Dems voted FOR funding the war before they voted AGAINST it (because Mr. 28% forced them to?)

[StefanX]

I'm so confused.

Earlier we PASSED a great bill which:

-- FUNDS the troops, AND
-- sets a timeline for success.

Bush vetoed it -- so HE was the one who rejected the funding.

Then for some unknown reason we turned around and came up with a sucky NEW bill, which:

-- FUNDS the troops
-- sets NO timeline

And some (principled) Dems are going to vote AGAINST it (because it doesn't set a timetable for success).

So now any Dem voting AGAINST the second supplemental bill will be "rejecting the funding".

I think I liked the first bill better.

My favorite line in Olbermann's piece on betrayal was where he said we should UNSEAT PELOSI AND REID. If they can't lead, they should get out of the way -- and let someone lead who can reflect what 70% of The People want:

AN END TO THIS WAR OF LIES

I've never seen so many DUers feeling betrayed by their DC Dem "leaders". Even Skinner sounds disappointed. Everything was going along so good, we had Bush backed into a corner, defunding the troops was his fault -- all because we cleverly linked FUNDING and TIMELINES into the same bill. Who cares if we don't have the votes to "override a veto"? We don't NEED to override a veto -- because who needed that first bill more, Bush or us? Let it sit there, vetoed. The power of the purse was on our side. Bush could finagle some funding for the troops (by robbing Halliburton -- thanks Keith!) but maybe he'd (gasp!) have to BRING THEM HOME to get them out of harm's way. Works for me -- and no veto override required. (Unless I'm missing something about parliamentary procedures -- if so please enlighten me.)

Now we delinked them -- and gave ourself a "funding" bill WE can vote against, so WE can look bad.

I can honestly say that for me this is the most disappointing moment since... well, there have been so many: the stolen 2000 elections, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War Resolution, the NSA spying flap that didn't go anywhere, the Dems letting that asshole get onto the Supreme Court (I'm too tired to google his name), getting rid of habeas corpus, allowing torture...

I'm seriously thinking of giving up on keeping track of this whole politics mess now because NOBODY (except Edwards and Dodd, right now) IN WASHINGTON EVER LISTENS TO ANYTHING WE SAY.

Like I said, we were starting to finally get somewhere, we were starting to get some power, we didn't NEED to compromise -- and then we gave everything away and came up with a toothless, backwards bill that now makes US look bad if we vote against it.

I guess I can take it and keep fighting when the other side screws us over. That's to be expected. But now that Pelosi and Reid have screwed us over... I really feel like not bothering my beautiful mind anymore over the meltdown in this country. Why should the grassroots keep fighting if our leaders won't?

[magellan]

1. I particularly dislike

...the excuse given by the Dem leadership for caving to Bush**: because they want to make sure funding is available to keep the troops going because Bush** keeps vetoing anything with timelines (even fake ones). So fine, if they want to spin it that way. But then 140 of them, including Pelosi, turn around and vote against the bleedin' thing!!

Hypocrites or cowards, I'm not sure which. Maybe both.

[Marr]

2. I can only assume they think we're as stupid as the Republican base.

The Dems are going to pay a heavy price at the polls for this.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Why did all the republicans vote against it?

Is there some deeper strategy involved here that we're all missing?

[NavyDavy]

4. i think the we the dems would have suffered in the polls if we

spent the next 2 yrs fighting with the WH and *..... we also would fall right into the repukes trap of keeping the dems busy with this matter while people here in the states are going without food and health insurance, etc......