It’s a different take, a bit more wonkish than what is written here, but I thought it might generate discussion.

The two or three times I have posted comments in here, they usually have generated a pretty decent response, so here it goes.

Cheers.

P J Evans @ 114

TPM has Lieberguy’s speechifying on this:

why can’t ct recall liarman like california recalled grey?

IANAL, but Davis (gov) was a Constitutional Officer of CA State. Therefore, the state constitution’s specific provisions for removal/replacement applied to his office (California governor).

Liarman is a US Senator and hence his removal (or replacement) are determined by the US Constitution.

[as some with more knowledge and dexterity than I have likely written by this time…]

246-182…The Democrats got enough Republicans to eclipse the 60 vote barrier the Republicans needed to limit the Resolution.

Now on to the Senate!

Not entirely an aside…it’s gratifying to see that the House GOP isn’t herding its sheep quite as well as it used to do.

TPM has Lieberguy’s speechifying on this:

why can’t ct recall liarman like california recalled grey?

246-182…The Democrats got enough Republicans to eclipse the 60 vote barrier the Republicans needed to limit the Resolution.

Now on to the Senate!

only because it was non binding, they would have stayed more together otherwise

The lack of recognition that things are FUBAR. The predictable line about 535 commanders in chief. The usual assumption that those who aren’t for Bush are against the entire structure of US government. The warning about a constitutional crisis; the other one about Congress micromanaging the war.

It certainly sounds like his speeches are written by the GOoPers.

Now on to the Senate!

Rep Harold Rogers (R-KY) basically says terrists watching this ‘debate’ on CSPAN in their caves.

Yeah… most Cable/Satellite systems in the US don’t carry C-SPAN so we really think that the Satellite serving Iraq is going to be downloading it into Iraq and Afghanistan?

You want to know what increases the morale of the “ter’rists”?

1) The ability to get weapons from ungaurded Iraqi Military weapons depots!

2) The ease of crossing borders into Iraq as there was no longer an Iraqi Border police to contend with when the US invaded.

3) The shift of focus from Taliban and al Qaida forces encircled in Afghanistan to Iraq. When Special Forces and surveillance drones were shifted from Afghanistan it allowed the al Qaida leadership to escape.

4) The involvement of the US in a sectarian civil war…thus distracting half or more of US operations away from dealing with al Qaida in Iraq.

5) Increasing Bush distraction with Iran rather than al Qaida…and the increasing likelihood that the US will get involved in yet another conflict it can’t handle in the Middle-East…and create a whole new recruitment tool for terrorism.

6) The placing of nuclear weapon and nerve gas plans in ARABIC on the “internets”. Thanks Sen. Hoekstra and Roberts for saving al Qaida the need to undertake trying to obtain these plans through surrepticious means. You gave it to them free, and without risk!

Yep! All those and more would be far more likely to “encourage” and increase the morale of Al Qaida.

That, and the fact that we’ve done three of these “surges” before, and all they have accomplished is increased U.S. casualties. I’m sure that al Qaida is rubbing their palms together and saying…”more targets…I hope the Shiites leave US SOME!”

MSNBC breaking news: House passes Iraq war resolution critical of Bush plan

White House reaction: Yawn