBELS

     A good woman is hard to find.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 07/17/2007 @ 6:01pm

104. Posted by DJ IN AZ

     Go online and look up the Iraq Study Group Report. It's a good start to understanding exactly what's going on.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 07/17/2007 @ 6:03pm

105. In my mind, staying in Iraq is not especially appealing. And I have friends who would like to come home and be with family. All of that is a given.

     However, the idea of pulling out of Iraq is even more distasteful. The thought of us losing there, and all the consequences that follow that course of action, are, to me, unthinkable. The work of death would ensue at a greater rate, terrorism would gain a stronger foothold in the region and in the hearts of people there, and friends and foes alike would lose confidence in us as a nation.

     So even when I think of the negatives of leaving or staying, the lesser of two evils is to stay in Iraq, in my opinion.

     Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/17/2007 @ 6:05pm

106. DJ in Az-By leaving we save American lives and treasure.Staying the course is helping the terrorist cause.In fact,Bush and the GOP have not only not harmed those who attacked us on 9/11,but they've helped them by creating an Islamic state in Iraq ruled by Sharia law,they gave AQ Pakistan and Iraq to operate out of while taking away nothing since the still operate out of Afghanistan,increased their numbers by being in Iraq,etc

     Posted by i'm nobody at 07/17/2007 @ 6:06pm

107. So even when I think of the negatives of leaving or staying, the lesser of two evils is to stay in Iraq, in my opinion.

     Posted by DJ IN AZ 07/17/2007 @ 6:05pm

     Gee, when you're in a hole, perhaps you should stop digging while you can still climb out.

     Or be prepared to explain to the familes of the people killed during that time frame why their loved ones died for nothing other than saving face.

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/17/2007 @ 6:13pm

108. To DJ IN AZ:

     I haven't yet read everything since my recent post, but I want to make one point. I do not(!) believe the soldiers in Iraq are "killing for killing's sake". I believe the overwhelming majority of soldiers in Iraq are there because they love their country, and, old as I am, if they need me, I've got their backs! I do believe the Bush Administration is indeed "killing for killing's sake", and tragically misusing the young men and women who, through personal beliefs, family traditions, and profound love of their brothers and sisters in battle, will march into Hell for their country. War is about killing, and I'm so grateful for those who shoulder that gruesome burden. Our military is a resource beyond price, and I know they have the most heartfelt of support from everyone here. All the more reason we must guard that resource from misuse and abuse.

     Posted by Donald Weed at 07/17/2007 @ 6:13pm

109. Or explain why they died so bush could run out the clock and dump ANOTHER problem on Dems to fix.

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/17/2007 @ 6:13pm

110. Posted by DONALD WEED 07/17/2007 @ 6:13pm

     Thank you.

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/17/2007 @ 6:14pm

111. let's start by putting to rest the myth that our soldiers are the best we have to offer the world.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 6:21pm

112. I appreciate your comments...they seem heartfelt, which is a breath of fresh air. However, unlike most democrats, I do not feel that George Bush is the problem, or that he is misusing or abusing the power of the military (or of the Presidency).

     After 9/11, I had heard that the US was thinking of going into Iraq and taking out Saddam. At that time, I remember thinking, "Oh no...Saddam is a bad guy, but let's not do that!" I listened to the hearings that Colin Powell delivered to the United Nations, where he talked about Saddam's WMDs, and I remember thinking "well, the government knows more than me on this issue, so I'm gonna trust them and support them on this."

     Well, I thought the issue of WMDs in Saddam's hands was a good enough reason to go there in the first place. But it was not the ONLY reason.

     In my mind, the greater reason to go to Iraq was to help the people who had been basically enslaved....either through the tyrannies of a brutal dictator (Saddam) or through the tyrannies of an oppressive culture and religion which did not and does not allow for the free exercise of thought and speech and actions. There was no hope in that oppressive land. So, for the benefit of those people and that society, I decided that it was right to go to Iraq. And I haven't wavered from that decision, even though I knew that it would be a long time, and that there would be much opposition. That is why I believe we must stay in Iraq.

     If God lives, and I believe He does, then the death of some soldiers is a worthwhile price to pay. Some things are worth dying for, and those that say "nothing is worth dying for" have no faith or trust in a greater power or in great causes. These are pretty much my deepest reasons for staying there. I hope it makes some sense to someone.

     Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/17/2007 @ 6:33pm

113. Some things are worth dying for,

     Posted by DJ IN AZ 07/17/2007 @ 6:33pm

     Put your money where your mouth is boy.

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/17/2007 @ 6:38pm

114. Dr Decibel, I appreciate your sentiments. I am 41 years old, and I have a wife and six children. It's a little late for me to be joining the military. However, we all have our roles to play in life, and not all of us are called to fight in a literal, physical sense. I support the military and the President in the best way I can.

     Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/17/2007 @ 6:44pm

115. DJIAZ, Will you be sending your kids off to die in a dem corporate profit making war of convenience to benefit dem's gov control?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2007 @ 7:04pm

116. I am 41 years old, and I have a wife and six children. It's a little late for me to be joining the military. However, we all have our roles to play in life, and not all of us are called to fight in a literal, physical sense. I support the military and the President in the best way I can.

     Posted by DJ IN AZ 07/17/2007 @ 6:44pm

     Wuss.

     Posted by skeletonman at 07/17/2007 @ 7:05pm

117. DJ in Az-Why would creating an Islamic state ruled by oppressive Sharia law be a cause worth fighting for?

     Posted by i'm nobody at 07/17/2007 @ 7:10pm

118. I'll teach my children correct principles and let them make their own choices.

     And your question is loaded, by the way, with incorrect assumptions. This isn't a fight by Bush or Cheney to increase corporate profits or to benefit Republican control, as your question implies.

     The whole "Haliburton" angle or "America is grabbing Iraq's oil" angle is false, and has been dispensed to any who will listen to give them a reason to oppose the efforts to help Iraq and its people.

     Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/17/2007 @ 7:13pm

119. DJ in Az-If Bush/Cheney cared about the Iraqi people then they wouldn't have turned it into a terrorists playground.Obviously,they knew that terrorists would go there.You live in lala land.No one who started this war cares about the Iraqis in the slightest.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 07/17/2007 @ 7:18pm

120. Sorry you feel that way, Nobody

     Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/17/2007 @ 7:32pm

121. I am 41 years old, and I have a wife and six children.

     send your kids to die in this goddamned war.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 7:34pm

122. Thank you for the kind words and thoughts, Skeleton and Johannesrolf. Humanity can always do with a lot more love and kindness.

     Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/17/2007 @ 7:40pm

123. I'm kinda guessing that my kids won't be over there, but you never know. If they choose to enter the military, I will probably worry about them and pray for their safety all the time.

     Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/17/2007 @ 7:43pm

124. Thank you for the kind words and thoughts, Skeleton and Johannesrolf. Humanity can always do with a lot more love and kindness.

     Posted by DJ IN AZ 07/17/2007 @ 7:40pm

     Republicans are just so mean! If it weren't for liberal democrats, I'd never get any of this kind of love and compassion! Thanks, guys!

     Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/17/2007 @ 7:49pm

125. Well, first....

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/17/2007 @ 4:37pm

     RIO, this might surprise you but there a LOT of Republicans who are pro-choice...pro-gay rights...and fairly liberal on social issues (even in their personal lives). One of them is Rudy Giuliani who may win the GOP nomination for President...and then you will spend you time attacking his opponent, but CLAIMING that you still support "Judeo-Christian morality", and will vote for Giuliani.

     Second...

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/17/2007 @ 4:43pm

     You stand for nothing. "Conservatism"?...no. 50% of the things that Bush has done with the Constitution, a real conservative would be screaming about (and they are) and if HILLARY was doing EXACTLY the same thing as President, you'd be screaming bloody murder.

     You scream about "those liberals and their hatred"...and then scream about how much you HATE them.

     You claim to be an Independent, but offer nothing independent about your views...you believe everything Bush says and hate anybody who disagrees or WORSE proves Bush isn't right or competent.

     Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 8:09pm

126. Republicans are just so mean! If it weren't for liberal democrats, I'd never get any of this kind of love and compassion! Thanks, guys!

     Posted by DJ IN AZ 07/17/2007 @ 7:49pm | ignore this person

     DJINAZ,

     Actually, if you were a member of Saddam Hussein's Bathist Party during the 1980s-early 90s, you would have received tremendous love and compassion from the Republican patriots. But, since Im guessing that you're not Iraqi, but American, and by the confession of your age, were old enough to vote during the 80s-thus complicit in the sanctioning of all those loathsome and revolting actions perpetrated by the Iraqi government, yet gallingly cited by Bush in the race to war.

     So, do you really wish to continue defending the Republicans and their duplicitious demagogy? If, by chance, you were actively opposed to the policies of Reagan and the Republicans during their Realpolitik embrace of genocide and terror at the apex of Saddam Hussein's ruthlessness, please forgive the presumptions.

     Posted by Oustbush at 07/17/2007 @ 8:18pm

127. So, what is it about Pres. Bush that makes you hate him so much? Is it the 2000 election results? Or the faulty intelligence on Iraq's WMDs? Or his Supreme Court nominations? Is it the fact that Clinton got impeached, so it's now become a tit-for-tat exercise to get him (and all Republicans) back? What drives this anger? Do you ever pray for the man, to overcome his faults and lead this nation as God would have him lead it? Or is it his profession of faith that bothers you? Someone, please explain.

     Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/17/2007 @ 8:37pm

128. I like where this is going! Amazing how lockstep and out of touch the GOP stalwarts remain. Let us take the gloves off and not play nice anymore. Go Dems!

     Posted by elpercho at 07/17/2007 @ 8:53pm

129. What faith does Bush have? He cant even keep a commandment, "Thou shall not lie." We could spend weeks on that one. Or how about showing mercy to your fellow man or woman.He mocked Carla Faye Tucker who was born again in prison, yet was mocked by President Bush, "Please dont kill me!" I believe Bush is the only one who can tell if someone is really born-again. It has nothing to do with Clinton's impeachment, Clinton was impeached with the Republicans knowing that they did not have a majority to remove him from office. That was used for the coming elections so they could parade on moral ground. I think Vitter was standing on that same piece of earth, morally speaking. So to close, let me say this, he lied, he did not unite he divided, he did not bring honor and dignity back to the White House and yes for many, many more reasons he should be despised as a charlatan. Its our/my country, constitution not for him and his ilk. God Bless!!

     Posted by elpercho at 07/17/2007 @ 9:05pm

130. Rush encouraged listeners today to tape the all-night senate proceedings so that, when people look back and see how history was made, we'll all know who the kooks and obstructionists were, and what they said, and how they were on the wrong side of helping Iraq and the middle east to become a better place. The Dems' world view (and gutless cowardice) will be on display for ages to come. Too bad they didn't have C-Span and recorders back before the Civil War...that would have been interesting to see and hear all the pro-slavery arguements made, and by who, and let us all see the idiocy of those philosophies.

     Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/17/2007 @ 9:12pm

131. Bush lied ... in what way? The WMD intelligence? Sorry, but you can't seriously blame Bush for that. Congress saw the same intelligence reports and made the same assessments and voted accordingly to authorize the US to go to Iraq. So I don't buy that argument. I think people who use that line will look for (and believe) any reason they can find to justify what they already want to believe.

     Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/17/2007 @ 9:17pm

132. So, what is it about Pres. Bush that makes you hate him so much? Is it the 2000 election results? Or the faulty intelligence on Iraq's WMDs? Or his Supreme Court nominations? Is it the fact that Clinton got impeached, so it's now become a tit-for-tat exercise to get him (and all Republicans) back? What drives this anger? Do you ever pray for the man, to overcome his faults and lead this nation as God would have him lead it? Or is it his profession of faith that bothers you? Someone, please explain.

     Posted by DJ IN AZ 07/17/2007 @ 8:37pm | ignore this person

     DJINAZ,

     It's acutally not really about Bush the person, but fundamentally rests on the policies. The policies that emphasize the maximization of exectutive secrecy which ultimately betrays a real contempt for democratic principles. These people cite the polls and values of the electorate when favorable (Bush used to claim the elections gave him "politcal capital"), but revert to meaningless slogans about real leadership not bending to the will of the public and irrelevancy of opinion polls. So what if 70% of America wants to end the war.

     It's also much larger than lying us into a war. It's about corporate thieves who've never worked a day in their life, using the system rigged to give disproportionate power and influence to those who can bribe the elected representatives with campaign checks, to siphon off the collective wealth of America. We vote for the same batch of elite politicians representing the wealthiest 2% of Americans, and then wonder why nothing changes except for the downward spiral of corruption. Our elected should be required to wear NASCAR suits displaying all the corporations and private interest groups whose checks they've depostied into banking accounts (in effect, who they work for). Aren't you disturbed by government agenicies designed to protect the health and well-being of citizens being run by corporate hacks using the public resources to enrich the same gang of bloodsucking companies making a killing while lowering wages and leaving ruinous waste and pollution of our environment? Bush has essentially issued a Fatwa on science (altering scientific papers reporting on Global Warming) and repeatedly enlisted his political cronies to gut out public-serving agencies like the EPA, the Justice Department, FEMA and so on.

     Yes, Clinton was bad, but we've never seen such scale of government depredation, pillaging of national resources, along with unprecedented abuse of power. Clinton was suave and subtle, while Bush works like a mafia boss daring and cursing you to oppose him.

     Posted by Oustbush at 07/17/2007 @ 9:38pm

133. LvLiberty-People on the left post facts on here all the time, as you well know so don't be lying to the new guy.He has been lied to enough as his posts clearly show.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 07/17/2007 @ 9:49pm

134. let's start by putting to rest the myth that our soldiers are the best we have to offer the world.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/17/2007 @ 6:21pm

     Good old JR. He can always be counted on to show his hatred for his fellow Americans who volunteer to defend his right to be a jerk.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/17/2007 @ 9:22pm | ignore this person

     oh really? we could have sent diplomats to Iraq. we could have sent doctors to Iraq. we could have sent economists to Iraq. we could have sent artists to Iraq.

     only bloodthirsty haters like you would assume that troops are the best america has to offer. verreck.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 9:58pm

135. Good old JR. He can always be counted on to show his hatred for his fellow Americans who volunteer to defend his right to be a jerk.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/17/2007 @ 9:22pm | ignore this person

     it is you who hate. I have no hatred for the troops. au contraire. I just don't think they are the best we have to offer. they are there to kill. only a satanic christian such as yourself would hold this higher than anything else.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/17/2007 @ 10:01pm

136. Bush lied ... in what way? The WMD intelligence? Sorry, but you can't seriously blame Bush for that. Congress saw the same intelligence reports and made the same assessments and voted accordingly to authorize the US to go to Iraq. So I don't buy that argument. I think people who use that line will look for (and believe) any reason they can find to justify what they already want to believe.

     Posted by DJ IN AZ 07/17/2007 @ 9:17pm | ignore this person

     Sorry, DJ, but Bush chose to ignore all the dissenting intelligence regarding the reconstitution of Iraq'a alleged nuclear weapons program, biological agents, links with Al Qaeda, etc. It was no innocent slip-up concerning the infamous "16 words" invoked in the state of the union address. The State Department has weapons analysts reporting contrary to the Bush claims about new WMD programs. Of course, it behooves you Republicans to gives vague and generalized claims of "everybody believed" blah, blah...while ignoring the fact that all of the Bush WMD claims had serious counter-claims as to their validity from within the same intelligence community you attempt to scapegoat with great dishonesty and cowardice.

     Also, as to your exhalted radio jock, Rush Limbaugh, and his claim as to who will resonate with the public, I'd take my chances with Senator Jim Webb articulating with great eloquence and passion his knowledge of foreign policy matters, over the Republican Drones whinning on woodenly, self-righteously, in their scripted sports metaphors about "winning" and "cutting and running," and other such vacant blatherings.

     Posted by Oustbush at 07/17/2007 @ 10:02pm

137. it is you who hate. I have no hatred for the troops. au contraire. I just don't think they are the best we have to offer. they are there to kill. only a satanic christian such as yourself would hold this higher than anything else.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/17/2007 @ 10:01pm | ignore this person

     Liberty is ever so dilligent in his crusade to defecate on truth and higher principles.

     Posted by Oustbush at 07/17/2007 @ 10:15pm

138. Posted by DJ IN AZ 07/17/2007 @ 8:37pm |

     DJ, I don't hate Bush.

     But is it okay if I think he's a monumental failure of a President, since he has nothing to show positive for the last 7 years?

     Posted by Mask at 07/17/2007 @ 10:39pm

139. (The lying old man claimed he doesn't cheat, but I'll give generous odds that he's lying.)

     Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/17/2007 @ 5:43pm

     From a man who lied about which election he voted in...a lying old convict..

     This from a truth telling genius who, when unable to get hired on at McDonalds the first time..decided to ...rob banks...and then complain about the excessive sentence...so, I guess stealing others peoples money is not cheating(explains why you love high taxes on others labors)..you are used to taking others money after they worked for it, which makes you the perfect liberal victim..not your fault, but the awful folks who manage to feed themselves without reverting to those famous words..."Stick 'em Up!!"..they are the ones to blame for your, ah, station in life..good thing those pesky words, personal choice and responsibility aren't anywhere around you.

     In another generation the last words for you would have been, ..."Any last words?"

     What a fraud...voting is too important to be left to guys like you after viewing your past history and the choices you have made..and at a huge cost to others I am sure, innocent others,who are paying for your shit today and will for years...you need to back off your high horse, because a few years ago, that horse would have been slapped with a whip and you would be wearing a hemp neck tie...for robbing banks...so back off the righteous horse shit. It doesn't take. I guess a union is the perfect place for you...they could always use some muscle..obviously your are hired for your brains.

     Posted by john maasch at 07/17/2007 @ 11:46pm

140. DJ in AZ,

     It may come as surprise--it was to me--but few new folks show up here and stay for any length of time. Most of us tend NOT to blog with `Drive-By Strangers' until they show up with some frequency. As some of my fellow right-wingers have already done, my official "Welcome!"

     Most of us on the Right here are older Baby Boomers (I'm 50+), so we need the energy of a 41-yrs old (Wow, 6 kids! you're da Man). I've got a key pointer to save you some time, unless of course, you've got gobs of time or have a job that doesn't require much `work' (as some lucky ones here do have, like EmptySpence), there are at least a dozen moonbats unworthy of our time (incluidng Empty); put them on `Ignore' and you can breeze through the comments much faster! They are mostly young, late teens to maybe 30 yrs old. A couple are over 30 but mentally, are regressing at accelerating rates! They are easy to spot....they write & sounds just like high school kids doing Instant Messaging!

     Posted by Happy at 07/18/2007 @ 12:24am

141. There are a number of reasons to oppose this war, or any war not fought in self-defense. For those who believe that force is an effective tool of choice to achieve selective goals, it is difficult to sustain those achievements if the moral stance of the enforcers is called into question.

     I have been watching some more of the Senate all-nighter, and was just thrilled and somewhat flabbergasted by one of my own Washington Senators, Maria Cantwell, who just finished speaking on the highly questionable "Oil Sharing Bill" (aka, the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Act). Her speech aired in the 11 PM hour Pacific time, so she may have had some decent viewership, as C-SPAN goes, here on the coast.

     I urge you to find the video or text of Sen. Cantwell's speech. I will try to post a link here when I see it. I'm very proud of my Senator for exposing this slimy oil grab, and it's part of why I'm so disgusted with the thieving, lying criminals running this game.

     Posted by Donald Weed at 07/18/2007 @ 02:42am

142. To DJ in AZ. Been reading some of this thread. Don't know if this is your first time in here, but as you can see there are a few guys out there who are long on insults and short on meaningful comments. They kind of give even todays Liberals, who can no longer lay claim to "the liberal tradition", a bad name. Good Luck :)

     Throw in a ethnic joke now & again- their sensitive asses get ALLL in an uproar, heh heh

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/18/2007 @ 09:52am

143. You Tory bootlickers act as if history has never provided us with examples of war undertaken on false pretenses; the reasons provided by leaders for war usually prove to be something different than what was pubicly stated. And yes, Democratic leaders have lied as frequently as Republican. How foul it is, this craven hypocrisy of you conservatives who offered democratic consent to Republican support of Saddam Hussein's torture and genocide when the massacres were taking place, but have now found sympathy for the Iraqi people because George W. Bush and his band of malevolent felons recycled from the Nixon and Reagan administrations have told us that it's for the Iraqi people we stay in Iraq. While the Iraqi people continue to die in headline worthy numbers daily. The 20-some percent of you knuckledraggers who still believe that this war has not been the worst disaster in memory, and that the various individuals raising arms against American soldiers or America in general, do so because they hate our freedoms are feeble-minded lambs who continue to give relevancy to the work of George Orwell.

     Posted by Oustbush at 07/18/2007 @ 10:13am

144. DJ,

     "Posted by DJ IN AZ 07/17/2007 @ 9:12pm

     Don't be listening to Rush Limbaugh and bringing that shit here. This is a site for educated people, not brainwashed Dittoheads. Limbaugh is a sycophant and a demogogue and if you believe anything he says then you're beyond help. The people here have tried to educate you as far as I can see. But you have to be willing to be educated before you actually can. You know, it's the old , 'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink syndrome'. If you listen to Limbaugh everyday, you are lied to everyday. I can prove it but I don't think I really want to waste the time on you. Go away, read a book or two, then come back and we'll talk.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/18/2007 @ 12:00am"

     Substitute the name Hillary for Rush and Frank for "you" in the above blather and you see the problem...

     You will find Frank hilarious, despite he is being serious...

     and I promise you, he listens to Limbaugh more than any ditto head..his little # 2 pencil ever at the ready to jot down and moniter what he thinks Rush syas...the problem is, the Franks of the world never "get " Rush and never will,..and that makes for more entertainment than Rush can muster up.

     Posted by john maasch at 07/18/2007 @ 10:18am

145. Good morning, all (Libs included)

     I hear last night at the Capitol was a real yawner...Dems trying to assert their majority power and accomplishing nothing but the worst congressional approval poll numbers in history. :)

     Cheers

     Posted by DJ in AZ at 07/18/2007 @ 11:17am

146. >A mandate? To me it looks like the repubs were fired...the assisant managers are now the nacting manager until a replacement can be found or hired...I'd say the Dems are in danger of being fired too.<

     If Bush had a mandate in 04 the Dems do now as well. I totally agree the Republicans were fired. I'm not so sure the Dems are in nearly as much trouble as the Repub were simply for the fact that there is no one to replace them which is a testament to the failings of a two party system. There are more than two types of people in America there should be more than two voices to chose from. What I do see is the republicans have not changed after the humiliation of 06. They are still more about obstructing and misleading than they are about coopertaivly working together to get what they claim they believe in done. It worked in the past but slowly Americans are seeing the tactics for what they are and the democrats are finally figuring out how to counter them. I also whole heartedly agree with you that Reid should have continued for as long as it took. He's still got to figure out the differance between symbolistic tactics and reality based ones meant to actually accomplish the goal.

     Posted by zakquiet at 07/18/2007 @ 12:17pm

147. He's still got to figure out the differance between symbolistic tactics and reality based ones meant to actually accomplish the goal.

     Posted by ZAKQUIET 07/18/2007 @ 12:17pm

     ZAK, have you considered that Reid DOES know the difference...but doesn't care?

     Posted by Mask at 07/18/2007 @ 12:49pm

148. ZAK, have you considered that Reid DOES know the difference...but doesn't care?

     Posted by MASK 07/18/2007 @ 12:49pm

     Why wouldn't he care? It's only to his benefit to get the vote on it. No offense intended but your assertion seems more a way to cast Reid in as bad a light as possible than it does a real question.

     Posted by zakquiet at 07/18/2007 @ 12:56pm

149. Posted by ZAKQUIET 07/18/2007 @ 12:56pm

     No, that was exactly my assertion...as noted on other threads.

     I think Reid's "one nighter" was a stunt. But not in the way the Right thinks so as in "It was pointless, just to try to embaress the Repubs"...in the sense that if he REALLY meant to end this war, it wouldn't be "one night"...but a week or CONTINUAL, until he had peeled off Repub after Repub to end cloture on the filibuster and pass Reed-Levin in the DA bill.

     His "one night" should have been FOREVER...IF he was serious.

     As it is, he'll CLAIM victory, but all he's done is postponed the Defense Authorization until September and Gen. Petraeus' "We're winning...sort of" report...

     which is EXACTLY what the Senate Republicans wanted!

     Posted by Mask at 07/18/2007 @ 2:26pm

150. I think Reid's "one nighter" was a stunt......which is EXACTLY what the Senate Republicans wanted!

     Posted by MASK 07/18/2007 @ 2:26pm

     Not "EXACTLY" what you're saying but still works!

     Come on MASK, you're being too hard on Get-Rich-Quick-Land-Deal Harry.....especially on thIS thread W/NICHOLS' proclaiming "Harry Reid Finally Starts to Fight Smart"......LOL!!!!

     Posted by Happy at 07/18/2007 @ 4:13pm

151. I think Reid's "one nighter" was a stunt......which is EXACTLY what the Senate Republicans wanted!

     no it isn't. they're scared shitless, as well they should be.

     it was political theater the same as when Bush speaks in front of an audience of troops, as he does constantly. he shamelessly uses them as props for his bullshit. that too is political theater.

     the lines have been drawn, the repubs lost.

     what the dems did was force the issue, a little. all those repubs will be going home, where they will have to justify their vote.

     the big lie is that the dems are just as bad as the repubs. do you hear me, it's a big lie. they are not what we would hope for. but they are our last and best hope. if the repubs aren't stopped, if they are not repudiated in the most total and complete way, we can kiss our "democracy" goodbye.

     Hillary? compared to Rudy or Romney she is George Washington. same with Edwards and Obama. we will not get any better ones than the dems we have now. Bush has shown that we can get far worse ones. before you attack the dems, why don't you visualize president Giuliani, a crook, a war monger, a tyrant AND an incompetent whoremaster. just because he married the whore does not sanitize her.

     I don't care what the troglodyte repubs post here. they are already history. what the dems post is important to me. that is why I go on about the big lie.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/18/2007 @ 4:41pm

152. A vote to end the war is Societal suicide. This is a war of Civilizations that has been ebbing and surging since before the Crusades. The stated objective of Islam is the eradication or subjugation of all non-Muslims. They do not want to compromise. They do not want to coexist. They will not go away. We can fight them now or fight them later. We will have to fight. Let's do it now while we have the superior technology. Nobody wants war, but if it's us or them that has to die, I say let's give it our all and prevail while we can.

     Posted by David Horning at 07/18/2007 @ 6:18pm

153. Posted by DAVID HORNING 07/18/2007 @ 6:18pm | ignore this person

     grrr, kill, kill

     the Crusades was a 200 year long war. the west lost. read your history, though I doubt it will make any difference with you.

     of course that post is nonsense. the 20th century was one marked by wars on a scale unmatched in history. Islam had very little to do with it.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/18/2007 @ 6:44pm

154. For the post by JOHANNESROLF 07/18/2007 @ 6:44pm

     Here's an interesting site to help you with History so you won't be doomed to repeat it.

     http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/history-of-religion.html

     Posted by David Horning at 07/18/2007 @ 7:50pm

155. Posted by DAVID HORNING 07/18/2007 @ 7:50pm | ignore this person

     so what?

     for some real history I recommend "The Western Tradition" a TV series, 52 episodes available at "Learner", the site of the Annenberg Foundation. it's a good start.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/18/2007 @ 8:09pm

156. you can also try "The Story of Civilization" by Will Durant. ten volumes, goes up to Napoleon. he and his wife Ariel spent 40 years writing it.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/18/2007 @ 8:11pm

157. I have read "The Story of Civilization"; I doubt seriously that you have. Please do. I gave you that link because it had pictures, which I thought would be easier for you to grasp. All I had to go on was your simplistic posts which demonstrate an obvious inability to assess the current world situation in an historical context.

     Here are some pertinent Durant quotes(although the last one speaks more to the illegal immigration problem):

     "...history is an excellent teacher with few pupils."

     "For barbarism is always around civilization, amid it and beneath it, ready to engulf it by arms, or mass migration, or unchecked fertility. Barbarism is like the jungle; it never admits its defeat; it waits patiently for centuries to recover the territory it has lost."

     On the fall of India to the Monguls: "The bitter lesson that may be drawn from this tragedy is that eternal vigilance is the price of civilization. A nation must love peace, but keep its powder dry."

     "If Rome had not engulfed so many men of alien blood in so brief a time, if she had passed all these newcomers through her schools instead of her slums, if she had treated them as men with a hundred potential excellences, if she had occasionally closed her gates to let assimilation catch up with infiltration, she might have gained new racial and literary vitality from the infusion, and might have remained a Roman Rome, the voice and citadel of the West."

     Posted by David Horning at 07/18/2007 @ 9:24pm

158. Dave, yeah right. I haven't read it? the conquerers of india you are referring to are the Moghuls, you twit.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/18/2007 @ 9:35pm

159. you will have to cite these quotes, so I can examine the context in which they are used.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/18/2007 @ 9:39pm

160. On the fall of India to the Monguls:

     what at first glance seemed to be an ignorant error, is revealed by further reading to be an understandable mistake. my apologies for the epithet.

     chapter 16 in vol.one p.464

     Mogul is another form of Mongol. the Moguls were really Turks, but the Hindus called, and still call all northern Moslems(except the Afghans) Moguls.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/19/2007 @ 1:06pm

161. the Mongols incidentally invaded India but were defeated and turned back in Delhi.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/19/2007 @ 1:07pm