So, whose compromise is this anyway?

[Skinner]

I was talking to EarlG about this Iraq funding bill yesterday, and we got to wondering who among the Democratic Leadership actually agreed to this.

Speaker Pelosi has already said that she won't vote for it.

Majority Leader Reid has so far declined to say how he will vote.

These two facts seem to me a stinging indictment of both Pelosi and Reid. If neither of them is willing to publicly express support for this thing, then why on earth would they agree to it? Aren't they the ones in charge?

It seems to me that Reid may have no choice but to vote for this thing, otherwise he and Pelosi will be exposed as a pair of impotent pushovers who lack the will or the ability to influence the agenda. He's in a no-win situation. Either he supports the bill and takes ownership of this capitulation, or else he votes against it and is exposed as weak.

According to the New York Times, both House Dem Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer intend to support the bill. Can the Chair of the Democratic Caucus and the House Majority Leader cut a deal with the president over the objections of the Speaker? I find it extremely hard to believe that they could. Pelosi and/or Reid had to have signed off on it. If they didn't, then they are just ceremonial figureheads.

This compromise might not even get a majority of Democrats in Congress.

So, in the worst case scenario this could pass without the support of the Speaker, the Senate Majority Leader, or a majority of Democrats in Congress.

How could they possibly let that happen? Not only would the war continue indefinitely, but they would expose their own impotence and irrelevance in the process. It makes no sense.

[Beelzebud]

1. To say I'm not happy with Reid/Pelosi would be the understatment of the year.

[Silverbug]

28. I'm still trying to figure out what they are thinking.

70% of the American people are behind them?

WHY would they not stand their ground?

[blm]

50. Because Dem power elite in DC influence political decisions more than the people

can.

Figure out WHO are the most influential voices politically to the party elite and you have the answer.

My guess is that many here don't WANT that voice named.

[kenny blankenship]

139. I think they may have been sandbagged by people who want to take over their jobs

[NC_Nurse]

2. I'm confused too.

And so, sooo disappointed.

:-(

[KoKo]

7. It's as if a "plug was pulled" when after being so courageous with the first bill

and then allowing the Feigold Amendment to have a vote...someone suddenly pulled the plug and they were told to cave in. Even the media seemed to back off and do a blackout of what was going on (not that they report fairly anyway, but there seemed to be a "chill" from the Talking Heads).

Forgetting the Media...there is something odd that courage turned to putting tail between legs and slinking off. Also the terrible interview with Pelosi that Stephanopolis did last week. It seemed something was up with that. He spent time on showing pictures of her father's politics in Baltimore with pics of the Young Nancy and then went off into flattery about her being first woman speaker. Snuffy sidetracked her with flatter which got off the subject of the "benchmarks." I really like Pelosi but something was just very strange about that interview...like she was "set up."

Could it be the Rahm Emmanuel DLC'ers are really pushing hard to take over the leadership? The way to do that was to throw the Activist Left under the bus? Media picks up on it and and tacitly goes along?

[NC_Nurse]

9. Who knows?

It does seem like a they just caved all of a sudden....:wtf:

[Virginia Dare]

21. No, they used it as a bargaining tool with Bush..

it was clear that they were not going to be able to get a veto proof bill through, so they used it as leverage, and while they didn't get their timeline, they did get some domestic spending that Bush likely would have vetoed in a separate bill.

[blm]

52. That would have to be a VERY INFLUENTIAL VOICE to do that, wouldn't you say?

The Dems are taking a real leap of faith for that voice. So - who could possible carry that much influence on a POLITICAL decision like this?

[Lerkfish]

3. agreed. we need names.

[blm]

27. Who do any of you THINK is influencing Dem lawmakers most with this advice?

IMO, it is not hard to figure out who holds that level of sway over the party.

[Individualist]

57. Easy to figure out, actually

All one has to do is think of the organization that wants to pull the party to the right and encourages legislators to vote with republicans.

[blm]

62. Yep - and the dominant political voice that would sway senate AND congress would be.....

.

[KoKo]

67. Please just Spell it out blm....You talking about "Shadow Govt." or Clintons?

:shrug: Or, one in the same? Or, something different.

[blm]

78. The party elite have Dem lawmakers believing Bill's political skills are infallible.

And THERIN is a major part of the problem for those who don't share that trust.

[BurtWorm]

84. How would they do this?

Would Bill or Hillary be calling Reid and Pelosi and telling them what the Dems should do? I can't believe Bill is still such a power, despite his fundraising abilities, that he could pull that off. He wasn't even able to pull that off when he was in office.

[blm]

100. They all use many of the same DC strategists and advisors and media has

concocted an image of Bill as the Top Dog of the party who everyone else goes to for advice.

They have anointed Clinton as the party's political guru the same way they anointed Rove. And the rest of the party is usually pounded into agreeing with the media portrayal.

[BurtWorm]

103. I do believe Rahm Emanuel is one of the Big Dog's pitbulls.

And as he's on record as voting for the measure and has been the official Congressional Democratic Fuckyou-er to the netroots, I'm beginning to smell that rat, if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor.

[blm]

105. What clued me is the way media never fails to mention that Clinton is the

quintessential political braintrust, but only since he started being seen as supportive of Bush post 9-11 and also supporting his military strategies for terrorism and Iraq and that he has palled around with Poppy the last 6 years.

Before that, the corpmedia usually spun everything they could against Clinton, including his political instincts.

If the parties can be convinced in a NEED to trust their top political thinkers, it sure makes getting votes like this alot easier.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

86. Lemme guess...

Triangulate...2008...triangulate...2008...triangulate.......

And over in the House, is a Mini-Me whipping the freshman Dems....

Someone who wouldn't want to be caught dead leaving the impression they had voted against the troops by trying to defund the war. In other words, the same type of person who would vote for the IWR because they didn't want a "no" vote thrown at them at a later date, say, when they were running for president.

[BurtWorm]

109. One odd fact in all this, however, is Hillary's bizarre IWR do-over proposal

In which she seems to be trying to get a vote against the Iraq war on record. She did vote for Feingold-Reid, but she's being coy about this vote. She's acting as confused about what message to send as ever.

[blm]

116. June 2006 she ADAMANTLY spoke against any timetable. The do-over vote had also been

proposed by other Dems earlier this year - want to bet that the REALITY of the way the primary audiences are reacting to the Iraq issue is guiding every careful undertaking now?

[SoCalDem]

4. I think they thought they could shame bush into signing the other one

and so they blustered and blustered..and ended up painting themselves into the corner.

They should have just come clean with the public and reminded them that without a veto-proof majority (+1..the lieberman factor), they could not stop the administration from using their TOADIES in the congress to thwart any attempt the dems made.

It's all so elementary.. It's like sending your kid to the mall to buy a $50 item, and only giving him $40..and then yelling at him when he does not come home with the item..

shame on the rhetoric-laden bigmouths who played fast and loose..and ended up losing themselves..no matter what they do now.

we do NOT have a 24-7 megaphone/microphone like the right has on radio & tv.

[Swamp Rat]

5. Maybe we should call Reid and Pelosi right now - Congressional Switchboard -- [phone]

to tell them to vote AGAINST the bill, then step down from their leadership positions, if they ever want to be elected again in their lifetimes.

During the next call I am going to suggest promoting Russ Feingold and Jack Murtha to take over.

[Horse with no Name]

14. We are very likely NOT to get Murtha or Feingold

instead we would be stuck with a DLC'er who is an another Bushlicker.

[Swamp Rat]

26. Nevertheless, We the People should DEMAND it. n/t

[Virginia Dare]

6. The Democrats didn't come away with nothing..

in the end Bush had to agree to a domestic spending package that he originally said he wouldn't agree to. They also got the minimum wage measure in there.

It's my understanding that they will have two separate votes, one for the war spending, and one of the domestic spending, so that those who are against the funding of the war can go on the record voting "no", and still vote "aye" for the domestic package, which includes aide for veterans and the poor, and for areas ravaged by Katrina, which would get the Bill passed.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4831069.html

[Pale Blue Dot]

12. So now Pelosi can be seen as voting AGAINST the minimum wage increase?

:eyes:

This is a train wreck.

[Virginia Dare]

17. No, there will be two separate votes...n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

83. Frankly...

I don't give a SHIT about getting the domestic spending bill passed, not while there are AMERICAN MEN AND WOMEN DYING every fucking day in Iraq!

We put the Dems in office to take care of business on IRAQ.

[Virginia Dare]

91. So you don't give a shit about funding for veterans..

or children living in poverty? You don't give a shit about people still living with the devastating effects of Katrina? You only care about the war?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

111. Yes.

Right now, that's all I care about.

Everything else stems from getting us out of the war: the availability of national guard troops and machinery, the amount of money and resources that would be freed up, the refocus of our federal government in time/money/resources.

I am not some dog who can be thrown a "bone" and be satisfied. I will not be "bought" by the Democrats on this issue.

[Telly Savalas]

132. Have the veterans bill be separate and make Bush veto the damn thing

before linking it to the war.

What's so hard about that?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. You're Right. It Doesn't Make Sense. But That's Why I Can't Help But Think That There's Gotta Be

more to this story/strategy.

As you've broken it out, it is very perplexing and illogical. I think that's an additional part of why it bothers most of us so much. I still haven't wrapped my head around this entire thing and still have to wonder if there's something I'm missing. It just doesn't add up ya know?

I guess we'll know soon enough, but there's gotta be more to this than we know right now. If not, then I wouldn't know what the hell to think anymore.

[helderheid]

10. If they don't vote for it, is that a vote to not fund the war?

[wiggs]

94. That might be interesting. Get a bill the president wants and defeat it? Can

the dems hold a unified vote the way the pugs do?

[H2O Man]

11. It makes no sense

if you look at it from one direction. It makes perfect sense if you look at it from another direction.

[tomp]

30. please elaborate. nt

[H2O Man]

38. If we believe that

the "new" congress is invested in advocating the wishes of the majority of Americans -- who want this war to end -- then the (in)action taken by the "leadership" makes no sense. If we look at the recent (in)action in the House and Senate in the context of their overall performance since 2001, it would seem to be yet another example of their willingness to betray the citizens of this country, and do little more than participate in a charade that keeps the grass roots thinking that at some point, these "leaders" will show some spine.

[tomp]

40. that's what i hoped you meant. and i agree. thanks. nt

[Gold Metal Flake]

51. To your second scenario, I have to ask...

Where is the profit? In order to persist in a charade of potential action followed by capitulation, there must be a payoff.

[H2O Man]

54. If you were

to come up with a short list of possibilities, what might that short list include?

[Gold Metal Flake]

63. Well,

Direct financial renumeration via seats on boards, gov't contracts for relatives or spouses, election funds via slush accounts better secreted than Abramoff's.

Indirect renumeration IE construction projects near owned lands or tasty job offers to the chilluns.

Promises of weak opponents in future elections.

I dunno...

[H2O Man]

65. When I was young,

we used to get "Weekly Reader" in school. There was often a little thing called "Can you see the face in this tree?" I think you have given a general description of that face.

[Gold Metal Flake]

73. Thank you.

Quite ordinary, isn't it. Banal, if it weren't for the death and suffering. But is that not the true definition of evil?

[KoKo]

74. lol's....can't help myself but that gave me a chuckle..."face in the tree."

:D I know...my humor on this is perverted...the imagery just did me in...

[Mark Twain Girl]

87. "The face in the tree" -- actually, a very apt metaphor

Something that is there, but the outline has to be puzzled out. And, once you see it, you can never miss the face in the tree again, or forget that it's there. Money, power, promises, influence, contracts, jobs, pork, electoral funds, safe seats... What we're up against is the face in the tree.

[KoKo]

106. yes....well said... we are finally discerning the face......n/t

[Horse with no Name]

13. My thoughts are that Emmanuel et al concocted a "Gang of 14" type

deal. For every repub that Pelosi and Reid could get to cross the aisle, Rahm had one that would cross the other way.
This reeks of backroom dirty politics. It was a power play within our own party. I believe it came down to a choice of letting the Republicans make them look irrelevant or letting the Democrats make them look irrelevant. Not a very good choice at all.
As long as the Democrats have these snake oil salesmen in the same party, you can probably expect more of the same.

[blm]

31. Look who spoke out FORCEFULLY against a timetable last June and it's likely they

are the ones maneuvering behind the scenes this entire time - except they can't be as open about it anymore now that the primary race is already started in earnest.

[tomp]

32. wow, interesting hypothesis! nt

[Morgana LaFey]

124. yeah, makes about the most sense to me (so far)

In which case, this makes it an AIPAC bill, I'd say.

[leftchick]

66. and remember whose foreign policy Emmanuel and Hoyer are more aligned with

it ain't the USA. I will give you one guess....

[blm]

134. Lieberman. Too many Dems stayed closer to Bush on terrorism and Iraq strategy

throughout the last 6 years - and I am tired of it. And that goes for the brilliant 'political instinct' bigname Dems, too.

[bigtree]

15. What evidence do we have that the 'defunding' approach was working?

Or would have eventually worked?

I don't understand the reasoning that soldiers shouldn't be adequately equipped and supplied and that our party in charge shouldn't work to make certain that they are.

The 'war' would only continue 'indefinitely' if we fail to convince the necessary amount of republicans to vote for a bill with timetables. It would continue 'indefinitely', even if we were just content to just send the same rejected bill back and forth. The strategy did advance legislation to Bush's desk, and we did get an important veto which makes Bush and his republican enablers solely responsible for continuing. But, it has failed to move him, and there's no evidence that just repeatedly sending the bill to him would move him off of his occupation anytime soon.

I really don't understand the purpose in withholding funds. If we get the necessary amount of votes for a timetable, the troops can begin to come home, funds in place or not. It's that simple.

Maybe the proponents of continuing to tie funding to the timetables Bush rejected can explain how that failure to move Bush represents such a winning strategy. He doesn't give a damn about the troops' funding, and apparently, he has the means to just limp them along as he pretends his hands are being tied.

What evidence is there that using funding as a bargaining chip would move Bush now or anytime in the near future?

[Virginia Dare]

20. I think you're correct, it was not a very effective tool..

they tried it, and it didn't work, but in the end they got some stuff out of the Chimp, time for Plan B, deauthorizing the war.

[Pale Blue Dot]

34. It's not a question of "Moving Bush". That was never going to happen.

It was a question of showing the public that we're trying to stop this war. It's going on record that we were not going to let Bush, the unpopular bully, beat us down.

I have been talking to a LOT of non-Democrats who are against this war, and they are DISGUSTED. They reason that at least the Republicans keep their promises.

This has the potential not only to prolong this war, but to destroy this party and hand control of the country back over to the Republicans.

The Democrats are about to prove every negative stereotype of the party.

[EFerrari]

47. Because that's how Congress stops wars. They take away the money.

And no general is going to send his men out without bullets and say, good luck boys. They would have to come home.

We don't need to move Junior.

[bigtree]

53. Congress can vote for timetables for withdrawal with funding in place

Fully funding the troops already deployed doesn't preclude Congress from passing and effecting a withdrawal.

[EFerrari]

56. True but only withdrawing FUNDS brings troops home.

[bigtree]

70. Setting a 'timetable' for withdrawal is all that's needed up front.

Without that timetable, presented to Bush in a veto-proof bill, there will never be a withdrawal.

Just withholding a vote for a supplemental, however, directs Bush to do nothing, and assumes he cares enough about the soldiers to notice their shortfalls and end his occupation. Since when did Bush start caring about the welfare of the troops enough to give a damn about their needs as he presses them forward?

[EFerrari]

76. He would have to pull them. It's just math at that poiint.

This isn't about "the troops". This is about the next federal election.

[Az]

16. I am leaning towards the figureheads explanation

I think this is the current modus operandi in DC anyway. You don't put your actual planners out front. You lead with charismatics or populist individuals and leave the schemers in the shadows. Thus Reid and Pelosi take their lead from someone else that has a different plan in mind than what may be stated by the representatives.

With this setup the power structure can remain intact even if the figureheads take a fall. With the churn that goes in in todays politics an investment in power would not wish to accept the liability of losing that power due to a political shift. So remaining in the background would be the more profitable method.

[Virginia Dare]

22. It's the classic good cop, bad cop scenario...n/t

[KoKo]

75. Yes...amazing that some of us who had so much hope for change didn't see

it in this very simple, straightforward strategy. "Good Cop/Bad Cop." We accepted the excuses about "we don't have the votes," "9/11 Changed Everything," "we need EVIDENCE of election fraud," "the republicans won't let us amend...won't let us bring bills to floor, make us work all night on bills that we don't know what's in them, etc...etc....etc."

Good Cop/Bad Cop...

[mmonk]

18. They better get their sh*t together.

[treestar]

19. The problem for Reid and Pelosi and other leading Democrats

Is that they can't defend themselves to their own party members. They can't explain what they are doing publicly to us. If they tried, the M$M would make all sorts of hash out of it.

I think they know what they are doing and are on the right side, and may be doing the best they can with what they have. (At the risk of sounding like a DU version of a kool-aid drinker).

[tomp]

37. so you're saying: trust the dem leadership a little longer

kool-aid is right, democratic flavor, and definitely spiked.

[treestar]

58. Why would they do what they are doing, though?

Why make a show and back down?

Is it funding the troops and the fear that not doing something will look like abandoning them. You have to know the media will make hash out of that.

Do you really think they put up a show to get elected but are closet repukes? This could be tinfoil hat stuff.

And how can they explain themselves without the right wing media hearing - and you have to know what they'll do with the information.

I don't think the absolute automatic mistrust is necessarily called for, but them I'm older and have seen myself gain a greater understanding of things, and known that I didn't always know everything about what someone else was doing and that the first line emotional reaction is often based on lack of information.

[Demeter]

23. I Don't Trust Rahm and Steny and I Don't Want Them Deciding Things

and if Pelosi and Reid can't keep them in line, then they should resign. Or fire the bastards.

Act like Leaders, not like soggy cardboard!

[Morgana LaFey]

126. Yup. That pretty well sums it up for me. Well said, too. nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

137. He's been there for 3, count 'em, 3 years and he has more influence

than the vast majority of the House.

:wtf:

[knight_of_the_star]

144. Those two should get the axe

They're probably the ones who made this whole sellout happen anyway, this reeks of power-playing. I hope that Madame Speaker decides to play rough back and show them who is in charge of the House.

[Odin2005]

24. Time to purge the DLC Bush enablers.

They have no right to call themselves Democrats.

[deutsey]

25. Bill Hicks bit puts it in context for me

"It's just a handful of people that run everything, and that's provable.... I have this feeling that whoever's elected president, like Clinton was, no matter what promises you make on the campaign trail - blah, blah, blah - when you win, you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist, capitalist scumfucks that got you in there, and this little screen comes down... and it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before, which looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll.... And then the screen comes up, the lights come on, and they say to the new president, 'Any questions?' ... : 'Just what my agenda is.'"

:evilfrown:

[hippiechick]

45. I think you got THAT absolutely right.

:hide:

[Cults4Bush]

59. Hicks was a prophet.

I missed seeing him in a very small camping festival that wouldve have given me access to basically hang out and party with him... he died shortly before the festival :(

I know one thing for sure the entire whitehouse and some dems are in fact sucking satans cock as I type this to you:)

[Shipwack]

138. lol... thank you very much for my first chuckle all week.

God, I wish Hicks were here for all of this... He'd be in perpetual rant mode.

"I'll show you politics in America right here. I believe the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'Well, I believe the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets! 'Go back to bed, America, your government is in control. Here's Love Connection, watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer.'"

[underpants]

29. This could very well be from the freshman Democrats

I know that I heard at least one say (forgot his name) that he would never vote against funding.

Perhaps the freshman Dems demanded this.

:shrug:

ON EDIT-if there is blame to be place Emmanuel was running around everywhere telling everyone how these were HIS candidates and thus tried to steal thunder from Howard Dean.

[spanone]

33. Not to be paranoid, but remember bu$h* can wiretap anyone anytime at will.

I would assume that that would include the Senate majority leader and the Speaker of the House.

[rasputin1952]

35. There are things in the background we don't know about. For

sure, sometime votes are taken on Bills just so they won't pass...The R's found out the hard way, that this is the way it soemtimes goes. Some of their more noxious Bills got passed because they pushed for a vote, and then found out to their horror that the Bill passed...:)

Perhaps this is a Chess move, as opposed to a Repubican game of checkers?...:shrug:

[Morgana LaFey]

127. Oh, please. Our folks can't play checkers, let alone chess.

Wish I had a dose of your wild-eyed optimism. OTOH, the coming down was hard and unpleasant, and I'd just as soon not do THAT again.

[rasputin1952]

131. It is the way politics works...you have to make deals to get

things done. I'm not in charge, or we would have been out of there weeks ago...a date is essentially meaningless to bush and his demons. they would ignore it, or play the terror card for months.

We can get out of there if the damn Iraqi's would step up to the plate. But this asshole admin destroyed the Iraqi military, and now there is no way to control them. Think about this, would you, if you were an Iraqi Commander, put your troops in harms way if you could get someone else to do it?

the way out is for our people to stand down, and support where necessary...let the Iraqi's deal w/it...:)

As for the compromise...it is a lot better than the alternative.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. It's the "leaders" providing the liberal Democrats a CYA vote.

"See, I voted against the war." While allowing the Republicans and the rightwing of the party to fund the carnage.

[Freddie Stubbs]

39. I'm not sure how much influence Pelosi has, considering

that the guy she backed for Majority Leader lost by such a wide margin.

[snappyturtle]

41. I haven't read the replies yet not wanting to be influenced by them.

My gut instinct is that Reid and Pelosi are saying one thing and doing quite the opposite. Do they have reasons they want/need the war to continue? They know something we don't. They either have personal interests in seeing the war go forward (which I doubt) or more likely know that we have to keep troops in strength in Iraq because of what's (?) coming up in the ME: expansion of the war.

I have watched Pelosi and Reid in their press encounters outside the WH after meetings with Bush. When they were pushing their first bill they appeared committed and staunch in their views with benchmarks and timelines. But recently, in their second effort they exhibit nervousness by swallowing hard & by darting eyes....these are little things but body language can provide an insight. What were they told in these meetings?....We know what they said they discussed but those explanations don't seem to hold water in regard to their expressed opinions now. They're between a rock and a hard place.

[KoKo]

107. interesting.....perhaps it was what you say.....

a widening war. Maybe Bush already has the Iran plans ready to go. They were forced to give him what he needs because it was a done deal. After all he has all the power he needs in place from his handpicked people. It's a chilling thought...and a scenario that our Dems were elected to prevent...or so we thought. :-(

[welshTerrier2]

42. "It makes no sense"

yeah, i'm afraid it does. what you have here is a glimpse at who is controlling the party.

neither Pelosi nor Reid wanted this bill to come to the floor. regardless of how they vote, they oppose it.

someone is pulling their strings and forced them to let this bill come to the floor. wanna hazard a guess? the Hoyer/Emanuel/Clinton wing of the party might be a good place to start.

what's the real agenda? oil. corporations. campaign money. greed. power. think it's a cliche? it's not.

do you think there's any possibility at all of a Democratic bill that prohibits foreign corporations from profiting from Iraqi oil? this isn't about benchmarks and timelines and bush and budgets and troops; it's about one single solitary objective: O-I-L.

i know you believe we should always vote for Democrats in the general election. the questions you've raised in your OP are deeply disturbing. it appears that the non-Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is really in control. it's hard to see why we should be enablers for that. i have no issue with trying to change the party by electing more progressives; i have big problems with enabling the Clinton wing of the party. no, third parties are not the answer but it is never right to support the evils that these corporatists embody.

[sheerjoy]

43. They have both let us down n/t

[Jersey Devil]

44. Orwellian doublespeak: "We are voting for it but we're not"

Total horseshit. Reid and Pelosi will vote against it but only after they make sure it has enough votes to pass. As for Clinton and Obama and any other candidate with presidential aspirations, if they vote "aye" then I am completely finished with them.

[Blue_Roses]

46. This may help clarify what is going on...

There seems to be TWO bills they are voting on.






In order to secure the bill's passage, House leaders are planning to orchestrate two votes on Thursday. The first vote will be on war funding, while the second will decide whether extra money should be spent on domestic emergencies, military base closures, veterans care and other projects.

While Pelosi, Waters and other like-minded Democrats are expected to vote against the first amendment on war funds, GOP members will likely make up for the losses. On the second vote, it is anticipated Democrats will be unified in their support for the measure and overcome GOP objections to the extra spending.

Under the plan, the Senate would receive a single bill and cast its own vote by Friday. If Senate Republicans want to block the added domestic spending, they would have to block the war funds as well.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Democrats now will focus on 2008 defense spending to try to force an end to the war. The House plans to consider the military's annual budget this July and delay debate on 2008 war funding to September, just as the White House delivers a critical progress report on Iraq.


more here...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/23/us.iraq.ap/index.html

[Blue_Roses]

48. Skinner--have you read the bill or "bills"?

I read through them last night, and while they don't have a timetable for withdrawal, there are quite a few things that will make Bush squirm.

The way these bills "sit" now make allowance for Katrina funding and minimum wage increase (sad that it has to be done this way). It also allows funding for CHIPS and other health programs. Bush is not happy about this, but this is the so-called "compromise" that they are working to reach. Republicans are trying to talk Bush into dropping the "domestic funding" but the WH knows then it would be a dead in the water bill and back to the drawing board. Bush just wants something passed before Memorial Day and the end of this fiscal quarter. The Dems know there isn't enough votes to override Bush's veto, so they are STILL trying to make him responsible for something.

The so-called "caving" really seems to be more of "let's get this done before the holiday" fix.

While I was one to get up in arms about the "caving" yesterday, I now see, after doing much reading and searching, that we are really between a rock and a hard place. Until Bush is gone, it's gonna be tough to get anything done without locking down Congress. The Dems don't want to do that because that defeats their purpose and Bush wins. Bush is one stubborn SOB.

[Virginia Dare]

92. Thank you for your reasonable response Blue_Roses..

there are too many here in a blind rage who aren't able to rationalize things right now.

[Blue_Roses]

117. Yeah, I noticed that last night

and since this is the party I choose to support--have supported since I could vote--and will continue to support until, well, you know, I thought I better decide whether I wanted to be miserable and bitch or try to figure out what is going on and what exactly I could do. Beats depression.

ON EDIT: You know, I have to add one thing here. I'm starting to see what is going to happen in the next few months. Call it a gut feeling or just stupid republicans, but ironically, this is gonna slap Bush right back in the face. This war is not going to get better. It only stands to get worse--we all know that, but Bush. (he does, he's just a stubborn SOB) If the Dems didn't support the funding, they would look like the party who doesn't support the troops--and boo hoo--it would be a republican wet dream. However, by funding the troops and throwing a "benchmark" (redundant word, for sure) it makes Bush HAVE to show some accountability. The waiver clause in the bill only makes the accountability more profound. I know it may not make much sense now, but I actually think--ironically again--this will put the wheels of motion in gear for a REAL exit from Iraq.

Look, I had Bush as a governor and sadly, he's known--let just say--by his reputation of...bull bullheadedness. He just needs more time to try and "fix" the "unfixable." All this bill does is buy him more time.

If I'm wrong, I will have my plate ready for lots of crow;)

[madfloridian]

97. One question...how many civilians and military will die in those four months?

?

[Blue_Roses]

118. I can't answer that.

It's disgusting and with each death, a swell of hatred for this administration consumes me-- yet again.

I have family in Iraq and I hold my breath every time I hear of a death. I have to find a way to deal with this and in so doing I have chosen to find something empowering with this bill. It may not be much to some, but raising the minimum wage and CHIPS is something many (my family) can benefit from in this country.

Feeling helpless doesn't feel so good.

[Bucky]

128. Far too many, but not much fewer than would have otherwise.

Keep in mind that an American pull out won't stop the fighting--indeed for quite a while after we pull out it will intensify as groups struggle to fill the power vacuum. American lives lost in Iraq are only a small fraction of the total dead in this war. Total US & coalition deaths, counting contractors, probably isn't much over 7000 people. Iraq has lost 70,000 directly and over 200,000 people indirectly to this war and occupation. The exodus from Iraq is over seven figures.

Nothing will stop the killing. Right now the proper consideration is how do we slow it down to a "tolerable" level the fastest.

[Blue_Roses]

136. well said.

nt

[madfloridian]

99. Do you have a link to the full text of the bill?

?

[Blue_Roses]

120. here ya go...

www.house.gov

Get a cup of java and get ready to read:)

I stayed up half the night reading through it and still some this am. I think I was reading it in my sleep;)

[EFerrari]

49. Somebody somewhere seems to think this helps for 2008.

And that person needs to be fired.

[blm]

79. Can ex-presidents be fired?

.

[EFerrari]

88. The whole Nafta wing of this party needs to be expelled. n/t

[Virginia Dare]

93. That would include Gore?...n/t

[EFerrari]

96. Do we know his current position? I don't. n/t

[Virginia Dare]

102. I'm not sure who you were referring to..

but recently Hillary Clinton has backed away from NAFTA, it could just be talk who knows, but I'm not sure who you mean by the "NAFTA wing" of the Democratic Party.

[Orsino]

55. This is what Big Money thinks it can steal from us...

...and what its puppets in both parties are selling us.

It's still the money, stupid.

[JPZenger]

60. Reed, Lieberman, etc. killed a short-term funding alternative

Senator Reed of Oregon was interviewed on Air America last night. He said that most Dems in the House wanted a short-term approval of funds, so that Bush would have to come back in a couple months - after his surge had completely failed.

I liked that strategy myself. But Reed said it was moderates in the Senate (plus Lie-berman) who refused to go along. They bought the argument that the military cannot plan ahead with only a couple months of funding. A compromise would be to provide all of the funding for necessities (such as equipment), but to postpone some of the funding for contractors in Iraq.

[zippy890]

61. READ DAVID SIROTA'S TAKE ON THE VOTE FOR THIS BILL

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/24/9255/80693

"Today is the day House Democrats are expected to vote on Iraq - except, news out of Washington this morning says the leadership has come up with a nifty little trick to try to prevent the public from seeing who voted for giving Bush a blank check, and who voted against it. If you thought Democrats were behaving like cowards by caving into a President at a three-decade low in presidential polling and giving him the very blank check they explicitly promised not to give him during the 2006 election, you ain't seen nothing yet. We are watching the rise of the Dick Cheney Democrats - that is, the rise of Democrats who endorse governing in secret and hiding the public's business from the public itself."

TO SUM UP - MAKE SURE TO WATCH THE VOTE ON THE RULE, THAT IS THE KEY VOTE. DEMS WILL BRAG THEY ARE VOTING AGAINST THE GOP AMENDMENT, WHEN THE KEY VOTE IS ON THE RULE -D"

--

interesting, the maneuvering going on here.

[KoKo]

71. Interesting....Explains why David (R) Drier was up compaining that Dems had done Bill in Secret

last night not allowing the Repugs to see it. He said the Dems didn't like it when we did this but now they are doing the same thing and we won't know what's exactly in this bill until after we have voted on it. He then turned to Congresswoman Louise Slaughter and said: "you remember when you complained about this."

I thought it was just him jabbering Repug points but maybe it was that the Repugs put that little (no peeking on who is voting as a traitor) in that bill. (It would be good if they had slipped some benchmarks in there that the Repugs won't know about until after the vote...but that would be way beyond dreaming.)

Drier was on C-Span 2 saying this about an hour ago.

[snappyturtle]

110. I happened to be listening to him too..to me it's not a good thing

that either side does this. I just don't understand what it accomplishes for either side.

[RevCheesehead]

64. It seems to me that "they" want to replace Reid.

Harry's toast. No matter what he does, he's screwed.

[KoKo]

72. Who woul be the contender? I can see Hoyer or Emmanuel for Pelosi being pushed by DLC

but I don't see the "next in line" for Reid. (Reid wouldn't be a big loss to me, btw) I stand by Pelosi, though.

[RevCheesehead]

77. Let me put on my tinfoil hat and say:

If a deal's already been made, then Obama will be Senate leader, with Hilary getting the nomination. :tinfoilhat:

[RevCheesehead]

68. Now we know why they blackballed Murtha.

Steny Hoyer is, apparently, bought and paid for.

[lonestarnot]

69. Makes no fucking sense. You got that right!

[Usrename]

80. Thank you. It makes no sense.

:applause:

[Gregorian]

81. Is our economy in worse shape than we the people realize?

After all, this appears to be yet another Kamikaze run for the endzone.

We are a military economy. We have a war president. Therefore...


edit- And I'll add, they brought us this war in the first place. Go figure. No WMD? I think I've figured it out.

[blm]

98. I think you make a GREAT POINT, Gregorian. Something's been fishy for decades.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html

[Gregorian]

113. I don't get along with evil.

In fact, I avoid republicans like the plague. One of my best friends turned. I don't really know him as much as try and tolerate him now. I know it sounds shallow.

Somewhere I read a sharply written piece about how making a pact with republicans is like trying to get along with Satan. I've been offended by republicans since I was younger than a teenager. And yet I didn't even know what a Republican was.

We don't get along. We are never going to get along. It's a war with no compromise between us. I know that sounds really stupid and shallow. It's binary. And as such it must be flawed. But I don't see how we can have something like half legal abortions, or partial wars.

The problem is the media. And it's not going to be fixed in a short period of time. The people have been dumbed down. And they are not going to turn around quickly without something catastrophic. Like another country stopping our stupidity, or an economic disaster. Humility isn't squeezed out of arrogant fools without a lot of effort.

So thank goodness for the internet. At least we here have exposed the lies and crimes. But as for expecting someone like Bill Clinton to do it, it just won't happen. And neither will it with Al Gore. He's a man for the job, but he's a milktoast for the most part.

I have an analogy for how I feel about America that seems totally unrelated. I discovered hot sauce that was missing the hot. I discovered beer that was nonalcoholic. What the...? I don't think many people get it. I'm highly offended by this society. It makes little to no sense to me. We need fire. We need memory and intelligence. And it's going to take hard work.

Well, that was a stupid rant. I doubt it even makes sense. I'm sitting here in a rental house after living on 200 acres. Cars whizzing past. Idiots with kids. I'm frustrated. A consumer society. A money grubbing government. And so few people who know what life is about.

[TheModernTerrorist]

82. my hope

is that they've got enough votes to vote it down, that way they can galvanized the need for compromise, thus bringing more Republicans over to the side of reason, in order to obtain a veto-proof majority.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

85. Well, we'll find out soon enough.

When is the damn thing anyways?

[madfloridian]

89. Go to the DLC website...read the "short leash" article.

www.dlc.org

Then ask Harold about it. He's apparently in charge of ideas.

[mudesi]

90. Whose compromise? Satan. (nm)

[Hell Hath No Fury]

95. Whose compromise is it?

The same damn wing of the Democratic Party who voted for the IWR because they did not want to be perceived as anti-war and weak on security before an election, that's who.

This time, they do not want to risk being perceived as not supporting the troops by defunding the war before an election.

It is that. Fucking. Simple.

And The People get thrown a bone in the form of the domestic spending package, while they get to use it as a political figleaf.

I repeat: It is that. Fucking. Simple.

It's a variation on the Gang of 14 holding everyone else -- including Pelosi -- by the balls all over again.

You have to face some hard facts, Skinner, there are a number of seriously influencial people in the Democratic Party who are, to be blunt, such political animals that they are willing to do/say/sell out just about anything or anyone to get elected. They don't give a shit if Pelosi or Reid come off as figureheads, because, in this group's book, they are.

How long before you finally get it, Skinner? The Democratic Party has enemies within the gates.

[mudesi]

101. The DLC

It's amazing, isn't it? Whenever the liberals here at DU point out that the Democratic party needs to kick the DINOs out, a plethora of DLC apologists and "realists" come out of the woodwork. The result is what we're all seeing before us today. Capitulation to a president whose poll numbers hover around the 30% range.

It will never end until liberals and progressives become members of the Democratic party. There are still far too many conservatives there, like Rahm Emanuel, for example.

[Individualist]

108. Absolutely!

[Hubert Flottz]

104. It's the sickening kind of feeling I had when I knew they were dead

wrong, to Give Bush the okay to go to war in the first place. Remember how pissed we were at the Rose Garden Democrats? I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired.

[myrna minx]

112. I'll never forget that day. I think DU nearly melted down.

I'm with you. I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired. I feel like a fool that I thought anything would change.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

122. That was just one more of those....

"hold your powder" days here -- those of us who were slamming the son of a bitches who stood with the fucktard while stabbing other Dems in the back were told to simmer down!, hold your horses, the Dems couldn't stop Bush anyway so why get your panties in a wad, a Dem who votes against this will be DOA come election time, they are not giving him the authority to go to war, just to go to the UN.....and on and on and on....

How many days like that have we had here over the years???

Keep your powder dry.
Trust the Dems, they are working behind the scenes.
They have no choice, they have to (insert cowardly, getting Bush-fucked action here).

Today's just another in a long line of those days....though I am heartened to see the number of apologists down considerably.

[orleans]

114. i suspected problems when impeachment was off the table

and i kept thinking maybe she means it's off the table for *now*

HA! silly me!

[depakid]

115. Reid has never evinced much in the way of leadership or control

At times (e.g., the bankruptcy bill) he's even crossed over and voted with the Republicans.

[NobleCynic]

119. Keep in mind he is a Nevada Democrat

A Nevada Democrat in any other state would be considered a Republican. A Nevada Republican in any other state would be considered a ... you get the idea.

[depakid]

121. Which begs the question

as to why he was chosen to be the opposition leader in the first place.

[NobleCynic]

129. Because he masterminded the Jim Jeffords switch in 2001

That would be my guess.

Edited to add:

And because he's as moderate of a Democrat as you get.

[PATRICK]

123. Repeating mistakes

is a national disease from the top. Perception is everything especially when nearly all long term strategies have failed. Ironically the success of 2006, despite removing most of the pertinent factors and the limiting fraud, has been pushed to empowerment of the main drags on the party- before they even get to caving "sagely" to Bush. Long term results other than those have been nothing but a string of fizzles and disasters, standing boldly with a fire hose with knots in it, then looking weak and stupid. Looking- which is what you would think a politician would understand.

On all ends of the equation except for the coddling of the uneasy DINO coalition and the anti-progressive
logs are utterly bankrupt, yet the new roots has no power to lead and the moderates in charge don't dare try to attack with this uneasy crew. This is NOT the time for this kind of fearful fence sitting and truly is committed to losing just as daily soldiers die in these maneuvers in the hallowed halls.

[Bucky]

125. This *apparent* weakness is the price Democrats pay for not marching in lockstep

This was a fumbling, bumbling half-step in the right direction. If we could get all the Democrats to all agree all at once to cut off funding, it might have gone differently. But this is how a headless herd decides--slowly. Democrats aren't good at speaking with one voice. This is why we're Democrats.

I don't like the compromise, but I don't feel betrayed by it either. It just means we have to keep pushing harder for them to do the jobs they were elected to do. This vote wasn't a loss. It was draw. There will be more rounds in this fight.

And lots of soldiers and civilians will die in Iraq while the fight goes on. And then many more will die for many months after it's over.

Bush may well turn out to be the most influential man in the 21st century.

[rasputin1952]

130. the news on NPR is saying that a compromise was reached

where the "pullout dater" would be removed, and bush would not veto domestic spending in the bill. In all actuality, this does not appear to be a bad compromise at this point. The funding for Iraq is some 4 months of duration, 4 months more than I would like to see, but it is better than 6 months.

If we can finally get the Iraqi's to pull their own weight, we might be out of there rather quickly.

I don't like this war one iota, but I am not in charge, so I can't just yank 'em out of there. This looks like the best one could get at this point.

:(

[Warren Stupidity]

142. "does not appear to be a bad compromise "

Oh for crying out loud. When are you folks going to get a grip?

[rasputin1952]

143. Probably about the same time you do...

:D

[ReadTomPaine]

133. K&R

Another informative, thoughtful post. Thank you, David.

[Coexist]

135. did you read this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/are-democrats-afraid-to_b_49232.html

[Tatiana]

140. On Bernie Ward's program, Sen. Mike Gravel (Dem presidential candidate) accused Obama and Hillary.

Go to this link to the KGO-AM archive to hear a replay of the first hour that Sen. Gravel was on.

http://rope.kgoam810.com/archive/kgo22.asx

He makes the accusation at about 38:38 into the program. A rough transcript:

"....It's worse than that, they're dying and these people are playing politics as usual. Obama and Hillary asked Reid so that they could have four symbolic votes on a water bill that's going nowhere so that they could show that they're against the war. I mean it doesn't come any phonier than that and these are the people that are asking to become President of the United States. And it's not only them. You're talking Biden, Dodd and what they're saying is that they can't lead their way out of a paper bag. Because there is a way to get to George Bush. Stop and think. The Congress is number one in the Constitution. The President is number two. The Congress has the power to make law. The President can't make law, all he can do is enforce it and obey it. For them not to use the power at their fingertips to stop this terrible situation..."

Take it with a grain of salt, but he offers interesting ideas regarding ways Congress can use their powers to stop the war.

[Warren Stupidity]

141. Smells like pervasive corruption to me.

This stinks. It stinks real bad. We have been had, big time. Our fears of an overt coup were unfounded, the stealth coup: rove's permanent majority, has happened and we are fucking clueless.

I have not been this outraged since Katrina's dead were floating in a stew of bad looter racist bullshit blaring over the bullshit media system. The plain facts are now staring us in the face. Again.