It looks like once again the Dems have decided to concede the game before it starts. I really want to back Reid and the Senate Dems, but his answer strikes me as contemptible. They don't need a veto-proof majority. All they have to do is refuse funding unless their conditions are met. But that's evidently too uncompromising for Reid. The structure of the US government gives the Congressional Dems all the tools they need to get what they say they want -- and that seems to scare the shit out of them.

He doesn't need 60 votes. He only needs 41 votes to stop funding the war.

I'm stunned. The Dems get what the deserve. I'm done with them, and I really tried.

Unless Reid can convince 10 Rethugs to help him pass a bill , nothing will change. We can blame Reid and Dems all we want but the reality is Dems don't have the votes and Bush knows it.

Why is this a surprise? These are the same stalwart leaders who folded on domestic spying-FISA so that they could get out of town for summer vacation. And they wonder why their approval ratings are sinking below the Deciders? They were supposed to do something about this and they are failing miserably.

I find it hard to believe that Reid used to be a boxer. He is telegraphing his punches at every turn.

This is sounding exactly like capitulation on the supplemental funding. Remember when Obama came out and said something like, "We can't leave the troops in the field unfunded"? Good times.

No surprise here folks,Reid has always shown himself as ineffective leader of senate Dems.In actuality Reid is a conservative Dem & you see what they have done to the middle class & working poor along with their Repuke friends in the last 13 yrs.

Unless Reid can convince 10 Rethugs to help him pass a bill , nothing will change. We can blame Reid and Dems all we want but the reality is Dems don't have the votes and Bush knows it.

What are you talking about? All the Dems need to do is send Bush a funding bill with the conditions they demand. Either he signs it or there's no funding. So why are you continuing to spread this myth that the Dems don't have the votes? It's the Bushies who don't have to votes to pass condition-free funding. All the Dems need to do is use the power the Constitution gave them. This is not a question of having the votes, it's a question of political courage.

No American Congress has ever cut off funding for American troops while those troops were in the field conducting combat operations. Has never happened. When Congress cut off funds to the South Vietnamese government, American combat troops had been withdrawn. The way that could be spun would haunt Democratic candidates for years to come. It would be a godsend to Republicans who are now in trouble with the electorate over IRaq. Of course, none of that means a thing to people who post on this site who have never had to run for election in a Republican leaning district.

Has Harry forgotten how the Republicans negotiate?
How many times did Newt and his crew threaten to then bring the government to a standstill?

Senator Reid is confirming that Democrats are basically no different than Republicans when it comes to matters of war and peace. In fact, the Republicans are more honest about their position.

Unfortunately, it appears the Democrats have already surrendered to the right wing pigs. And if they can't stand up to a demoralized Republican Party, then who the hell can they stand up against?

What this means is what it always means when Democrats start waffling: Reid is signaling to the enemy before the battle has even begun that he would prefer to retreat and then negotiate instead of fighting for what he claims to believe in.

It also means that the milque toast Democrats who continue to allow him to be leader should have to justify why they allow him to remain in a position to capitulate to any and all Republicans willing to say "Boo!" to him. After they have given their half assed rationale they should then all be given a choice and either be forced to live in Baghdad outside of the Green Zone and fending for themselves just like the average Iraqi does for 2 weeks each or participate with troops on the ground in the actual surge efforts in Baghdad 24/7 for one week's duration. Then, when or if they return to their comfortable digs in DC, we'll see if they're ready to fight for an end to that abominable war.

Reid and Pelosi have two choices.

1. Pass no bill.
2. Pass a bill giving the president exactly what he wants.

There is no compromise between these two, because any significant compromise will be filibustered and vetoed. It is perfectly possible for one person (either Reid or Pelosi) to do #1, though, all by themselves, by just not bringing a vote to the floor.

However, such won't stop the war. If no regular funding bill is passed, then spending on critical things, like national security, continue under current law. Think back to the government shut down under Clinton-the national parks closed, but the FBI still went to work.

So, Bush will just declare the Iraq war to be national security-related. Wheeeee!

Plus, he gets to fuck with the troops, and blame the Democrats in the process. He will consider things like Internet access for the troops to be able to contact thier families to be non-critical-and he gets to blame the Democrats for withholding such! Here's bread and water for you, solider-the Democrats won't let me give you real food!

And then, in for a penny, in for a pound. The Democrats aren't going to just give Bush half of what he wants, because then they get to look like they are giving in, plus they can get blamed when it turns to shit, for not giving him everything.

The unfortunate thing here is Reid and Pelosi won't admit they have no power to stop the war, so it looks like they are giving in on thier free will when they could stop things. But they know they can't.

Reid and Pelosi have two choices.

1. Pass no bill.
2. Pass a bill giving the president exactly what he wants.

There is no compromise between these two, because any significant compromise will be filibustered and vetoed. It is perfectly possible for one person (either Reid or Pelosi) to do #1, though, all by themselves, by just not bringing a vote to the floor.

These are the choices because you say so? Your statement is just not true. The Dems can pass a bill with whatever conditions they want. It doesn't matter if it's vetoed -- it's just submitted again while Bush denies funding for the troops. If the Dems can't make their case that "We passed a bill supporting the troops now and bringing them home soon. The president vetoed funding for the troops", then they should really all just resign. The American people are overwhelmingly on their side. All they have to do is act like responsible adults.

js wrote:

"Unless Reid can convince 10 Rethugs to help him pass a bill , nothing will change. We can blame Reid and Dems all we want but the reality is Dems don't have the votes and Bush knows it."

Okay, if you HAVE to pass something the statement is true, but the Democrats don't have to pass anything at all. They don't have to wrest control of all governmental power from the executive. They need only starve it by refusing to act. The Democrats absolutely control the power of the purse and need to pass nothing whatsoever to bring the war to a halt. If they had any courage at all they would use that power, but they have no courage whatsoever.

I teach government from time to time and one of the points I stress with my students is that in our legislative system, where all power is divided between houses of legislatures and their committees and so forth, the most powerful position to take usually is "no." These Democratic cowards see the Republicans saying no and are so stupid they don't realize they too can say no. It is, after all, only the warmongers who need anything to pass in order to continue the madness and murder in Iraq or to intiate even more of it in Iran. But the pussy Democrats whine over and over that they need 10
Republicans to pass something. Bullshit! Nothing but cowardly bullshit!

The Democrats can say no to anything they wish or as many things as they wish and they can (if they have any balls though it's pretty clear they don't) trade action on legislation for what they want in return. But they don't do that because they are cowardly pansies without any convictions at all. Haqving seen a far more courageous Congress bring Vietnam to a close back in the 70's, it is incredibly disheartening to see a Democratic Congress so anemic and weak that they fail to act even as our sons and daughters are being killed and dismembered in an outrageous and doomed war that should never have been fought. This is particularly so when the bulk of them certainly understood after Vietnam that such a waste and really such a crime should never be allowed to occur again.

If they will not act under these circumstances it is certainly fair to ask under what circumstances would they be prepared to act? When? Really! When, you cowardly motherfuckers? Will you act after you have bankrupted the nation and killed off the current generation of young people? When?

They have not the courage to do anything and it is appalling. But what they can do and ought to do is turn the tables on those Republican swine who also don't have the courage to stop an immoral, illegal war. By saying no to war funding and/or any legislation the White House and their handmaidens want unless and until there is a firm timetable for withdrawal that has all our troops home and safe by Labor Day next year they would bring the war to a halt. The pressure would then be on the people who brought this plague upon us instead of the Democrats. But it would be a contest of wills and in such a contest Democrats lose because we do not elect people with any will or any backbone or convictions for which they will ever stand their ground for fear of being called names and for fear of being called weak. What a disreputable lot they are really! All of them!

They are afraid of their own shadows and it isn't just the pathetic Harry Reid either. It's also the rest of them. Every sitting Senator and Congressman who is not right this minute pressing for a complete refusal to fund the war any further should resign. But of course, they won't do that because that would require some honor and sense of shame: qualities our congressional Democrats simply do not possess.

On the other hand, I take it that the political calculus goes something like this. Everything that is happening in Iraq right now is of Bush's making...pure and simple. If the Dems force him out now without a huge contingent of former Bush-enabler Republicans on board the mutiny, then everything that happens in Iraq from then on will be attributed to the "Defeatocrats" who will be blamed for everything from troop casulties to sectarian violence to lack of politcal progress to problems with the sewer systems...everything. Dems believe they simply cannot battle that political scenario so they are saying, allright, you want your f--ing war, you got your war. You don't want to pull out, fine. That's our 2008 campaign, right there, thankyou very much Dubya. This is nothing but a political calculation.

How many fucking bozos are there out there? The Democrats need 0 votes. DON'T SEND UP A FUCKING FUNDING BILL. NO BILL, NO FUCKING VOTE, NOT FUCKING MONEY.

Are you all that stupid?

You craft the bill you want. Make the Republicans filibuster the defense appropriation. Fuck. It's not complicated. Make them the party that doesn't want to fund the troops. Reid controls the agenda. Keep it front and center.

This is a smart move. You know, the GOP and FOX were going to call them names? Names, people. They were going to call them defeatists and traitors, but the Dems have a brilliant plan! Surrender to the GOP and Bush and then they won't call us names! And it is working brilliantly, people.

My Grandma has bigger balls.

Could someone kindly inform Senator Reid that the Democrats have a majority in the House and Senate? That 'we' won the 2006 midterms in bold fashion? Because I don't think he knows. He seems to be operating under the impression that the Republicans are still in charge of everything.

Really, when was the last fucking time that this President didn't get what he wanted? That's right, you can't name it, BECAUSE HE IS STILL GETTING EVERY GODDAMN THING HE WANTS ALL THE TIME, REGARDLESS OF HOW STUPID AND UNPOPULAR IT IS.

Why can't we vote out *all* these clowns in one go? God our system sucks.

Rice, other US officials challenge AIPAC subpoenas in closed-door court hearing 31 Aug 2007 US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other senior administration officials should be exempt from testifying about whether they shared classified national defense information with two American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobbyists, lawyers argued at a closed-door court session Thursday. Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, indicted in 2005 under the 1917 Espionage Act for allegedly conspiring to receive and disclose classified US defense information over a five-year period dating back to 1999, say that AIPAC helped write US foreign policy in the Middle East with the tacit endorsement of US officials; they have subpoenaed Rice and other US intelligence officials to testify to this.

Pro-war group launches $15 million ad blitz By Mike Allen 22 Aug 2007 A new group, Freedom’s Watch, is launching Wednesday with a $15 million, five-week campaign of TV, radio and Web ads featuring military veterans that is aimed at retaining support in Congress for President [sic] Bush’s "surge" policy on Iraq. "For those who believe in peace through strength, the cavalry is coming," said former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, who is a founding board member of the group.
14). Ari Fleischer----Official White House Spokesman for the Bush (Jr) Administration. Prominent in the Jewish community, some reports state that he holds Israeli citizenship. Fleischer is closely connected to the extremist Jewish group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, who follow the Qabala, and hold very extremist and insulting views of non-Jews. Fleischer was the co-president of Chabad's Capitol Jewish Forum. He received the Young
Leadership Award from the American Friends of Lubavitch in October, 2001

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely, Now just look at the below names and where they fit in with this Nazi dictator:

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Welcome to Freedom’s Watch, an organization dedicated to fighting to protect the ideals and issues that keep America strong and prosperous.
Our mission is to ensure a strong national defense and a powerful fight against terror, especially in Iraq. On the domestic front, our mission is to give hope, lift people up, and achieve prosperity through free enterprise.Those who want to quit while victory is possible have dominated the public debate about terror and Iraq since the 2004 election. Our group will give a voice to those who believe that victory is America's only choice. For those who believe in peace through strength, the cavalry is coming. Our goal, as we await General Petraeus' report, is to make sure our elected leaders do not abandon our nation's mission in Iraq and that they do not cave in to the demands of those who want to cut and run.
Israeli Communications Priorities 2003
ADC has obtained, and is publishing in full, a vital new Israeli propaganda strategy document for the period following the war in Iraq. The document, entitled "Wexner Analysis: Israeli Communications Priorities 2003," was prepared for the Wexner Foundation, which operates leadership training programs such as the "Birthright Israel" project which offers free trips for young Jewish Americans to Israel, by the public relations firm the Luntz Research Companies and the Israel Project. However, please note that the report's suggested language is written in a distinctly Israeli, as opposed to a Jewish American, voice.