zed?

jeepers, zedish…

WHOAA - 3rd zed?

The language above sounds like total Bush-speak. A few heavy hitters on the Nay list and I can understand why.

Sense of the Senate.–It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should send legislation to the President providing appropriations for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in a manner that the President can sign into law by not later than May 28, 2007.

Can sign or will sign? He can sign a Bill with restrictions but will he… no.

Keep sending him a Bill he can sign if he wants to and if he doesn’t the to h*ll with him.

congress already sent the prez a bill that he could sign before memorial day- but the fucker didn’t sign it- so I’d say this goal has already been met.

Well. Fine. Send him back the same damn bill they sent him in the first place.

I asked this earlier when the vote was going on, but is this “Sense Of The Senate” resolution worth anything more than the paper it is written on?

It sounds like a “Motherhood, Apple Pie, Stand up and salute the flag” bit of nonsense and nothing more.

That’s all the ‘nay’s?
Hmmm
Wheres Durbin?
(otherwsie known as the lone Senator from IL)

I’m sorry - is it just me or is that just wankerifusness* run amok?

*I’d use fuckery but Evil Dr. Puma and TRex would come down on me for infringement.

Regrettably work has kept me from keeping up to date, so I am not sure what this article portends. Certainly the list of those voting nay, plus the posted content, suggest that it is some kind of neocon litmus test or something…

dakine

That’s how it smells ta me- four year old apple pie.

Congress sure knows how to flap their lips and create a bunch of nothingness. Send the original bill back and make him own his own war.

OT, Sorry.

Can I get a link to whomever has a copy of Hugh’s list?
Thanks in advance.

As Mr. Edwards says
Send the original bill back.
(he can mark it up with signing statements and we can find out what *those* are worth)

okayyyyyy now smooth this out - will the funding continue ad infinitum?? or will defunding begin…….. when?

So basically this says, yeah, we’ll come up with another bill before the end of the month?

just what sort of fuckery is this? beggin pardon epu lol

Bustednuckles -

Hugh’s list

Jane,
under the circumstances, I think you post showed remarkable restraint.

I would be inclined to vent in your place.

Bustednuckles @ 14

OT, Sorry.

Can I get a link to whomever has a copy of Hugh’s list?
Thanks in advance.

Hugh’s Bush Scandal List

i would like to know how does my senator kerry explain his vote?

Can’t see why they didn’t ALL vote for it- since it says absolutely nothing at all.

What was the purpose of that amendment… Looks like a Kool aid test..

Speaking of Kool aid.. Jane did you see this?

I don’t get it.

The Cochran Amendment was defeated.

The Cochran Amendment failed with a vote of 48 – 50. The only Democrat to vote in favor of the Cochran Amendment was Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR).

Bustednuckles @ 14

OT, Sorry.

Can I get a link to whomever has a copy of Hugh’s list?
Thanks in advance.

Hugh’s List of Bush Scandals

available through google now

LS @ 13

Congress sure knows how to flap their lips and create a bunch of nothingness. Send the original bill back and make him own his own war.

Yeah, I mean what does the above amendment accomplish??? Oh yeah, it blames the Democrats for the delay in funding…

Keeping the fun in dysfunctional!!

That was the OTHER Cochran amendment (March 28th).

looseheadprop @ 20

Jane,
under the circumstances, I think you post showed remarkable restraint.

I would be inclined to vent in your place.

Totally. WTF was that??

mffarrow @ 25

I don’t get it.

The Cochran Amendment was defeated.

The Cochran Amendment failed with a vote of 48 – 50. The only Democrat to vote in favor of the Cochran Amendment was Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR).

That was the amendment in the first supplemental bill that the Chimpenfuhrer veto’d. This was an amendment in the Water bill. It “passed” after the Reid-Feingold amendment failed in cloture vote…

Bustednuckles @ 14

OT, Sorry.

Can I get a link to whomever has a copy of Hugh’s list?
Thanks in advance.

Here ya go

looseheadprop @ 20

Jane,
under the circumstances, I think you post showed remarkable restraint.

I would be inclined to vent in your place.

I figured I’d leave everyone to their own “insert in the appropriate place.”

Sounds like this Cochran guy REALLY wanted his very own amendment- so now he has one. Wear it in good health.

Is it the sense of the Senate that I should grab my ankles, bite down hard on a hickory stick and drop trau?

Well - sure looks to me like we know where folks stand now - and it’s not where they wanted us to think they stood!

As I mentioned yesterday, Obama and Clinton issued statements saying they would vote yes on cloture - but the real issue is whether they would co-sponsor or vote yes on Feingold-Reid if it came to a vote. I’m checking to see if we can get a statement from Obama, but …

Here’s Hillary’s statement on it all:

When asked whether she supported the actual underlying idea of the Feingold bill - to stop the funding for major combat operations and limit the mission in Iraq - she didn’t say yes or no. “I’m not going to speculate on what I’ll be voting on in the future,” she said.

Don’t know ’bout everyone else, but I am livid - this kind of political gaming is not what we elected Democrats to do!

Jane Hamsher @ 32

looseheadprop @ 20

Jane,
under the circumstances, I think you post showed remarkable restraint.

I would be inclined to vent in your place.

I figured I’d leave everyone to their own “insert in the appropriate place.”

The outhouse would be an appropriate location but the paper’s probably a bit rougher than a corn cob.

(I can’t believe I just typed that. Jeebus! Sorry folks)

What is this? Sense of Congress? WTF is that?

Now that this fine piece of legislation has passed, can we impeach Gonzo now?

Pachacutec @ 34

Is it the sense of the Senate that I should grab my ankles, bite down hard on a hickory stick and drop trau?

Yes, but if there is anyone behind you when you do so, it is the sense of the Senate that they must be a Republican.

Jane, I really hope you are doing well. Thanks for continuing to hang in there with us. We need you so much.

Why did this even come up for a vote? I thought the Democrats were in the majority.

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
3 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Senate, spending the spring mired in divisive debate on Iraq, sharply rejected legislation Wednesday to cut off money for combat operations after March 2008.

The vote was a loss for Sen. Russell Feingold and other liberal Democrats who support taking the drastic step to end the war. But the effort picked up new support from members previously reluctant to limit war funding — an indication of the conflict’s unpopularity among voters.

Okay at the rate we’re all going this constitution is going to hell in a handbasket….Those idiots such as AG, and the other ****tards are the ones carrying the handbasket…

OT: Sen. Whitehouse coming up on Hardball.

Take a close look at #5 and #6 in Cochran … tell me those are not the Republican talking points!

And Harry Reid said “you all know we’re all going to vote for this”

looseheadprop @ 20

Jane,
under the circumstances, I think you post showed remarkable restraint.

I would be inclined to vent in your place.

I believe we’ll make up for it in the comments section.
.

.
What a bunch of wankers*!

*not my first choice

OT - Tweety/Schuster covering the Comey testimony.

I think they said Whitehouse would be on later.

dakine @ 36: Ha, ha! I’m glad you did! Needed a little levity here.

So let’s see, what does this say:

The president is responsible for the armed forces. check
The armed forces need money. check
There is no more money. hmmm.
The president asked for more money. check
The president got a bill and he didn’t like it. check
Congress should continue to focus on giving the armed forces the money they need. check

and…ta, da:

(b) Sense of the Senate.–It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should send legislation to the President providing appropriations for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in a manner that the President can sign into law by not later than May 28, 2007.

It means….make sure the bill is on paper and that a pen is placed in his hand so he can sign it. Remember how long it took him to prepare his pen to veto the bill. That must be the problem.

mffarrow @ 25

I don’t get it.

The Cochran Amendment was defeated.

The Cochran Amendment failed with a vote of 48 – 50. The only Democrat to vote in favor of the Cochran Amendment was Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR).

See this from today

Tester voted for this? Webb? WTF? I need to be more careful with my campaign contributions in the future.

OT: Shorter John Yoo from last night’s Frontline: I’m truly evil and need to be stopped.

Mutant Poodle @ 38

Pachacutec @ 34

Is it the sense of the Senate that I should grab my ankles, bite down hard on a hickory stick and drop trau?

Yes, but if there is anyone behind you when you do so, it is the sense of the Senate that they must be a Republican.

lol

For a minute, I thought I was reading satire.

Where are my supposedly liberal Marylanders, Cardin & Mukulski?

RagingGurrl @ 45

looseheadprop @ 20

Jane,
under the circumstances, I think you post showed remarkable restraint.

I would be inclined to vent in your place.

I believe we’ll make up for it in the comments section.
.

.
What a bunch of wankers*!

*not my first choice

I guess we all have to get over our shock before we can get our groove back.

Comey’s testimony on Hardball discussing thuggery of Card and Abu.

Go Schuster.

Siun @ 44

Take a close look at #5 and #6 in Cochran … tell me those are not the Republican talking points!

Zackly! I’m real proud of Leahy and Boxer. Did anyone see the smackdown Boxer did on Lindsay Graham when he said Reid said troops are losers. She went through step by step Iraq War Justification versions 1, 2, 2.1, 3, etc. She must just be fit to be tied after reading this crap.

Okay, I really try to stay out of this stuff, and I await public statements and explanations, but. . .

Obama and Clinton voted to end debate on two different approaches, but did not commit themselves in any way that survives parsing to either approach. Likewise, they voted for this squishy resolution that gives them enough wiggle room around the definition of “what the president can sign,” but which, in effect, endorses the Republican position that Dems should cave in to the president in betrayal of the public and their electoral mandate.

If I’m understanding this correctly, how are they not both cowards intent on deception? What do they stand for? Do they stand for anything?

I don’t want to jump to conclusions. What am I missing?

allan_in_upstate @ 50

Tester voted for this? Webb? WTF? I need to be more careful with my campaign contributions in the future.

tester and webb also vote AGAINST Reid-Feingold (for redeployment). full list of dems voting against is here.

one question:

how is the language of the amendment NOT to be read a wholesale capitulation to the Chimp’s demands?
./

selise @ 22

i would like to know how does my senator kerry explain his vote?

He probably voted against it before he voted for it.

Sheldon Whitehouse on MSNBC now…

(((Siun))) I am beyond livid

You know, the Dodd folks called this one precisely right - vote on Feingold-Reid not on cloture. Dodd said:

“This is the most important Senate debate since the original vote to authorize the war. This simply cannot be the occasion for hiding behind procedural tactics.”

But we got tactics, not substance.

Richardson and Edwards gave us clear statements, but Hillary and Obama said “we’ll support cloture” rather then we support Feingold-Reid and then everyone gave them a pass … lesson learned.

Pachacutec @ 57

Okay, I really try to stay out of this stuff, and I await public statements and explanations, but. . .

Obama and Clinton voted to end debate on two different approaches, but did not commit themselves in any way that survives parsing to either approach. Likewise, they voted for this squishy resolution that gives them enough wiggle room around the definition of “what the president can sign,” but which, in effect, endorses the Republican position that Dems should cave in th toe president in betrayal of the public and their electoral mandate.

If I’m understanding this correctly, how are they not both cowards intent on deception? What do they stand for? Do they stand for anything?

I don’t want to jump to conclusions. What am I missing?

Nothing. Not one damn thing.

Pachacutec @ 57

Okay, I really try to stay out of this stuff, and I await public statements and explanations, but. . .

Obama and Clinton voted to end debate on two different approaches, but did not commit themselves in any way that survives parsing to either approach. Likewise, they voted for this squishy resolution that gives them enough wiggle room around the definition of “what the president can sign,” but which, in effect, endorses the Republican position that Dems should cave in th toe president in betrayal of the public and their electoral mandate.

If I’m understanding this correctly, how are they not both cowards intent on deception? What do they stand for? Do they stand for anything?

I don’t want to jump to conclusions. What am I missing?

It’s called hedging their bets.

So is there some way we can get an actual, you know, Democrat as Senate Majority Leader? Other than by doign a massive election operation next year, I mean. Because the way things are going, IMO, any election next year is likely to be totally meaningless. (Someone remind me which party DiFi says she belongs to again?)

twolf1 @ 61

Sheldon Whitehouse on MSNBC now…

Can you liveblog for those of us whose TV is restricted to football season?

Okay am I talking out of turn to say that photo op with Abu and Fitz looks like it was taken under duress?

allan_in_upstate @ 50

Tester voted for this? Webb? WTF? I need to be more careful with my campaign contributions in the future.

OT: Shorter John Yoo from last night’s Frontline: I’m truly evil and need to be stopped.

They also both voted against Cloture on the Reid-Feingold measure which I found VERY surprising.

Tweety trying to fob it off on Shooter, but it was Bush who called and got Card and Abu into Ashcroft’s room.

Sorry, Tweety. Dirty little Codpiece fingerprints all over this one.

twolf1 @ 46

OT - Tweety/Schuster covering the Comey testimony.

I think they said Whitehouse would be on later.

I’m at the office. No TeeVee. Would appreciate a synopsis

Can’t we just put Leahy and Feingold in the Whitehouse, now?

Dunnno if anyone remembers when we had some 500 coments asking for Comey to testify before judiciary that we got to senators on the committee, but it was Specter who blocked subpoena at the time and he should have to answer for it.

I beg permission to revise and extend my speculative remarks:

I don’t like to and should not use GOP buzz words like “coward.”

I would like to say that my preliminary impression of the Obama and Clinton statements and votes leaves me entirely muddled, and unable to discern signs of leadership or fidelity to the will of the voting public.

Jane Hamsher @ 55

Comey’s testimony on Hardball discussing thuggery of Card and Abu.

Go Schuster.

What’s he saying? Schuster often gets it right.
Cause he visits the LAKE more than I do

Jane Hamsher @ 68

Okay am I talking out of turn to say that photo op with Abu and Fitz looks like it was taken under duress?

Was that the photo op from the Project Safe Neighborhoods? If so, yes. It was, as I understand it, a total waste of time and a pure photo-op.

Jane Hamsher @ 73

Dunnno if anyone remembers when we had some 500 coments asking for Comey to testify before judiciary that we got to senators on the committee, but it was Specter who blocked subpoena at the time and he should have to answer for it.

that’s not all he should answer for.

Pach: There’s gotta be something more here if Webb voted against. He hates this goddamn war.

I remember asking Kos who he liked in the RI race early on and he said he was very impressed with Whitehouse. Whitehouse has lived up to that.

Tweety asked about getting the e-mails. Sheldon said that defiance of the subpoenaes will wind up in court and they can probably stall long enough until they are out of office.

Siun @ 35

Don’t know ’bout everyone else, but I am livid - this kind of political gaming is not what we elected Democrats to do!

livid does not come any where close to describing my pissed-off-ness.

Ya know, God bless Feingold. The man who was repudiated by his own party like a year ago for even mentioning withdrawal. They ran away from the guy like he had a deadly communicable disease. Seems like not much has changed in the end.

I really cringe at the cowardice of this Congress on this day. I feel I have been very patient, considering my profound feelings about this war.

To put it in clinical terms, they are nothing more than enablers.

I’m really hoping for someone smarter than me to put this into a perspective that will make me feel better about this.

emptywheel @ 76

Jane Hamsher @ 68

Okay am I talking out of turn to say that photo op with Abu and Fitz looks like it was taken under duress?

Was that the photo op from the Project Safe Neighborhoods? If so, yes. It was, as I understand it, a total waste of time and a pure photo-op.

Okay you have a bigger mouth than me.

heh heh

it seems we’re being PLAYED again - damn!

Jane Hamsher @ 79

I remember asking Kos who he liked in the RI race early on and he said he was very impressed with Whitehouse. Whitehouse has lived up to that.

And then some.

Looking at Hardball. Looks like Gonzales is going places.

I’m glad Teddy voted nah….

I’d love to shove this bill up Bush’s arse…
We have a War Czar now…
How about a Peace honcho…

Jane Hamsher @ 68

Okay am I talking out of turn to say that photo op with Abu and Fitz looks like it was taken under duress?

Ah, but WHOSE duress?

Pach - Clinton commented to the NYT - see my #35.

I’ve called Obama’s Senate press office but apparently no one was available to give a statement on the Senator’s position on Feingold-Reid as opposed to cloture. I’ve asked for a call back and will let folks hear if I do.

Jane Hamsher @ 68

Okay am I talking out of turn to say that photo op with Abu and Fitz looks like it was taken under duress?

Is that the one from the Chicago meeting with the 6 other USAs?

Fitzgerald looked like he hadn’t slept all night–or maybe several nights.

That kind of stress is not good for a guy whose arteries have been on the recieving end of a steady diet of day old pizza

is it becoming/has it yet become common-place here, also, to equate skepticism about hillary and/or obama with sexism and/or racism, in the same way that criticism of the israeli state is conflated–by the Israel lobby and (e.g.) Marty Peretz– with anti-semitism?

just askin?

So, let me get this straight.
Comey and Ashcroft didn’t want to certify the legality of a secret “program” that needed to be certified by 3/11.

Gonzo and Card make a “horse in your bed” hospital visit to Ashcroft in intensive care - on 3/10.

Comey and the FBI rush to get there first.

Schumer points out to Comey that the London bombings happened on 3/11.

3/12, Comey meets with Bush. Mueller meets with Bush. They tell him something and he agrees to change something, but continues to do whatever it is that is not certifiably legal for another 2-3 weeks before Comey or Ashcroft maybe signed it.

Whatever IT is, might not be eavesdropping. Comey never says that it is. What else could that thingy be??? Why does Schumer point out the London bombings? Why make that connection?

What it says:

(5) Congress has not passed a supplemental appropriations bill to continue funding for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in a manner that the commander in chief believes gives the United States Armed Forces and the Iraqi people the best chance to succeed at establishing a safe, stable, and sustainable democracy in Iraq.

What it means:

Commander Pissypants is stomping his feet calling us pu$$ies and threatening to keep calling us even more names, and we’re crawling into a corner, in the fetal position saying “stop it bully”

What it says:

(6) A supplemental appropriations request to fund ongoing combat operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom should remain focused on the war effort by providing the resources necessary for United States troops abroad and in the United States.

What it means:

The “opposition” party is saying , stop it, stop it, we’ll give you anything you want, please don’t hit me anymore, I’ll even buy your whiskey for you”

What it says:

(b) Sense of the Senate.–It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should send legislation to the President providing appropriations for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in a manner that the President can sign into law by not later than May 28, 2007.

What it means:

We’ll give it to The Decider (TM) in time to sign on Memorial Day so he has a fantastic photo op moment

RevDeb @ 80

Tweety asked about getting the e-mails. Sheldon said that defiance of the subpoenaes will wind up in court and they can probably stall long enough until they are out of office.

well that’s not the answer I want to hear. we need some expediticity

A sense of the senate vote means nothing. How angry can you get about someone voting one way or the other on nothing? Don’t mean nothing unless it’s all about posturing.

cross and double-cross - this is why folks dont want to vote

Jane Hamsher @ 70

Tweety trying to fob it off on Shooter, but it was Bush who called and got Card and Abu into Ashcroft’s room.

Sorry, Tweety. Dirty little Codpiece fingerprints all over this one.

Oh No!!! My boyfriend is a thug.

Though to be fair, this is precisely what the entire gang of 500 did today, try to find a way to exonerate Bush.

Pachacutec @ 57

Okay, I really try to stay out of this stuff, and I await public statements and explanations, but. . .

Obama and Clinton voted to end debate on two different approaches, but did not commit themselves in any way that survives parsing to either approach. Likewise, they voted for this squishy resolution that gives them enough wiggle room around the definition of “what the president can sign,” but which, in effect, endorses the Republican position that Dems should cave in to the president in betrayal of the public and their electoral mandate.

If I’m understanding this correctly, how are they not both cowards intent on deception? What do they stand for? Do they stand for anything?

I don’t want to jump to conclusions. What am I missing?

Ding!

Jane Hamsher @ 73

Dunnno if anyone remembers when we had some 500 coments asking for Comey to testify before judiciary that we got to senators on the committee, but it was Specter who blocked subpoena at the time and he should have to answer for it.

That was the thread that got me to delurk. I remember it well

“…to the President providing appropriations for some more American soldiers to die horrible, painful deaths because of a lie in a manner that the President can sign into law by not later than May 28, 2007.”

There. Fixed it.

Pachacutec @ 74

I beg permission to revise and extend my speculative remarks:

I don’t like to and should not use GOP buzz words like “coward.”

I would like to say that my preliminary impression of the Obama and Clinton statements and votes leaves me entirely muddled, and unable to discern signs of leadership or fidelity to the will of the voting public.

Equivocation is what they’re all about. And the public loves ‘em. Go figger.

we can only hold our noses and vote just soooooo many times

I still don’t think we’re going to get anything better than we have with this AG from a Bush appointed replacement. It would take a miracle worker to clean this mess (DOJ) up, and restore confidence. I have someone in mind though, who could do the job.

a tad confused
the vote linked above was cloture on the ammendment to the water bill
i don’t see that the actual bill has passed
am i missing something?

RevDeb @ 80

Tweety asked about getting the e-mails. Sheldon said that defiance of the subpoenaes will wind up in court and they can probably stall long enough until they are out of office.

Not if they send in the Sargent at Arms to arrest the person in posession of them.

randiego @ 78

Pach: There’s gotta be something more here if Webb voted against. He hates this goddamn war.

I just sent him an e-mail asking for an explanation. I was wondering the same thing.

I love it when Marcy and Jane chat. I’m off to make a donation to FDL!

juslin @ 102

we can only hold our noses and vote just soooooo many times

That’s what I said in 1972.

Tweety “very taken” by McCain’s words against torture last night.

Of course, McCain forGOT his convictions against torture when the Chimpenfuhrer played him for a fool/tool.

randiego @ 78

Pach: There’s gotta be something more here if Webb voted against. He hates this goddamn war.

yes, but webb has said many times he is against an “arbitrary” withdrawal timeline… and that was how he “explained” his vote today against reid-feingold

Mack @ 104

a tad confused
the vote linked above was cloture on the ammendment to the water bill
i don’t see that the actual bill has passed
am i missing something?

The Reid-Feingold amendment was withdrawn after the Cloture vote failed.

McCain
I was against torture before I was for it and might be against it again.

Jane Hamsher @ 70

Tweety trying to fob it off on Shooter, but it was Bush who called and got Card and Abu into Ashcroft’s room.

Sorry, Tweety. Dirty little Codpiece fingerprints all over this one.

Tweety wishes Tweety’s fingerprints were on Codpiece’s codpiece.

Siun @ 89

Pach - Clinton commented to the NYT - see my #35.

I’ve called Obama’s Senate press office but apparently no one was available to give a statement on the Senator’s position on Feingold-Reid as opposed to cloture. I’ve asked for a call back and will let folks hear if I do.

Did anyone else see Dodd’s campaign ad saying something to the effect that we shouldn’t wait until we’re president to do something, we (congressmen) should be voting now

sorry, recall isn’t what it used to be. anyway, I thought he made a good point esp. given the discussion here about hrc and obama…

selise @ 110

randiego @ 78

Pach: There’s gotta be something more here if Webb voted against. He hates this goddamn war.

yes, but webb has said many times he is against an “arbitrary” withdrawal timeline… and that was how he “explained” his vote today against reid-feingold

oh.

looseheadprop @ 105

RevDeb @ 80

Tweety asked about getting the e-mails. Sheldon said that defiance of the subpoenaes will wind up in court and they can probably stall long enough until they are out of office.

Not if they send in the Sargent at Arms to arrest the person in posession of them.

nagahapun…they aint got the votes to compel any appearance, given the inevitable defections–vide, today’s votes–of the bluedogs and the liebermen…
/

raven @ 108

juslin @ 102

we can only hold our noses and vote just soooooo many times

That’s what I said in 1972.

you too?
i haven’t voted FOR a candidate since George McGovern….
/

I presume this has certainly been mentioned about Ashcroft illness. He was incapacitated and medicated. Are legal contacts valid when the person is intoxicated? Why would Karl’s Shop want a signature to legalize their illegal program when the signature is also illegal?

Rerunning Tweety on tivo. Tweety likens the hospital scene to that in the Godfather. Whitehouse is incredulous.

about Abu “Makes his tenure as AG hopel