J U S T I C E !!!

Madame Speaker!!!! Er . . .Pres. . .

Nancy!!!

Henry!!!

And JANE!!!!

Enjoy your basketball tonight!

Jane! Elizabeth! Madame Speaker!

thank goodness. I was calling our liberal congress women all last night, I’m glad they shifted their resolve from “Not good enough” to “It’s a start”.

Per Tony Snow, the House members don’t have the right to vote on this.

I think this whole “Antiwar Party” thing will make for some excellent branding in 2008.

It’s gonna suck to be one of the Republicans who voted to keep us in Iraq.

18 months of funding for this war/occupation is so disheartening and depressing – it far overshadows any partisan joy i can find in seeing bush’s republicans beaten.

Balrog @ 6

Per Tony Snow, the House members don’t have the right to vote on this.

Is warmaking covered by executive privilege?

My next bumper sticker: Pelosi ‘07

Just a few tasks first……

I am proud to announce as a happily married man for over 30 years in a heterosexual relationship that I am a “Nancy Boy”!!!!

You go girl!!!!!!!

selise @ 8

18 months of funding for this war/occupation is so disheartening and depressing – it far overshadows any partisan joy i can find in seeing bush’s republicans beaten.

I think shrink’s “It’s a start” comment is the key. At the very least, establish that the Democrats are the “get us the fuck out of Iraq already” party, and then work on moving up the date.

Eli @ 7

It’s gonna suck to be one of the Republicans who voted to keep us in Iraq.

and how will it be for the dems who just voted to provide the necessary funding to continue the war for another 18 months?

Eli @ 9

Balrog @ 6

Per Tony Snow, the House members don’t have the right to vote on this.

Is warmaking covered by executive privilege?

The Admin will be offering a fair alternative to this bill.

any day Pelosi wins is a very good day.

flatford39 @ 11

I am proud to announce as a happily married man for over 30 years in a heterosexual relationship that I am a “Nancy Boy”!!!!

You go girl!!!!!!!

I’m a Nancy Goy. Well, in Utah, anyway…

selise @
8

18 months of funding for this war/occupation is so disheartening and depressing – it far overshadows any partisan joy i can find in seeing bush’s republicans beaten.

I understand.

flatford39 @
11

I am proud to announce as a happily married man for over 30 years in a heterosexual relationship that I am a “Nancy Boy”!!!!

You go girl!!!!!!!

LOL!!! You and John Edwards.

Eli @ 12

selise @ 8

18 months of funding for this war/occupation is so disheartening and depressing – it far overshadows any partisan joy i can find in seeing bush’s republicans beaten.

I think shrink’s “It’s a start” comment is the key. At the very least, establish that the Democrats are the “get us the fuck out of Iraq already” party, and then work on moving up the date.

oh eli – i so hope you are right and i am completely wrong. but right now, i am crying with despair.

Carolyn in Baltimore @ 10

My next bumper sticker: Pelosi ‘07

Just a few tasks first……

Oh, I love it. Let me know when it’s available & I’ll drive up & pick one up!

selise @ 13

Eli @ 7

It’s gonna suck to be one of the Republicans who voted to keep us in Iraq.

and how will it be for the dems who just voted to provide the necessary funding to continue the war for another 18 months?

It sucks, and I would much prefer a more accelerated timeline, but they’ll be fine, and this was pretty clearly the absolute limit of what they could get passed.

gotta start somewhere. the “perfect” being the enemy of the ‘good” and all that. good for Nancy.

Balrog @ 14

Eli @ 9

Balrog @ 6

Per Tony Snow, the House members don’t have the right to vote on this.

Is warmaking covered by executive privilege?

The Admin will be offering a fair alternative to this bill.

It has been for 6 years and Iran’s still on the table.

Sorry,
I don’t feel good about this. It’s a bad bill and is being touted as “if it fails the next one will be worse.” I’m in the camp of starting with a higher standard. This does not feel good. period.

Jane Hamsher @ 17

selise @
8

18 months of funding for this war/occupation is so disheartening and depressing – it far overshadows any partisan joy i can find in seeing bush’s republicans beaten.

I understand.

thank you for that, jane. this bill has been a horrible wedge among people who want the war to end.

Jane,

truly hope you are holding up well and livin’ nutmeg fabulous

am loving your focus on Alice Fisher – I happened to catch that particular bug from you :) just imagine, Madame Prosecutor and Democracy 21 at the same hearing . . .

Pelosi is an awful smart cookie and I trust that she is doing her very best – it is a start.

selise @
8

18 months of funding for this war/occupation is so disheartening and depressing – it far overshadows any partisan joy i can find in seeing bush’s republicans beaten.

me too.

I want impeachment on the table and war with Iran off the table and the troops and mercenaries home now and all occupations to end.

and the chimp still threatens a veto on this legislation so that he can continue his endless war.

Carolyn in Baltimore @ 10

My next bumper sticker: Pelosi ‘07

Just a few tasks first……

Finally, the appropriate replacement for the “Sorry World, We Tried” sign on my front lawn.

When folks ask about it, I tell ‘em I’m waiting for an accurate count of the 2004 ballots.

I’m trusting this is one small step for the “Speaking to” the House. Lovin’ that woman’s style.

selise –

Cry your heart out here with us, and when you can, take all that fire in your heart and come out swinging once more.

It’s going to be a very long marathon, not a quick sprint. There will be days of anguish and days of pride alternating, for a very long time.

We all need you in the fight.

OldCoastie @ 27

Pelosi is an awful smart cookie and I trust that she is doing her very best – it is a start.

It’s certainly a refreshing change from all the just plain awful cookies we’ve had running our government.

nice that the various factions of progressives are working together Jane but I do have a question;

can’t they give a fraction of what’s asked for in lieu of another vote?

I think that would not only satisfy both sides of the democratic divide but it would give EVERYONE more influence;

here’s what I would like to see happen and this would become veto proof;

a bill needs to be passed that gives money for carious events and circumstances in Iraq, it does not give the president any discretion;

this amount for feeding, this amount for equipment, this amount for transportation

this cannot be vetoed by the president without entirely defunding the war and forcing his own hand to bring our children home

I understand it’s important to show solidarity in this bill but we give away far too much and letting him pull the strings

I would also like to circulate the following talking points among democrats.

whenever someone tries to bring up “they serve at the pleasure of the president”, the proper response is as so’

“the president serves at the pleasure of the people, he serves at the pleasure of our constitution”

we then need to go even further after those self evident truths;

“the people who employ this president elected congress to provide over site, to not only “micromanage” but to make sure the policies that brought us to this state are reversed..unlike those elected officials that ignore their obligation to this country, her constitution and the people that elect us, this congress WILL fulfill it’s oath”

really, if I say so myself, I LOVE;

“the president serves at the pleasure of the people and at the pleasure of our constitution”

that will shut their mouths RIGHT up whenever they try to bring up “they serve at the pleasure of the president

Mauimom @ 20

Carolyn in Baltimore @ 10

My next bumper sticker: Pelosi ‘07

Just a few tasks first……

Oh, I love it. Let me know when it’s available & I’ll drive up & pick one up!

Google it – they’re out there!

How could a democrat dare not voting with Pelosi on getting out? They need to be disappeared. Can they possibly be representing their districts?

Eli @ 32

OldCoastie @ 27

Pelosi is an awful smart cookie and I trust that she is doing her very best – it is a start.

It’s certainly a refreshing change from all the just plain awful cookies we’ve had running our government.

who enabled those cookies, anyway?

Angie @ 28:

and the chimp still threatens a veto on this legislation so that he can continue his endless war.

Let the Chimp live with the consequences of his veto.

perris @ 33

really, if I say so myself, I LOVE;

“the president serves at the pleasure of the people and at the pleasure of our constitution”

that will shut their mouths RIGHT up whenever they try to bring up “they serve at the pleasure of the president

I think their response is going to be that the “accountability moment” was in 2004, and the people’s pleasure did not remove Dubya. Not saying it’s a valid argument (Election Day sketchiness, 2006 election results), but it’s certainly the one they’ll use.

Obviously, impeachment should only be reserved for the most serious of crimes against the state, like lying about blow jobs.

RevDeb @ 24

Sorry,
I don’t feel good about this. It’s a bad bill and is being touted as “if it fails the next one will be worse.” I’m in the camp of starting with a higher standard. This does not feel good. period.

i think i might have been able to work myself up to, if not supporting, at least being neutral if only the funding had been for only 3 or 4 months (with everthing else the same).

i don’t understand why there is funding for 18 months…. until just before the 2008 elections – it looks (even to me) like playing politics with people’s lives. and if it looks like that to me – how will it looks to people who don’t consider themselves democrats?

Cantner sayin typical stoopid shit on tweety
the american people want us out of Irag you idiot

To prez pelosi: Bout dam time

Mauimom @ 37

Angie @ 28:

and the chimp still threatens a veto on this legislation so that he can continue his endless war.

Let the Chimp live with the consequences of his veto.

If only he was the only one who had to.

But at least the GOP will pay dearly in 2008. That’s pretty much the only consolation.

Eli @
9

Balrog @ 6

Per Tony Snow, the House members don’t have the right to vote on this.

Is warmaking covered by executive privilege?

Are war crimes covered by executive privilege?

Appreciate the feedback from everyone in the previous thread wrt B. Haley………..I’m on dial-up and the way the Ladies of the Lake have been cranking ‘em out these days, it’s next to impossible to keep up w/the comments, much less drag on and off to check teh google. Talk about *real* epu land ;-)

George, Rove and Cheney. How they must be fretting over being beaten by that little woman Pelosi. Well pseudo macho boys, watcha gonna do? Especially you Prez, you long, tall, swaggering, phony cowboy, you.

18 months. 18 months of a whole lot of killing, a whole lot of money for the Darth project.

Anyone have a link to the text of this bill?

When and how does the money cut off?
When do we start to pull out?
Does it cut funding of private militias or bases?

I know Nancy is trying and goddess bless her for it…but its still just all wrong.

i suggest this one tiny thought:

Ask mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, Iraqis/Afghans what they want.

They can’t wait another 18 months, much less a week.

It’s heinous.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the CBC may just save our country.

selise @
19

Eli @ 12

selise @ 8

18 months of funding for this war/occupation is so disheartening and depressing – it far overshadows any partisan joy i can find in seeing bush’s republicans beaten.

I think shrink’s “It’s a start” comment is the key. At the very least, establish that the Democrats are the “get us the fuck out of Iraq already” party, and then work on moving up the date.

oh eli – i so hope you are right and i am completely wrong. but right now, i am crying with despair.

I suggest that you dry your eyes and get to work to find, fund and elect more folks like Rep. Barbara Lee and the other members of the Progressive Caucus ’cause….

Bush, Cheney and the rest of the insane scum trying to destroy this country don’t care about tears.

They worked for 40 years to get to this point.

And now we have the golden opportunity to drive them into the sea.

If we don’t quit.

They vast majority of Americans have come to see that these fascists are a bigger danger to them than Al Queda ever thought of being.

The citizenry is ready to take another direction after two failed foreign wars and forty years of ReThug fools allowing their coporate puppetmasters free reign to:

Loot the Treasury…

Destroy the economy…

Ruin our educational system…

I’m not gonna spend one second whining about this.

It’s on to the next fight.

Impeachment.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 44

George, Rove and Cheney. How they must be fretting over being beaten by that little woman Pelosi. Well pseudo macho boys, watcha gonna do? Especially you Prez, you long, tall, swaggering, phony cowboy, you.

I’d bet it bothers them a LOT… and will compel them to stick their lower lips out further on the USA situation.

And the Palestinians.

sorry, Nancy, but I think 18 months totally sucks. you could have gone to the end of FY 07, giving the Congress the chance to come up with a better endgame. I am not happy with this! Going to watch some basketball. Please fix this.

Mrs. K8 @ 31 -

thanks for the kind words… i’m not about to give up now… i just had more hope, a lot more hope, for the dems (especially the blue america candidates) who were supposed to be anti-this-war.

Waiting for a call back from someone who we hope can help with the current round of middle school/IEP stuff. No time or brainpower to try to sum these things up, but if anyone is interested, there are a number of posts (with links) at Buckeye State Blog about Phillip de Vellis:

A Name From The Past
Calling BS on De Vellis – It Wasn’t Him
Politico Weighs in on DeVellis
Continuing our Conversation: De Vellis’ Deception & BSD

Eli @ 38

perris @ 33

really, if I say so myself, I LOVE;

“the president serves at the pleasure of the people and at the pleasure of our constitution”

that will shut their mouths RIGHT up whenever they try to bring up “they serve at the pleasure of the president

I think their response is going to be that the “accountability moment” was in 2004, and the people’s pleasure did not remove Dubya. Not saying it’s a valid argument (Election Day sketchiness, 2006 election results), but it’s certainly the one they’ll use.

we know what they’ll try to use in response Eli, and of course we’ll be ready with exactly what you wrote;

“that’s why there are ongoing elections and that’s why there is a vote two years after a president is elected, so that the president’s boss, the people can do what it takes to bring his decisions into account”

we’re on the same page, what I’m really saying is whenever they come up with their ridiculous talking points we can usually put an end to it and my “the president serves at the pleasure of the constitution” does the trick very nicely with the current script the marionettes are repeating from their puppeteers

Well, my thoughts are:
1. Congrats to our Speaker. Some compromises needed to be made to get “something” meaningful to pass.
2. IF this bill becomes law, realize that withdrawal by 09/08 actually, in a pragmatic sense, will require a phased reduction over the many months prior to 09/08. Perhaps this might be a bit of consolation to those who seek immediate withdrawal.

Ghostman

Compare: Laura to the Speaker.

I am not proud of this measure. The way this was done was unfair to the people. Pelosi hid Reps. behind closed doors — Reps. who should have come forward with their honest positions. She “papered over” the problems and by watering everything down she protected some, but hurt more democrats. It would have been better for this version of the bill to fail. At least then the dems who were really trying to do the right thing could go on record. She took a lot of wind out of a lot of sails, and she caused a lot of damage to the support in the polls for the 110th Congress.

Their constituents elected them to stop this war. Some of them squashed better amendments to this bill, and their constituents will not know about it. This is the strongest legislation that we’re going to get. After this it will be weaker opposition to Bush’s war. This spending bill is nothing to be proud of.

Hell yes Madame speaker!!!

Off topic

Mrs. K8 – Fort Meade fire

Give it a minute to download – large pictures

Oklahoma kiddo @ 55

Compare: Laura to the Speaker.

Pelosi has a better driving record.

excellent dkos diary on maxine waters’ response to the supplemental (via a conference call).

re KO – they must have pictures of Specter up in the WH

#59, punaise: that is cruel, ugly, and mean. And, I’m laughing my ass off! Good to see you and dear coastie.

Ghostman

Mauimom @ 37

Angie @ 28:

and the chimp still threatens a veto on this legislation so that he can continue his endless war.

Let the Chimp live with the consequences of his veto.

Maybe that would piss off enough of our reps to realize impeachment is the only way to get rid of this illegal, dangerous maladministration.

18 more months of war funding seems to suck yet it is part of the
strategy to have a Democratic exit plan well in place 18 months
prior to 2008 election.( do I really believe a Dem. Pres. is going to
totally get us out of Iraq- no bec. it’s the oil-EVEN HILLARY SAID IT) That way the Rethugs can’t tar them as not supporting the troops ie… not being patriotic. In the meantimeit clears the deck for the investigative process to go full bore.
IT IS THIS TORPEDO THAT’S GOING TO SINK THEIR SHIP.

Leahy on KO right now

selise @
25

Jane Hamsher @ 17

selise @
8

18 months of funding for this war/occupation is so disheartening and depressing – it far overshadows any partisan joy i can find in seeing bush’s republicans beaten.

I understand.

thank you for that, jane. this bill has been a horrible wedge among people who want the war to end.

I get it. My heart was with Maxine and the Out of Iraq caucus. I’m just hoping Eli is right and we’re at some kind of place where “this is a start.”

Did Pelosi really beat Bush?

This is a victory???

Are you sure???

Skeptical Bob in HI

“If they don’t come voluntarily, I will subpeona”

Tonight, I must make it plain and clear, that as a human being, as a citizen of the world, as a citizen of America, as a member of Congress, and as an individual committed to a world at peace with itself, I will not and cannot vote for another dollar or another dime to support this war.

The Honorable Mr. John Lewis

http://www.tompaine.com/articl…..tually.php

Several witnesses coming, lots of testimony to get to.

http://www.rawstory.com/showar……23328.asp OT: HALLIBRURTON TO OPEN IN MEXICO

Tony Snow just mocked a female reporter on KO. WhaWhaWhaWhaWha….

Eubanks on ATC, TPM on ATC
Above the fold even.

Leahy just said on Oddball that he has a few witnesses holding back just in case he needs them. I hope the USA’s that are upset about this whole mess are going to give up karls shop.

Are the Dems funding the war for 18 months so they don’t have to fret about it any longer?

I bet old Cheney is measuring new yachts and painting targets on Iran this evening with his new windfall. Gawd knows what else!

Looks like 5000 lobbying A*P*Cers is worth over 122 (ish) billion out of the pockets of those who don’t even want this war.

[angie, get me a pillow to scream into! I’ll make popcorn later]

dreamcatcher @ 76

I know this is hard to do, but we should not see funding the bill as giving Bush another penny. Our troops are out there with their lives on the line, and we need to assure that they have the means to survive, while at the same time we need to do everything in our power to bring them home. If we see the bill as giving money to Bush, that is fatalistic and not correct. I think the Dems have it right on this.

I should add that I speak as a veteran.

Iraqgate is far more serious than Watergate. There is really no comparision between either of these tawdry events. How many people died as a result of the lies surrounding Watergate? How many have perished as a result of the Bush lies getting us into Iraq?

John Dean coming up on KO

Ahhhh, KO & Leahy together. The most refreshing 15 minutes I’ve spent in years. Leahy’s suggesting a few additional witnesses might come forward, did a nice job describing the Eubanks / Big Tobacco micromanaging. I thought he looked & sounded great!

Mrs. K8 @ 18

flatford39 @
11

I am proud to announce as a happily married man for over 30 years in a heterosexual relationship that I am a “Nancy Boy”!!!!

You go girl!!!!!!!

LOL!!! You and John Edwards.

Thank you but I don’t deserve to be in the same sentence as Mr. Edwards. Thank you anyway but that is a compliment that needs to be worked at to achieve. I am going to try my hardest to get there.

Leahy looks so calm compared to all that hyperactive bushit…

I’ve got a fresh, nice goose down pillow for you right here, ESAR @ 75.

lots of tea, cocoa, hope and a pellet stove too!

(giving more money is funding more mercenaries, not our soldiers who were sent by Commander Codpiece and certainly not “helping” Iraqis and Afghans.)

Jane Hamsher @ 66

I get it. My heart was with Maxine and the Out of Iraq caucus. I’m just hoping Eli is right and we’re at some kind of place where “this is a start.”

Even if this is as good as it gets, it’s still better than where we were yesterday. And attaching a deadline to an 18-month appropriations bill might be the *only* way to get Bush to swallow the poison pill of withdrawal (although I suspect he’ll automatically veto *anything* that gets us out before his term ends).

I think the reality is that unless and until Bush and his war get so unpopular that the Republicans start bailing on it, it will be extremely difficult for the Democrats to actually stop the war. They simply do not have the votes to stop a filibuster or override a veto (or successfully complete an impeachment).

So until they have the votes to actually stop the war, the best the Democrats can do is show that they are determined to end the war, and the Republicans are determined to prolong it.

In this specific case, they opted for a unified compromise victory instead of a noble but divided defeat. If they can get the Blue Dog wankers on board, they can try again with something more aggressive. It won’t get past Bush’s veto, unfortunately…

another thing that really bothers me is what moveon did. according to the dkos diary i linked to above maxine waters told supporters that there has been a lot of pressure from moveon to vote for the supplemental funding.

moveon justified this by doing a bogus “poll” (really more of a push-poll). there is an excellent analysis from John Stauber of PRwatch on this:

On Sunday, March 18, Sheldon Rampton and I wrote “Iraq: Why Won’t MoveOn Move Forward?”, an article now widely circulated online. It has helped to focus debate on whether the Democratic Party is really attempting to end the war in Iraq, or is content to simply manage the war for supposed electoral advantage in 2008.

The liberal advocacy group MoveOn has 3.2 million members. Yesterday MoveOn misleadingly claimed that the results from their recent member survey showed overwhelming support for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s bill on Iraq. “The results are in from our poll on whether to support Speaker Pelosi’s proposal on Iraq: 84.6% of MoveOn members voted to support the bill,” according to MoveOn. However, this claim flunks the smell test and is far far from accurate.

MoveOn is engaging that oldest of PR games known as ‘lies, damned lies and statistics.” The truth is that 96% of MoveOn’s 3.2 million members did not even bother to vote in their member survey. Most of MoveOn’s members probably ignored and failed to open the email, since nothing in the subject line indicated it was particularly important. MoveOn informed this reporter that about 126,000 people voted in what I pointed out to them was a very biased pro-Pelosi poll. The MoveOn question essentially provided a choice of Pelosi and peace (Yes), or Republicans and war (No). Gee, guess how that one gets answered?

that’s just the begining… i highly recommend the whole thing.

John Stauber writes with Sheldon Rampton and their book “the best war ever” (about the lies that took the country to war in iraq), was featured here on the fdl book salon.

I suspect after Bush vetos, Nancy will tighten the screws… I suspect she was a no-nonsense mama…

You know this supplemental is only enough to get us to September, don’t you?

$100 billion now

And whatever they give them this Summer

$100 billion plus the other $40 billion is only enough for 5 more months of Shrub’s pen*s extension

Atrios:

It isn’t perfect, but the choice isn’t between nothing and a pony, it’s between nothing and this. From what I understand Pelosi has called in every chip she has (and thrown some elbows) for the Bill. Whatever its imperfections, it’s better than the realistic alternative. Let’s hope it passes.

New tactic for those of us who live in a Republican powned district.

Call your congresscritters office and remind them (as the ’solid’ repug you are) of the Dem majority in congress prior to 1994. Ask them if this is where we want our wonderful party (ugh) to go.

I have staffers listening to my blather!

john in sacramento @ 86

You know this supplemental is only enough to get us to September, don’t you?

$100 billion now

And whatever they give them this Summer

$100 billion plus the other $40 billion is only enough for 5 more months of Shrub’s pen*s extension

september 2008. until just before the elections.

Any bill that the Chimp would veto couldn’t be all bad.

I realize it is a great disappointment to many people.

I view it as progress–a statement that Congress does in fact have oversight power (nyah nyah,Tony Snow)

Let’s see where they go from here.

Many of the comments from both sides used terms that are inappropriate or undefined so far as the situation in Iraq is concerned. Moreover, many used terms that are by themselves incorrect. Additionally many assumptions are based on nothing but their imagination. Finally several statements were just flat out wrong.

For example, several commented that we would be giving the enemy a “date certain” when our troops would leave. Not true! Nor does the “timeline” tell anyone, friend or foe, when the troops will leave. The bill has both a timeline as well as a deadline. If the conditions for the sequence of events required by the timeline are met, then the troops could possibly be brought home well before the deadline.

Several stated the bill would damage the morale of our troops. However, there was no indication whatsoever that this assumption was based on a poll of the troops. I fail to see what is demoralizing about better training, better and more equipment, and better care when you return home.

A very significant portion of this war on terror is so much BS. Many of the fathers, who some refer to as “insurrgents”, are merely seeking revenge for the immoral killing of their family members. The majority of the people of Iraq now acknowledge that the situation was better under the rule of Sadam Hussein. ( it is all relative ) An even larger majority want our troops withdrawn. We would do well to actually get some numbers from polls about what the people of Iraq think, rather than make wild speculation as was done in some of the comments.

Over and over again, we keep hearing about “the mission” and “victory”. I am very familiar with the dictionary meaning of these terms, but what the hell is the meaning with regard to the calamity in Iraq. It was never in the best interest of this country to go to Iraq in the first place.

Just one more. Otherwise I just get to upset.
What is the basis of the assumption that “they” will follow us home. Al Queda and the Taliban defeated Russia and they did not chase them and go into Russia in greater numbers than before. Russia was not defeated because of the loss of their troops. Russia lost the war financially. The way I count, a two trillion dollar bill suggests that we have also been beaten. At the very least we have lost this battle. The administration does not even recognize the stated goals of the so called enemy.

selise @ 89

september 2008. until just before the elections.

I think he’s saying that Bush will burn through those 18 months’ worth of funds in five months.

“bush has got his manhood involved in this”

John Dean

Nancy, you’re the greatest!

Had the liberals voted against the measure, the loss of the bill would have been touted as a huge defeat for Nancy, and it would have harmed her leadership. As a supporter of a complete and immediate withdrawal of the troops, I understand that the bill does not have any teeth to ensure the troops come home.

The bill is a good first step.

Eli @ 87

Atrios:

It isn’t perfect, but the choice isn’t between nothing and a pony, it’s between nothing and this. From what I understand Pelosi has called in every chip she has (and thrown some elbows) for the Bill. Whatever its imperfections, it’s better than the realistic alternative. Let’s hope it passes.

i can’t tell you the number of times (i’ve lost count) over the past few years that i’ve said something like “i hope i’m full of shit and they are right”. this is another one of those times….

John Dean: I think Bush has got his manhood in this and he won’t back down.

Also, he thinks the American people care a great deal about this.

Yes, we do!!!

Balrog @
6

Per Tony Snow, the House members don’t have the right to vote on this.

Tony Snowjob can go blow it his wazoo…

The more cornered Bush becomes, the more dangerous this animal will be.

Eli @ 92

selise @ 89

september 2008. until just before the elections.

I think he’s saying that Bush will burn through those 18 months’ worth of funds in five months.

thanks for setting me straight…

hmmm… if bush does do that, can we bring the troops home sooner?

Eli @ 83

…I think the reality is that unless and until Bush and his war get so unpopular that the Republicans start bailing on it, it will be extremely difficult for the Democrats to actually stop the war. They simply do not have the votes to stop a filibuster or override a veto (or successfully complete an impeachment).

So until they have the votes to actually stop the war, the best the Democrats can do is show that they are determined to end the war, and the Republicans are determined to prolong it.

This is absolutely correct, we simply do not have the numbers.

But we opened the window further, so that fence sitters begin to see there is another way.

And we as Democratic Party members and progressives have NOT used all the tools we have at our disposal, particularly those of us who are activists and bloggers.

You see, I don’t think we’ve made it hurt. I mean HURT. I don’t think we’ve snowed Republicans’ offices with faxes and emails, haven’t had enough regular and systematic protests in front of their offices. I can see it beginning to happen; a Congressman’s office was vandalized here in MI on Tuesday, for example. But a splash-and-dash with red paint is not enough to make them feel it. They need to hear us and see us, their constituents, every single hour of every single day and suffer for it, just as the troops do.

Who are the Republican moderates running in primaries against existing warmongering Republicans with seats in play in 2008? Are there strong Dems there that need help, or should we be supporting through PACs these moderate Repubs? They’ve done it to us, remember, the most obvious examples being Joe Lieberman and Ralph Nader. We can play that game, too, and we can do it better.

But we have to get our own sh*t together and now, or we’re going to continue to spin our wheels now and in January of 2009 without enought votes regardless of the president in office.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 98

The more cornered Bush becomes, the more dangerous this animal will be.

I’d like to think that he couldn’t *get* much more dangerous, but I know better.

(I think he’s been itching to nuke someone ever since they showed him The Button, and he’s still itching to take on Iran. Not a good combination.)

Nancy also caved to the pressure from others in Congress and to A*P*C wrt Iran although there are whispers that she will take Iran up again in a separate bill.

I am truly sick of this.

We are not living in the Hell we have wrought ‘over there’.

The World Cannot Wait as our politicians play their hand.

I’m sticking with John Lewis, Gandhi, and MLK.

I may be flamed here and elsewhere for my “naivete”, but goodness sakes alive, I cannot bear this shame much longer.

Rayne @ 100

Who are the Republican moderates running in primaries against existing warmongering Republicans with seats in play in 2008? Are there strong Dems there that need help, or should we be supporting through PACs these moderate Repubs?

Oh, I think we should let the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot by running as many warmongers as they want in the 2008 general elections. Why would we want them to field antiwar moderates who might actually win?

Now, if you’re talking red districts and states, I’m with ya, but not blue or purple ones.

With the history that we know (think about what we don’t know) of the Bush administration, can there be any doubt that the presidential election was rigged by James Baker, Karl Rove, and others against Gore?

I will be very interested to see how John Lewis votes on this. Vote tomorrow, as I read it. He’s my rep.

so, if Bush vetos the supplemental, how will he get his money?

OldCoastie @ 106

so, if Bush vetos the supplemental, how will he get his money?

Steal it from Social Security, most likely…

Mrs. K8 @ 31

selise –

Cry your heart out here with us, and when you can, take all that fire in your heart and come out swinging once more.

It’s going to be a very long marathon, not a quick sprint. There will be days of anguish and days of pride alternating, for a very long time.

We all need you in the fight.

There is a reason that intelligent and well meaning people who want the war to end are divided by a horrible wedge on this issue. The reason is that there is no good “solution”. There is no honorable end to this disaster caused by the pResident and his brain dead neocons.

OldCoastie @ 106

so, if Bush vetos the supplemental, how will he get his money?

He’ll likely rip it off from “entitlements.”

It’s all borrowed money anyhoo, OC.

No worries!

tbsa @ 110

OldCoastie @ 106

so, if Bush vetos the supplemental, how will he get his money?

He’ll likely rip it off from “entitlements.”

can he do that? seriously – where’s he gonna get the money?

The government’s fiscal year begins on October 1, not January 1. The supplemental would cover operations until the beginning of the new fiscal year October 1, 2007.

angie @ 102

I’m sticking with John Lewis, Gandhi, and MLK.

and i’m sticking with angie!

I’m bummed. But maybe the details of the funding at the person level are such that less troops will be called on to go? Or troops who’ve been too many times may take their due rest? That excellent after-care must be provided?

Valley Girl @ 105

I will be very interested to see how John Lewis votes on this. Vote tomorrow, as I read it. He’s my rep.

I am so envious, Tom Price is my rep and we all know how he’ll vote..

OldCoastie @ 111

tbsa @ 110

OldCoastie @ 106

so, if Bush vetos the supplemental, how will he get his money?

He’ll likely rip it off from “entitlements.”

can he do that? seriously – where’s he gonna get the money?

He’s done so many things I never thought a president of the united states could do. He’s proven me wrong on many an occasion. My remark was flip, I am sorry. It’s frustrating as hell.

OldCoastie @
93

“bush has got his manhood involved in this”

John Dean

Not a lot invested, then…

Hugh @ 113

The government’s fiscal year begins on October 1, not January 1. The supplemental would cover operations until the beginning of the new fiscal year October 1, 2007.

so, he’ll be 5 months without money?

Margot @ 117

OldCoastie @
93

“bush has got his manhood involved in this”

John Dean

Not a lot invested, then…

Good one, Margot.

A shocking display on the house floor. Oh the lack of comity! Read this and send thanks to Mr Taylor, he is living at his brother’s house, for a while now.

Carolyn in Baltimore @ 10

My next bumper sticker: Pelosi ‘07

Just a few tasks first……

Bingo.

Republicans who vote against the supplemental will be voting against funding the troops. If Bush vetoes the supplemental, he will show that he puts his failed policy ahead of the welfare of the troops. This is a side of the argument that the media has assiduously avoided covering, that the Republicans are planning to do what they have accused the Democrats of doing.

what is not justifiable is to even consider giving another 100 billion without impeachment hearings and the cessation of any power by a criminal executive branch.
50 billion of this will go right into the pockets of the people that have voted and continue to support war profiteering.
This is disgusting that we have to wait until 2010 to get them out, for there will be no compromise with this administration. they have committed too many crimes to allow any oversight into their actions.

the only other option seems to be that the entire congress has it’s money in war toys and doesn’t want to jump off the gravy train just yet.
decorum is a disgusting thing when dealing with someone ready to kill you when your back is turned. they have killed half a million now, walk in pairs, cya. “it will happen like this. someone you know will drive up on a beautiful spring day and open the door of the car, and they will leave the door open” (3 Days of the Condor)

Hokely dokely.

This whole damn nation is in four alarm status.

It’s starting to smell like it is more than done, it is toast.

-GSD

P.S. Politico is reporting that John Kennedy will announce a Whitehouse bid next week.

JPL @ 115

Valley Girl @ 105

I will be very interested to see how John Lewis votes on this. Vote tomorrow, as I read it. He’s my rep.

I am so envious, Tom Price is my rep and we all know how he’ll vote..

I am honestly wondering how Lewis will vote. He has been totally admirable, *except* for his support of Lieberman (or vouching for Lieberman’s civil right’s credentials) during the CT senate race. That totally threw me for a loop.

selise @ 113

angie @ 102

I’m sticking with John Lewis, Gandhi, and MLK.

and i’m sticking with angie!

you are an invaluable brain, resource and person, selise.

as are so many here @ the Lake.

(cheers and tears)

Valley Girl @ 125

He has been totally admirable, *except* for his support of Lieberman (or vouching for Lieberman’s civil right’s credentials) during the CT senate race. That totally threw me for a loop.

No-one believes my theory…

Hugh @ 123

Republicans who vote against the supplemental will be voting against funding the troops. If Bush vetoes the supplemental, he will show that he puts his failed policy ahead of the welfare of the troops. This is a side of the argument that the media has assiduously avoided covering, that the Republicans are planning to do what they have accused the Democrats of doing.

bingo! slaps it right back on them…

when I was in the service, almost every year, there would be some stall on the funding – believe me, we were MAD at whoever was doing the stalling, as we imagined no paychecks… Bush won’t sign?

HA!

OldCoastie @ 111

tbsa @ 110

He’ll likely rip it off from “entitlements.”

can he do that? seriously – where’s he gonna get the money?

No, he can’t do that legally. If he vetoes it, he doesn’t get his funding. There’s probably some legal reshuffling that can pull some money out of other military expenditures for a little while, but this is such a huge amount of money, that isn’t going to do it for long.

OldCoastie @ 118

Hugh @ 113

The government’s fiscal year begins on October 1, not January 1. The supplemental would cover operations until the beginning of the new fiscal year October 1, 2007.

so, he’ll be 5 months without money?

It’s a game of chicken and again it will be the Republicans who will be voting against supporting our troops. Bush is threatening to defund the troops and no one is calling him on it. The long story of the brain dead media continues.

Eli @ 127

Valley Girl @ 125

He has been totally admirable, *except* for his support of Lieberman (or vouching for Lieberman’s civil right’s credentials) during the CT senate race. That totally threw me for a loop.

No-one believes my theory…

which is? what did I miss?

angie @ 110

It’s all borrowed money anyhoo, OC.

No worries!

Hey if you need more dough, just print some. ;0)

Redshift @ 129

No, he can’t do that legally.

And?

Eli @ 103

Rayne @ 100

Who are the Republican moderates running in primaries against existing warmongering Republicans with seats in play in 2008? Are there strong Dems there that need help, or should we be supporting through PACs these moderate Repubs?

Oh, I think we should let the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot by running as many warmongers as they want in the 2008 general elections. Why would we want them to field antiwar moderates who might actually win?

Now, if you’re talking red districts and states, I’m with ya, but not blue or purple ones.

Hence my query about strong Dems or moderate Repubs. We always fund a strong Dem that can win in a blue to purple district.

But in a solid red district where there is either no Dem or a progressive that cannot win, we go anti-war Repub.

What are our goals? to end the war, to end current and future occupation, to restore our standing in the world, to prevent future escalation and terrorism?

We must have a veto-proof Congress to do these; we can have a veto-proof Congress not just with Dems alone if we remove the obstructionist hardline Republicans. Even getting more Independents and Greens elected instead of hardline Republicans.

We force both the moderates and hardliners on the Repug bench to spend money they don’t want to spend by supporting their opponents, and getting in their face about their positions on issues including the war, especially the war.

To some extent, this provides aircover to some of the moderates on our side to move left — although they must be nudged and reminded that they are not listening to mainstream America if they continue to provide any support to the war.

We have a lot to do, but we have to start; beating on our own team is not going to cut it as much as taking it to our opposition and making it hurt. HURT.

jeffreyw @ 120

A shocking display on the house floor. Oh the lack of comity! Read this and send thanks to Mr Taylor, he is living at his brother’s house, for a while, now.

I watched it live on the SPAN yesterday, it was pure Gold. No one would know better what is going on in Mississippi. He was personally affected. His house was destroyed and the insurance company refused to pay off on it.

John Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards are class acts.

We know what happened when the voice of the Republican Party, Newton Leroy Gingrich faced similar circumstances.

-GSD

Valley Girl @ 131

which is? what did I miss?

I touched on it briefly in my Al Gore post last night…

Hugh @ 112

The government’s fiscal year begins on October 1, not January 1. The supplemental would cover operations until the beginning of the new fiscal year October 1, 2007.

i’m pretty sure this bill goes through september 2008 (unless as suggested about, bush spend the money faster than forecasted).

i wish it only went through september 2007. sigh.

All those years I voted for the Speaker while I lived in her district; I sure am glad!

Eli @
87

Atrios:

It isn’t perfect, but the choice isn’t between nothing and a pony, it’s between nothing and this. From what I understand Pelosi has called in every chip she has (and thrown some elbows) for the Bill. Whatever its imperfections, it’s better than the realistic alternative. Let’s hope it passes.

I’m glad Atrios put it that way, because I was about to suggest that the people complaining about the bill are showing it’s not just war supporters who believe in magic ponies.

There’s no “victory” pony and no “let’s get out tomorrow” pony; just a lot of manure that has to be hauled away. Kudos to Pelosi (and MoveOn, and the progressive Dems who agreed to vote yes) for starting up the truck.

jeffreyw @ 120

A shocking display on the house floor. Oh the lack of comity! Read this and send thanks to Mr Taylor, he is living at his brother’s house, for a while now.

That’s my rep and by the way Dr. Price referred my son for an MRI years ago, before insurance companies cracked down, and I was called by the insurance provider asking if he had mentioned that he had part ownership in the facility. So sometime he’s not so concerned with extra spending.

Hence my query about strong Dems or moderate Repubs. We always fund a strong Dem that can win in a blue to purple district.

But in a solid red district where there is either no Dem or a progressive that cannot win, we go anti-war Repub.

I think I gotcha. But assuming there’s never enough money to go around, I would think Democratic candidates would always have to take priority, unless there’s a tempting prize to be had, like an Inhofe or a Doolittle.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 140

All those years I voted for the Speaker while I lived in her district; I sure am glad!

see, I think she’s playing this slicker than sh*t… she knows he’s going to veto the bill and he has a very simple choice he won’t make… could bring the war to a close a whole lot closer than anyone imagines.

“An Inconvenient Truth” is on Showtime now.

Eli @ 137

Valley Girl @ 131

which is? what did I miss?

I touched on it briefly in my Al Gore post last night…

Eli- sorry, I was writing a lecture last night, and am writing a lecture now, so my attention is somewhat divided (day/night job and all). I just went back to the post, but didn’t get it. Can you expand?

That was a lovely personal story KO about his experiences with Ms. Edwards, a lady with a beautiful soul. *wiping tear*

GSD @ 136

John Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards are class acts.

We know what happened when the voice of the Republican Party, Newton Leroy Gingrich faced similar circumstances.

-GSD

That about says it. ;0)

Valley Girl @ 145

Eli- sorry, I was writing a lecture last night, and am writing a lecture now, so my attention is somewhat divided (day/night job and all). I just went back to the post, but didn’t get it. Can you expand?

It’s his raw sexual magnetism. No-one can resist him when he cranks the dial up to Maximum Sexy.

angie @ 110

It’s all borrowed money anyhoo, OC.

No worries!

The Chinese are funding U.S. wars.

I 100% disagree with nancy pelosi’s stand on iran (whose back pocket is she in exactly?) but jeez I find her an uber-attractive woman.

With *several* good policy ideas.

KO just named Rust Limpballs worst person for his comments about Elizabeth and John Edwards…

Eli @ 148

It’s his raw sexual magnetism. No-one can resist him when he cranks the dial up to Maximum Sexy.

Joe’s too sexy for his chert

Four Jane posts in a row, this is like the old days.

OldCoastie @ 143

Oklahoma kiddo @ 140

All those years I voted for the Speaker while I lived in her district; I sure am glad!

see, I think she’s playing this slicker than sh*t… she knows he’s going to veto the bill and he has a very simple choice he won’t make… could bring the war to a close a whole lot closer than anyone imagines.

Some politicians have made the error of selling the Speaker short. Big mistake.

eCAHNomics @ 149

angie @ 110

It’s all borrowed money anyhoo, OC.

No worries!

The Chinese are funding U.S. wars.

And Japan and Britain too. I think. ;0)

selise @ 138

Hugh @ 112

The government’s fiscal year begins on October 1, not January 1. The supplemental would cover operations until the beginning of the new fiscal year October 1, 2007.

i’m pretty sure this bill goes through september 2008 (unless as suggested about, bush spend the money faster than forecasted).

i wish it only went through september 2007. sigh.

The supplemental:

H. R. 1591 [Report No. 110-60] Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

selise @ 138

Hugh @ 112

The government’s fiscal year begins on October 1, not January 1. The supplemental would cover operations until the beginning of the new fiscal year October 1, 2007.

i’m pretty sure this bill goes through september 2008 (unless as suggested about, bush spend the money faster than forecasted).

i wish it only went through september 2007. sigh.

Well, do you live in a Republican or Blue Dog Dem district? Are you working every day to make it politically impossible for them to keep supporting the war? If not, then as far as I’m concerned, Pelosi just did more to end the war than you have.

Seriously, people who aren’t satisfied with the Democratic proposal need to commit themselves to helping pressure the Blue Dogs et al. so Pelosi won’t have to water down the language and buy them off with pork next time — and to make that next time come sooner.

Those “sellouts” and (apparent) war supporters at MoveOn are buying ads to accomplish that goal. Instead of bitching and moaning about how this bill isn’t perfect enough for my noble and pure opposition to the war, I think I’ll go give them some of my money, ’cause they’re doing the hard work of actually trying to end it.

you n’ me, OKkiddo… she’s playing chess while the rest are playing checkers…

dakine01 @ 151

KO just named Rust Limpballs worst person for his comments about Elizabeth and John Edwards…

shrub n Congress just named a courthouse after Rush’s dad today
http://www.talk.newsweek.com/p…..tem=533684
hehe

Valley Girl @ 125

JPL @ 115

Valley Girl @ 105

I will be very interested to see how John Lewis votes on this. Vote tomorrow, as I read it. He’s my rep.

I am so envious, Tom Price is my rep and we all know how he’ll vote..

I am honestly wondering how Lewis will vote. He has been totally admirable, *except* for his support of Lieberman (or vouching for Lieberman’s civil right’s credentials) during the CT senate race. That totally threw me for a loop.

Joe is blinded by his support for the war but his previous votes of human rights were correct, so I wasn’t surprised.

Question, can he add a signing statement to a budget bill?

Blub @
159

dakine01 @ 151

KO just named Rust Limpballs worst person for his comments about Elizabeth and John Edwards…

shrub n Congress just named a courthouse after Rush’s dad today
http://www.talk.newsweek.com/p…..tem=533684
hehe

Actually, I think it was his grandfather.

Diane @ 162

Question, can he add a signing statement to a budget bill?

of course he can, but that doesn’t mean he’ll get more money.

I suppose, if there is a goal that they all agree with, then they all have a share into causing other things to happen that would support the accomplishment of that goal. That would mean more of them turning their thoughts in that direction. That would be worthy. In the real world anyway.

Carolyn in Baltimore @
34

Mauimom @ 20

Carolyn in Baltimore @ 10

My next bumper sticker: Pelosi ‘07

Just a few tasks first……

Oh, I love it. Let me know when it’s available & I’ll drive up & pick one up!

Google it – they’re out there!

FYI cafepress.com processed my order for buttons and bumperstickers that read in red, white & blue side flag: PELOSI FOR PRESIDENT 2007. Cannot recall the price but it was modest for ten stickers and 20 buttons. And quick fulfillment – literally less than a week.

I live in a little village with a Republican mayor and former CIA chief in Europe. She seemed amused by my button and bumper sticker. ;~)

I hasten to add I sent the order in before John Murtha was outfoxed by Steny Hoyer. Am a Gore supporter at heart but hedging my bets if Bush/Cheney implode this year and I hope they do!

angie @ 102

Nancy also caved to the pressure from others in Congress and to A*P*C wrt Iran although there are whispers that she will take Iran up again in a separate bill.

I am truly sick of this.

We are not living in the Hell we have wrought ‘over there’.

The World Cannot Wait as our politicians play their hand.

I’m sticking with John Lewis, Gandhi, and MLK.

I may be flamed here and elsewhere for my “naivete”, but goodness sakes alive, I cannot bear this shame much longer.

emphasis mine

Angie you are so wrong. So very, very wrong. One, you are not naive. Two, there is absolutely nothing for you to be ashamed of. Three is a little speculative on my part. But I think if you do get a flame or two that your defenders will easily out number and overwhelm the flame throwers.

Hold your head high gal. If you are to change at all, just speak a little more loudly and with complete confidence.

Eli @ 127

Valley Girl @ 125

He has been totally admirable, *except* for his support of Lieberman (or vouching for Lieberman’s civil right’s credentials) during the CT senate race. That totally threw me for a loop.

No-one believes my theory…

which one? Eli The GodofTheory *g*

Nola Sue @ 79

Ahhhh, KO & Leahy together. The most refreshing 15 minutes I’ve spent in years. Leahy’s suggesting a few additional witnesses might come forward, did a nice job describing the Eubanks / Big Tobacco micromanaging. I thought he looked & sounded great!

This was quite a bit above, but no one picked up on it. I think it’s incredibly important. Leahy has ace(s) in hole. You should have seen his sly, knowing smile. This is going to be fun.

Eli @ 142

I think I gotcha. But assuming there’s never enough money to go around, I would think Democratic candidates would always have to take priority, unless there’s a tempting prize to be had, like an Inhofe or a Doolittle.

Look, we don’t give money to candidates that don’t need it. I’m not EVER going to give a cent to Hillary Clinton, for example, and to a bunch of other folks who are amply funded already. I’ll give money to folks in races that are in the top 10 in terms of competitiveness (there are plenty here in Michigan). But if there was a moderate Repub and no Dem in Inhofe’s district?

Hell yeah, I might make a donation under my spouse’s name (he being an independent) if it will unseat that moronic corporate whore Inhofe. I would gladly find a way to swing both ways if it will take out that piece of crap who sorely abused sensibilities yesterday at Gore’s expense, while meeting the other stated goals of ending occupation and getting us out of the Long War.

The caveats in this bill are the benchmarks, I guess he could finesse a signing statement to ignore those benchmarks.

OldCoastie @ 163

Diane @ 162

Question, can he add a signing statement to a budget bill?

of course he can, but that doesn’t mean he’ll get more money.

Even the most die hard Republic has admitted that Congress controls the purse until the funds are authorized (I was an USAF accounting weenie back in the day)

Swopa @ 157

selise @ 138

Hugh @ 112

The government’s fiscal year begins on October 1, not January 1. The supplemental would cover operations until the beginning of the new fiscal year October 1, 2007.

i’m pretty sure this bill goes through september 2008 (unless as suggested about, bush spend the money faster than forecasted).

i wish it only went through september 2007. sigh.

Well, do you live in a Republican or Blue Dog Dem district? Are you working every day to make it politically impossible for them to keep supporting the war? If not, then as far as I’m concerned, Pelosi just did more to end the war than you have.

Seriously, people who aren’t satisfied with the Democratic proposal need to commit themselves to helping pressure the Blue Dogs et al. so Pelosi won’t have to water down the language and buy them off with pork next time — and to make that next time come sooner.

Those “sellouts” and (apparent) war supporters at MoveOn are buying ads to accomplish that goal. Instead of bitching and moaning about how this bill isn’t perfect enough for my noble and pure opposition to the war, I think I’ll go give them some of my money, ’cause they’re doing the hard work of actually trying to end it.

Echo the sentiment, butdon’t appreciate the attack. Hugh and Selise are A-1 people and deserves to be treated as such.

p.s dont quote this folks, or the zig will drive the mods crazy.

lolo @ 167

Eli The GodofTheory *g*

This theory of mine. Well, this is what it is – my theory that I have, that is to say, which is mine, is mine.

My theory that belongs to me is as follows.
(clears throat at great length)
This is how it goes.
The next thing I’m going to say is my theory. Ready?

- Anne Eli

Rayne, I’m sure that your husband would make a donation. Living in a conservative Atlanta suburb we often have to make choices on who to support.

Diane @ 170

The caveats in this bill are the benchmarks, I guess he could finesse a signing statement to ignore those benchmarks.

There are dates in July and October to certify progress. Bush will do so even if Baghdad is in flames (OK, more in flames). This is the kabuki in the bill. Where the rubber hits the road I’m guessing is in the 2008 military appropriations bill.

OT, Nancy, Can you re-open 9/11 investigation while you are at it?

Rayne @ 169

Eli @ 142

I think I gotcha. But assuming there’s never enough money to go around, I would think Democratic candidates would always have to take priority, unless there’s a tempting prize to be had, like an Inhofe or a Doolittle.

Look, we don’t give money to candidates that don’t need it. I’m not EVER going to give a cent to Hillary Clinton, for example, and to a bunch of other folks who are amply funded already. I’ll give money to folks in races that are in the top 10 in terms of competitiveness (there are plenty here in Michigan). But if there was a moderate Repub and no Dem in Inhofe’s district?

Hell yeah, I might make a donation under my spouse’s name (he being an independent) if it will unseat that moronic corporate whore Inhofe. I would gladly find a way to swing both ways if it will take out that piece of crap who sorely abused sensibilities yesterday at Gore’s expense, while meeting the other stated goals of ending occupation and getting us out of the Long War.

You know, I don’t think I would give any money to Hillary either. ;0)

new thread

JL- but Lewis was against the invasion from the get-go, and Lieberman was its greatest “D” proponent. And, when Lewis made nice with Lieberman, the war was clearly a disaster. Sorry, but I still don’t get it.

Diane @ 161

Question, can he add a signing statement to a budget bill?

Signing statements have no legal standing. Adding a signing statement that he’s going to ignore the restrictions, which will mean exactly nothing. If he actually does it, then he’ll be acting illegally, but in that case it won’t matter whether he’s issued a signing statement or not.

Thank you Rocket Scientist @ 166.

I’m still working on my ‘voice’.

*ahem*

No more empire.

No more killing.

thank you.

very much, RS.

JPL @ 174

Rayne, I’m sure that your husband would make a donation. Living in a conservative Atlanta suburb we often have to make choices on who to support.

Yeah, but would my spouse know about it? ;-)

Oklahoma kiddo @ 177

…You know, I don’t think I would give any money to Hillary either. ;0)

See? I still have your back. No bucks for Hill.

You know, I don’t think I would give any money to Hillary either. ;0)

Who would–she gets billions from BIG business & other cronies.
–Wellesley ‘66

Swopa @ 157

Well, do you live in a Republican or Blue Dog Dem district? Are you working every day to make it politically impossible for them to keep supporting the war? If not, then as far as I’m concerned, Pelosi just did more to end the war than you have.

Seriously, people who aren’t satisfied with the Democratic proposal need to commit themselves to helping pressure the Blue Dogs et al. so Pelosi won’t have to water down the language and buy them off with pork next time — and to make that next time come sooner.

Those “sellouts” and (apparent) war supporters at MoveOn are buying ads to accomplish that goal. Instead of bitching and moaning about how this bill isn’t perfect enough for my noble and pure opposition to the war, I think I’ll go give them some of my money, ’cause they’re doing the hard work of actually trying to end it.

i live in jim mcgovern’s district. he voted against the war to begin with, and has previously submitted bills to end the war…. all with the strong support of his district. i don’t know of any reason he wouldn’t continue to be supported strongly here if he voted against the supplemental.

and today he’s announced he’s voting for it.

there is something more going on than responding to constituents.

and furthermore – i didn’t call you or moveon a sellout or a war supporter. so just BACK OFF. you have no idea what i have done (or not done) wrt to the war in iraq (or the ME in general).

Valley Girl @ 179

JL- but Lewis was against the invasion from the get-go, and Lieberman was its greatest “D” proponent. And, when Lewis made nice with Lieberman, the war was clearly a disaster. Sorry, but I still don’t get it.

Their friendship goes back a long time.

Headline over at HuffPo
Gonzales Survival Plan:
“I’m Going To Stay Focused On Protecting Our Kids”
and there’s a picture of Alberto with his wife and children. He’s kissing his son’s forehead. And I wonder, when he said that today, when he claimed to be staying on, was he telling us his family is being threatened?
*nah*

And today’s fire at the DOJ, need more details on that one.

Pelosi: “Georgie!!! Do what I say and sign this, or you’re grounded with no privileges and no allowance until 1/20/09, and if you or any one of your low-life, punk friends don’t own up to their pranks or if they or you smart-off to me one – more – time, I’m sending YOU to reform school in the Hague.”

Elliott @ 186

Headline over at HuffPo
Gonzales Survival Plan:
“I’m Going To Stay Focused On Protecting Our Kids”
and there’s a picture of Alberto with his wife and children. He’s kissing his son’s forehead. And I wonder, when he said that today, when he claimed to be staying on, was he telling us his family is being threatened?
*nah*

And today’s fire at the DOJ, need more details on that one.

Interesting! Nah…?

Do you think they burned up all the missing e-mails??? Nah…

Diane @ 170

The caveats in this bill are the benchmarks, I guess he could finesse a signing statement to ignore those benchmarks.

Again, signing statements are meaningless. They have never been supported by any court. While Bush uses them as awful statements in support of the Unilateral Executive, they don’t actually give him any power, so don’t worry about them too much.

If he actually does ignore the requirements, then we’ll have a showdown. If he invokes the signing statement, then we’ll have a showdown over that. I suspect he’d lose either way, so he’ll probably avoid that confrontation like he has every other one over signing statements.

urban pirate @ 172

Echo the sentiment, butdon’t appreciate the attack. Hugh and Selise are A-1 people and deserves to be treated as such.

thanks very much for the support. and just let me say that swopa is a-1plus. but tempers are high – ‘cuz this really is a wedge issue.

i think we’re all on the same side here… we think the war sucks (especially for those who have to fight and/or live in it) and want it to end. different views don’t make one a war supporter, a sell out or a liberal idiot looking for a magic pony.

we’re all just trying to do our best, and tell our own truths – from our hearts.

peace to all.

LS @ 188

Elliott @ 186

Interesting! Nah…?

Do you think they burned up all the missing e-mails??? Nah…

-nah- BushCo’d never think to do something like that.

Seriously EPU’d, but I just want to point out what an extraordinary 24 hours it has been for some amazing women. First it was Barbara’s Cheney moment with Inhofe. Then Elizabeth Edwards making an announcement for which she (and John) knew they would be attacked. And Jane…well, Jane’s been on fire all day long. And now grandma Pelosi taking on W.

I am in awe of your grit, determination and courage.

Cheers.

JPL @ 185

Valley Girl @ 179

JL- but Lewis was against the invasion from the get-go, and Lieberman was its greatest “D” proponent. And, when Lewis made nice with Lieberman, the war was clearly a disaster. Sorry, but I still don’t get it.

Their friendship goes back a long time.

I know that. And, the fact that was likely an influence disturbed me. Because the Lamont/ Lieberman race was so important. I was hoping that Lewis would put principles- and his view of the war- at a higher priority. Like, “Joe, I know we’ve been friends for a long, long time, but this issue is so important, and so pivotal to the future of our country, I have to honorably disagree, and not support your madness. Because that’s what friends do.”

San Juan Island Artist @ 176

OT, Nancy, Can you re-open 9/11 investigation while you are at it?

I would love to see it. That is the big one! There are so many references that are readily available that have raised questions that have not received valid answers. Some questions, although repeated many times, never got any response at all. The previous panel flat out lied in several instances. If you look at what apparently occurred, you surely have many questions. The answers to many of your questions are simply not available at this time.

selise @ 190

urban pirate @ 172

Echo the sentiment, butdon’t appreciate the attack. Hugh and Selise are A-1 people and deserves to be treated as such.

thanks very much for the support. and just let me say that swopa is a-1plus. but tempers are high – ‘cuz this really is a wedge issue.

i think we’re all on the same side here… we think the war sucks (especially for those who have to fight and/or live in it) and want it to end. different views don’t make one a war supporter, a sell out or a liberal idiot looking for a magic pony.

we’re all just trying to do our best, and tell our own truths – from our hearts.

peace to all.

Swopa’s words were heartfelt, I can only assume, but unfortunately directed at the wrong targets. Selise and Hugh have contributed enormously to boots on the ground, and our general education.

Elliott @ 191

LS @ 188

Elliott @ 186

Interesting! Nah…?

Do you think they burned up all the missing e-mails??? Nah…

-nah- BushCo’d never think to do something like that.

But they…Nah

Elliott @
186

Headline over at HuffPo
Gonzales Survival Plan:
“I’m Going To Stay Focused On Protecting Our Kids”
and there’s a picture of Alberto with his wife and children. He’s kissing his son’s forehead. And I wonder, when he said that today, when he claimed to be staying on, was he telling us his family is being threatened?
*nah*

And today’s fire at the DOJ, need more details on that one.

1. Unless he means by those seeking his resignation, who I’m sure wish no harm to his family, would you be shocked?

2. Boo-yah! Especially after the NSA fire that Mrs. K8 and john in sacramento at 58 reminded us of.

selise @
8

18 months of funding for this war/occupation is so disheartening and depressing – it far overshadows any partisan joy i can find in seeing bush’s republicans beaten.

This is a brilliant move on Nancy Pelosi’s part. Since Bush has been laying the responsibility at the feet of his Iraq administration, she has set the benchmarks for that Iraq administration. She will then say that based on the Iraqi govt. failure, our troops are coming home. If Bush says it’s the troops fault, congress’s fault or God’s fault, the troops come home. I believe the benchmarks start after 3 months – first one is July ‘07, then October ‘07 onwards.
The Republicans modeled their fight against white men in a minority, they did not prepare for a fight against an Italian woman in a majority – BIG MISTAKE.
Bush will have to fight this tooth and nail because this is the end of American troops in Iraq. And I can’t wait for my nephew to come home … and all your children too.

blessing for your nephew, Petrocelli

and yes, I had a little Italian grandmother too – not to be underestimated either…

I hope this is not EPUd….. and that some of you “bosses” are still monitoring.

Jane, TRex, CHS, Pachacutec.

You have probably not noticed I keep trying to get people to realize the WAR is long over in Iraq – around the time, God Forbid, when Chimpo said “Mission Accomplished!” Ever since then we have been the Occupying Power, and have made such a poor fist of both the Pacification and Administration, and more important, Winning Hearts and Minds, that, as many agree, we should get out immediately and let the poor bastards sort themselves out, while standing around at the edges making sure folk from outside do not involve themselves too closely! (They will not want to too much.)

IMO, if we could persuade the Democratic members to use the word Occupation instead of the emotive War — and to keep hammering at the Repubs that their (Illegal) War is long over and now they are screwing up the OCCUPATION and losing Our Lads completely unnecessarily, the Majority will take the country more firmly on to their path and alienate voters more firmly from the Republican Party.

Inside all this it is imperative Pelosi is ‘persuaded’ to attach the Thou Shalt not Attack Iran clause or to pass another bill.

I think this is a great way to wrong-foot these nut jobs.

Just when I think I can get away – you pull me back in … sorry for the length

Eli @
83

Jane Hamsher @ 66

I get it. My heart was with Maxine and the Out of Iraq caucus. I’m just hoping Eli is right and we’re at some kind of place where “this is a start.”

Even if this is as good as it gets, it’s still better than where we were yesterday. And attaching a deadline to an 18-month appropriations bill might be the *only* way to get Bush to swallow the poison pill of withdrawal (although I suspect he’ll automatically veto *anything* that gets us out before his term ends).

I think the reality is that unless and until Bush and his war get so unpopular that the Republicans start bailing on it, it will be extremely difficult for the Democrats to actually stop the war. They simply do not have the votes to stop a filibuster or override a veto (or successfully complete an impeachment).

So until they have the votes to actually stop the war, the best the Democrats can do is show that they are determined to end the war, and the Republicans are determined to prolong it.

In this specific case, they opted for a unified compromise victory instead of a noble but divided defeat. If they can get the Blue Dog wankers on board, they can try again with something more aggressive. It won’t get past Bush’s veto, unfortunately…

What most people are missing is that they think voting for this supplemental is a position of strength, but I think it’s not, because one thing the Dems are bad at is negotiating out of weakness – not strength – see Bush has to sign this bill – the Republicans have to vote for this bill because all budget bills have to come out of the House and in the House majority rules; they could have a much stronger bill that says “we will redeploy beginning in 3 months (with X% of the troops redeploying to Afghanistan) – we will start pulling troops out and all troops will be out of Iraq in a year.”

See, in negotiations, Bush would be forced to come back with something like “we’ll redeploy but we have to keep troops in the region” or something like that.

Pelosi could have been negotiating out of strength but she chose to compromise with the blue dogs and she might not realize is that if Bush votes against the Bill – it would be Bush voting against the troops – if the republicans vote against the bill – the republicans would be voting against the troops.

Unless the plan is to stay in Iraq

Bush has to vote for it and they’ve probably missed a huge opportunity.

Hugh puts it much better than I could

Hugh @ 122

Republicans who vote against the supplemental will be voting against funding the troops. If Bush vetoes the supplemental, he will show that he puts his failed policy ahead of the welfare of the troops. This is a side of the argument that the media has assiduously avoided covering, that the Republicans are planning to do what they have accused the Democrats of doing.

And yea, I know about the benchmarks but if something happens like a “surprise” attack from Iran all bets are off … especially with $100 billion more

yes, Madam speaker, all the rethugs trash the Dems about it, “its loaded with pork”, (money for Katrina)
money for spinach farmers( who had devastating year with an outbreak of e.coli), thats trying to buy votes in their eyes. GoDDamn, will this bunch just STFU already?

I know it isn’t total pullout fast enough as we would like it. We just need a veto proof majority now. Dig in people we need to widen the gap. FDL is doing a nice job of keeping us informed.

Everythingseemssoneat @
153

Four Jane posts in a row, this is like the old days.

Yes. Good times.

I suspect Pelosi will either give Bush some limits or give him enough rope to hang himself.

Selise, RevDeb and Angie … not sure who I may have missed … but I’m in tears of rage here.

And I am so tired of being told – over and over and over – that this bill will end the war … and being pressured by the strategists to smile while we approve more dollars for more occupation.

When this is the “best” they can do, why should I believe “they” will now somehow develop the balls to do something real?

Just in case – from Judge Robert’s confirmation testimony:

“Roberts: Youngstown’s a very important case in a number of respects; not least the fact that the opinion that everyone looks to, the Jackson opinion, was by Justice Jackson who was, of course, FDR’s attorney general and certainly a proponent of expansive executive powers…

Leahy: You’ve also said he was one of the justices you admire the most.

Roberts: He is, for a number of reasons. And what’s significant about that aspect of his career is here’s someone whose job it was to promote and defend an expansive view of executive powers as attorney general, which he did very effectively. And then as he went on the court, as you can tell from his decision in Youngstown, he took an entirely different view of a lot of issues; in one famous case even disagreeing with one of his own prior opinions. He wrote a long opinion about how he can’t believe he once held those views. I think it’s very important…

Leahy: Are you sending us a message?

Roberts: Well, I’m just saying…”

Swopa @ 140

Eli @
87

Atrios:

It isn’t perfect, but the choice isn’t between nothing and a pony, it’s between nothing and this. From what I understand Pelosi has called in every chip she has (and thrown some elbows) for the Bill. Whatever its imperfections, it’s better than the realistic alternative. Let’s hope it passes.

I’m glad Atrios put it that way, because I was about to suggest that the people complaining about the bill are showing it’s not just war supporters who believe in magic ponies.

There’s no “victory” pony and no “let’s get out tomorrow” pony; just a lot of manure that has to be hauled away. Kudos to Pelosi (and MoveOn, and the progressive Dems who agreed to vote yes) for starting up the truck.

Exactly.

If every progressive Congresscritter who voted against this bill decided to vote to overturn Bush’s veto, then it’d be a lot easier to get this bill past his veto. We’ll need fewer GOP defectors for that than for a pull-all-the-funding-NOW-like-we-did-for-’Nam bill, which no Republicans will vote for.

john in sacramento @ 201

And yea, I know about the benchmarks but if something happens like a “surprise” attack from Iran all bets are off … especially with $100 billion more

And all bets are off if there’s a surprise impeachment of a couple of “senior administration officials” within the next 6 months…

LithiumCola has a great diary up at DKos, You Can’t Zugzwang a guy who isn’t playing chess. the flaw I see in LithiumCola’s argument is that Bush/Cheney have no choice but to play chess, and we’re going to play multi-level.

You don’t want to play chess? too late, Bushie, that’s a move on the board, too. We can put you in check and checkmate on a whole other board.

Siun @ 205

Selise, RevDeb and Angie … not sure who I may have missed … but I’m in tears of rage here.

And I am so tired of being told – over and over and over – that this bill will end the war … and being pressured by the strategists to smile while we approve more dollars for more occupation.

When this is the “best” they can do, why should I believe “they” will now somehow develop the balls to do something real?

Siun:

1) How many Republicans will vote for “something real” RIGHT NOW? (Name four dozen of them that will vote for “something real” RIGHT NOW. Because we’ll need about that many to override a Bush veto.)

2) What gets the troops home sooner — a “something real” bill no Republican will vote for, or a “bring them home by this time next year” bill that has a fighting chance of surviving a Bush veto?
If all the progressive congresscritters who crapped on this bill had voted for it, we’d need a lot less GOP defectors to override Bush’s veto — and we know that we can’t get them to back the “something real” bill at this time.

So, do you waste time, money and lives waiting for Republican Congresscritters to come around sufficiently to vote for your “something real” bill (which probably won’t happen until at least the summer of 2008), or do you back a bill that Republicans will back and which WILL have the troops in early 2008?

Those are your options. Realistically, those are your only options.

Just in case, Alito confirmation hearing:

“KYL: Are there other examples that come to your mind of that same application of power? It seems counterintuitive, but when you think about it, it’s absolutely essential for the courts sometimes to buck public opinion and enforce what may be considered unpopular laws.

ALITO: Well, there were some examples cited earlier today when the courts said that the executive had overstepped the bounds of its authority. The Youngstown Steel case was cited. And that is certainly an example where President Truman thought that it was necessary to seize the steel mills so as not to interfere with the war effort in Korea, but the Supreme Court said that this was an overstepping of the bounds of executive authority.

There was a reference to United States v. Nixon, where the Supreme Court said that the president of the United States had to comply with a subpoena, with a grand jury subpoena, for documents. And they stood up for what they understood the law to mean, despite the fact that there must have been great pressure against them in another direction.

ALITO: So when situations like that come up, it is the responsibility of the judiciary to hold fast. “

John @ 201: Thanks for that post!

Everyone, go read John’s post. He manages to say what needs saying and does it much better than I can.

GO Nancy!!!

Who said politics is the art of the POSSIBLE?

Bob Schacht @ 67

Did Pelosi really beat Bush?

This is a victory???

Are you sure???

Skeptical Bob in HI

You bet it is. So long as the progs don’t take the Bushie-bait and attack their fellow progs over it.

I mean, really? Attacking MoveOn.org?! I can tell y’all something — we wouldn’t BE here if it wasn’t for MoveOn.org. And now people are crapping all over them for backing the supplemental bill over “perfect” legislation which no Republican will vote for (and again, we need the votes of around four dozen defectors to make any bill Bush-proof).

I think we all need to take a few deep breaths and back off on the screaming and screeching of traitor-traitor-traitor at anyone who takes a stance that’s not exactly the same as our own.

D’uh! It just occurred to me that Pelosi would have to say that impeachment is off the table… or risk being accused of having a conflict of interest. (Like that small controversy in the senate.)

I only thought of it because I was thinking how much more satisfying an impeachment would be with her in the line of succession, rather than Hastert.

Still, with so many more investigations to anticipate, who knows what will happen…?

Someone else may have already discussed this in some thread that I only skimmed.

Karen M @ 214

D’uh! It just occurred to me that Pelosi would have to say that impeachment is off the table… or risk being accused of having a conflict of interest. (Like that small controversy in the senate.)

I only thought of it because I was thinking how much more satisfying an impeachment would be with her in the line of succession, rather than Hastert.

Still, with so many more investigations to anticipate, who knows what will happen…?

Someone else may have already discussed this in some thread that I only skimmed.

I actually did think about this, a little bit after Cornyn (IIRC) started whining about Schumer’s supposed “conflict of interest” as head of the DSCC. Didn’t say anything, so you just have my word on that…

Phoenix Woman @ 213

You bet it is. So long as the progs don’t take the Bushie-bait and attack their fellow progs over it.

I mean, really? Attacking MoveOn.org?! I can tell y’all something — we wouldn’t BE here if it wasn’t for MoveOn.org. And now people are crapping all over them for backing the supplemental bill over “perfect” legislation which no Republican will vote for (and again, we need the votes of around four dozen defectors to make any bill Bush-proof).

I think we all need to take a few deep breaths and back off on the screaming and screeching of traitor-traitor-traitor at anyone who takes a stance that’s not exactly the same as our own.

who’s attacking who? no here is calling anyone a traitor. what’s that about?

It’s pretty hard to say impeachment is off the table when you are a lawmaker. That’s like saying arrest is off the table if you are a policeman and the investigation isn’t complete.

OldCoastie @
61

re KO – they must have pictures of Specter up in the WH

Specter’s true colors are showing: A*PAC rules the waves.

This would be an incredible sign of hope!

Siun @
205

Selise, RevDeb and Angie … not sure who I may have missed … but I’m in tears of rage here.

And I am so tired of being told – over and over and over – that this bill will end the war … and being pressured by the strategists to smile while we approve more dollars for more occupation.

When this is the “best” they can do, why should I believe “they” will now somehow develop the balls to do something real?

The vast, heteogeneous and politically diverse “constituents” are not losing faith in their reps because of support for this bill. The polling is trending negative because so far there has been nothing from Congress on Iraq.

The arguments for voting Nay: a vote of conscience, waiting for a better bill and “let it hang around the Republicans’ neck- we don’t need to do anything”, are all the flip side of an enabling sophistry that allows this atrocity of a “war” to continue. Just more staus-quo.

There is no friggin way that the voting public who came together in desperation to elect Democratic majorities will abide continuation of this without starting to blame the Democrats equally with the Repubs. The punishment that will surely come at the polls in ‘08 will be harsh and lasting. You will see low turnouts, protest votes for third, fourth and fringe-party candidates, and, predictably, Republicans voted back into office by lying about how they will vote to end the war unlike the spineless and all-talk Dems.

No more political theorizing and brinkmanship. We NEED to see some action!

What are guys like Murtha and Webb saying? I would think they would know from where they speak…

dear jane,

being relatively new to fdl, (lurked since january, began posting during the trial), i dont really know a lot about you other then your bio here, & from hanging around the lake i picked up that you’ve had surgery & are either going thru, or are about to go thru chemo. so if what i’m about to say is the norm for you, then please pardon my ignorance, but i couldn’t let it go by w/ out commenting on the fact that you wrote 5 deep, well referenced posts today & i found this truely inspiring.

rather then just talking the talk, you’re walking the walk of your determination to keep doing what you love. as someone who sometimes struggles to walk my walk to move beyond (almost daily), multiple health limitations, (P.I. “plaintiff” for 6 out of the last 9 yrs), i tip my hat to you, & to all those who have posted here today in honor of elizabeth edwards, who are also walking their walks. shine on.

gotta love those good days.

may you reap continuing health jane.

namaste ~

A small correction: Pelosi doesn’t need 218 votes for passage. If, say, Reps. Lee and Woolsey vote “present”, and Pelosi only gets 217 yes votes, the bill still passes, 217-216.

And this kind of scenario is likely to happen.

Eli @ 87

Atrios:

It isn’t perfect, but the choice isn’t between nothing and a pony, it’s between nothing and this. From what I understand Pelosi has called in every chip she has (and thrown some elbows) for the Bill. Whatever its imperfections, it’s better than the realistic alternative. Let’s hope it passes.

I agree with this. No, it’s not what we really want, but it’s the best we can do today. And, there’s reason to hope that perhaps this bill can be modified later, once more legislators are ready to vote to end the war sooner.

I think it’s critical for the Democrats that we get something to limit this war passed. If this bill doesn’t pass, what does would be illustrated? The notion that the Democrats came to Washington with a “mandate” and couldn’t even get any of their own bills passed. We can’t afford the infighting. We have to get something done, and realize it is a step in the correct direction – a step that says the war WILL end.

You can argue half glass full or half glass empty (heh). But, without this bill. we have unending war. I’m glad to see the Democrats accomplish something that makes ending the war possible – if not today, then someday soon.

selise @ 84

another thing that really bothers me is what moveon did. according to the dkos diary i linked to above maxine waters told supporters that there has been a lot of pressure from moveon to vote for the supplemental funding.

moveon justified this by doing a bogus “poll” (really more of a push-poll). there is an excellent analysis from John Stauber of PRwatch on this:

On Sunday, March 18, Sheldon Rampton and I wrote “Iraq: Why Won’t MoveOn Move Forward?”, an article now widely circulated online. It has helped to focus debate on whether the Democratic Party is really attempting to end the war in Iraq, or is content to simply manage the war for supposed electoral advantage in 2008.

The liberal advocacy group MoveOn has 3.2 million members. Yesterday MoveOn misleadingly claimed that the results from their recent member survey showed overwhelming support for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s bill on Iraq. “The results are in from our poll on whether to support Speaker Pelosi’s proposal on Iraq: 84.6% of MoveOn members voted to support the bill,” according to MoveOn. However, this claim flunks the smell test and is far far from accurate.

MoveOn is engaging that oldest of PR games known as ‘lies, damned lies and statistics.” The truth is that 96% of MoveOn’s 3.2 million members did not even bother to vote in their member survey. Most of MoveOn’s members probably ignored and failed to open the email, since nothing in the subject line indicated it was particularly important. MoveOn informed this reporter that about 126,000 people voted in what I pointed out to them was a very biased pro-Pelosi poll. The MoveOn question essentially provided a choice of Pelosi and peace (Yes), or Republicans and war (No). Gee, guess how that one gets answered?

that’s just the begining… i highly recommend the whole thing.

John Stauber writes with Sheldon Rampton and their book “the best war ever” (about the lies that took the country to war in iraq), was featured here on the fdl book salon.

I delurked to comment on this and to defend moveon.org. I am a member and I got that email which was titled: “Important Decision on Iraq”. I thought the title/subject was intriguing. I clicked on it sooner than I would normally click on other emails. There was a brief explanation of what Pelosi and Murtha were trying to do, with the stipulation that most progressives would probably vote for it, even though they didn’t think it would go far enough: links to 2 articles were provided for background on the proposed legislation. Three choices were provided: support, not sure, and oppose. I thought this was a great way to solicit input. Everything in life shouldn’t have to be complicated, and what’s wrong with assuming that one’s membership is reasonably informed about what’s going on? And, frankly, it was more important for me to provide support to Pelosi and Murtha and others, than to quibble about particulars.

Our Congressional leaders have a tremendously tough job;I felt they deserved my support. So, only 100M plus members responded? One believes they should have reminded everybody with multiple emails? Time was of the essence here, and, I, for one, approve of how my opinion was solicited.

OT to Jane – thank you for your wonderful posts today. You’re an amazing person.

Phoenix Woman @ 209
So, do you waste time, money and lives waiting for Republican Congresscritters to come around sufficiently to vote for your “something real” bill (which probably won’t happen until at least the summer of 2008), or do you back a bill that Republicans will back and which WILL have the troops in early 2008?

Those are your options. Realistically, those are your only options.

I’ve been reading the comments in this thread in awe of the phenominally well reasoned arguments presented here on both sides and the level of civility in the arguments. I am SO glad that this forum exists. It is very easy to get overwhelmed by the magnitude of this battle, but reading FDL and the comments always manages to bringing things back to a level where individual action seems worthwhile and important. Know what I’m sayin?

LandOfTheFree @ 226

OT to Jane – thank you for your wonderful posts today. You’re an amazing person.

…and every day.

dww44 @ 225

howdy, and nice to meet you! i hope you will delurk more often – even if it is to disagree with me *g*.

i also have been a member and supporter of moveon for years… but that doesn’t mean i won’t call them on it when i think they’ve done something wrong. i think it was a push poll – not a poll designed to get the members’ opinions uninfluenced by moveon’s description of the situation – which i don’t think was accurately described by the poll:

We’ve got a big decision coming up this week, and we need to make it together, as a community.

As early as Wednesday, the House may vote on a Democratic proposal on Iraq. The proposal was put together by Speaker Pelosi and Congressmen Obey and Murtha. It is going to be a close vote—the Republicans are against it and some conservative Democrats are uncomfortable with the bill.

Most, but not all, of the progressives in Congress are planning on voting for the bill. These progressives, like many of us, don’t think the bill goes far enough, but see it as the first concrete step to ending the war. And President Bush is threatening to veto it for the same reason.

I’ve told Rep. Murtha that this was a decision for MoveOn’s members to make. Now I’m asking you to help make it. Should we support or oppose the Democrats’ plan? Just click here to register your view:

Support the Plan.

Not Sure

Oppose the Plan

and just to make it clear – while i disagree with your position, i hope it didn’t sound like i think you did anything wrong. you’re following your own thinking and your own conscience. good for you – that’s what i’m doing too…. and i really hope you’re right about this and i’m full of it.

what i think is wrong is what moveon did. it was a attempt to sway opinion – not to measure it.

i’ve disagreed with positions moveon has taken in the past – but i always thought they were good faith disagreements… the kinds of things people of good will are bound to have. but, not in this case… i have, with great sadness and after many years, cancelled my membership.

Selise – well said.

angie @
28

selise @
8

18 months of funding for this war/occupation is so disheartening and depressing – it far overshadows any partisan joy i can find in seeing bush’s republicans beaten.

me too.

I want impeachment on the table and war with Iran off the table and the troops and mercenaries home now and all occupations to end.

and the chimp still threatens a veto on this legislation so that he can continue his endless war.

Here’s my take on this. You have to get the votes for a measure that will end the war IN ORDER TO GET BUSH TO VETO IT. Because we all know he’s gonna veto anything.

If you get a measure that can’t win the votes for passage and attempt to pass it…Bush looks strong and the Democrats look weak.

But by marshalling the votes now…it gets Bush and the Republicans on the record for one full cycle. As the war drags on, as it sadly will, the opposition to the war and continued erosion of Bush’s political support will make BETTER measures more and more likely.

Nola Sue @
96

John Dean: I think Bush has got his manhood in this and he won’t back down.

Also, he thinks the American people care a great deal about this.

Yes, we do!!!

Here’s how to accomplish this.

Tie all future funding of the war to an increase in corporate taxes to those firms and executives who have received contracts for materials used in this war or were involved in reconstruction or extraction. If more fundsare required tie it to general taxes that retracts the tax cuts on the top 5% of income earners.

The war must be pay-as-you go rather than exploding the deficit.

Just watch Bush and the Republicans sizzle on THAT!

They couldn’t vote against it without “cutting off funding for the war” (TRAITORS!) and yet they would antagonize the war profiteers that have been sucking at the government teat for the past five years.

I hardly think bringing about a consensus of fat cats for further funding of the Iraq War can be considered leadership at this point in time. I think the Dems are gutless – IMPEACHMENT is written all over the sick and traitorous Bushco Admin.

IMPEACH PELOSI…..
Damn, she took impeachment of Bush off the table….that would have ended the war real quick…cause Cheney would have gone with him.
Now, all this bullshit b/c she took impeachment off the table…..
Dammit, let’s get the IMPEACH PELOSI movement started.

IMPEACH PELOSI….
Get a dem in the office who will do what the laws says should happen….impeach Bush/Cheney and anyone else who wants their ass kicked.

IMPEACH PELOSI

selise @
13

and how will it be for the dems who just voted to provide the necessary funding to continue the war for another 18 months?

I certainly hope each and every Dem who fotes to fund the war is taken out in the primaries. It’s time for a major purge.

Ol’ Mao knew how to do that.

While I have always opposed this invasion with it’s susequent occupation (not war),I think this is the best we can do at this point and I hope it passes.
We can begin trying to patch things up in ‘08.

You deleted my comment from last night. I guess you left wingers want free speech only when it doesn’t disagree with your agree with your agenda. When the right tries to be heard you suppress us. What hypocrasy.

I’m so ticked off I agree with your twice.