Comments (60)

Lindsey wrote on February 23, 2007 9:34 AM:

But the proposals that set the toughest requirements are likely to drop out, such as a demand that troops be trained on and deployed with the combat equipment they will use in Iraq.

How low have we sunk that proper training is even on the agenda, let alone seen as one of the toughest requirements?

McDonald's won't let employees near the fryer without proper instructions.

Lindsey wrote on February 23, 2007 9:35 AM:

Sorry for the lack of quotes, I thought html italics was OK.

Barbara wrote on February 23, 2007 9:46 AM:

This is outrageous. Why aren't we impeaching Cheney, Gonzales, and then Bush. My son is already in Iraq. Is fighting a morally wrong war, doesn't have the equipment he needs and now we are sending more untrained and unequipped kids like him into the mess. And the Democrats can't muster enough courage to stop this.

JMo wrote on February 23, 2007 9:47 AM:

I wish the Democrats would add a provision to these bills simply shutting off the backdoor draft. The Democratic presidential contenders ought to be making this a big feature in their campaign promises. "Bush is ruining the Army" should be a major sound bite. There is a good piece about the strain third and fourth tours of duty are putting on service members and families on the front page of the New York Times today.

Rich wrote on February 23, 2007 9:56 AM:

No matter what you think about the merits of some of the toughest proposals, you have to keep in mind that the Democrats don't have sufficient votes to pass them.

jon wrote on February 23, 2007 10:14 AM:

"No matter what you think about the merits of some of the toughest proposals, you have to keep in mind that the Democrats don't have sufficient votes to pass them"

Exactly!!! So why waste this time doing something that will result in nothing. This is the President's war...pure and simple and short of impeachment he is going to execute it. So the Dems would be much better off working to ensure they can document, oversee, and hold accountable this President and those who support him in this effort. We don't need another debate about debating.

Anonymous wrote on February 23, 2007 10:28 AM:

"No matter what you think about the merits of some of the toughest proposals, you have to keep in mind that the Democrats don't have sufficient votes to pass them."

But they should at least try an dmake some noise about them. A basic tenet of negotiating is that you don't ask for less than you want.

And I agree with Lindsey above. The democrats should try for Murtha's proposal and if it fails try to be all over the media explaining that proper training and equipment is too harsh a requirement for America's troops.

Josh wrote on February 23, 2007 10:33 AM:

"war trumps peace" W.

Ken from Ken's Kitchen wrote on February 23, 2007 10:33 AM:

A "plan to restrict funding for only those troops deemed fully rested, trained and equipped was too aggressive for a number of moderate Democrats." Huh?

Blue Dog Dems are giving 'moderate' a bad name. Please let's call a spade a spade. Most of these pantywaists are from conservative districts. Thank you.

philbert wrote on February 23, 2007 10:37 AM:

Iraq is a long way from over. In my opinion, Democrats should lead the way and require more troops in Afghanistan.

Congress can "raise and support armies" per the Constitution. Why not authorize funds for a military force dedicated solely to Afghanistan. The President doesn't have to request it, he only has to implement it.

Let's show the idiot and his jokers how to do this.

Steve LaBonne wrote on February 23, 2007 10:38 AM:

I'm f****** sick and tired of hearing about "moderate Democrats" prissily turning up their dainty little noses at proposals that are too "strong" for them. On an issue like the escalation of this illegal and disastrous war there is no further room for splitting the difference. They need to decide which goddamn side they're on. (And some of them need a good strong primary challenge come the next elections.)

Mike wrote on February 23, 2007 10:40 AM:

Would the possibility of Senate action opposing the Bush administration be the "tipping" point for Lieberman to switch parties?

Paul wrote on February 23, 2007 10:42 AM:

"...making President Bush acknowledge that he is sending troops into Iraq underequipped and under-rested..."

How can they MAKE him do this? I don't get it.

Steve LaBonne wrote on February 23, 2007 10:45 AM:

Paul, his opposition to a measure simply calling for only properly rested and equipped troops to be sent would be mighty tough- no, impossible- to justify without implicitly but clearly making exactly that acknowledgement. Passing Murtha's resolution should be a no-brainer.

r€nato wrote on February 23, 2007 10:47 AM:

what Mike said. The Dems have a one vote majority in the Senate. Lieberman is a dead-ender. If the resolution has any teeth, Lieberman either jumps (to a sinking) ship or votes with the Repukes.

People of Connecticut, what were you thinking last fall????

David K wrote on February 23, 2007 10:55 AM:

I'm so tired of this crap. It's time to take to the streets.

LionelEHutz wrote on February 23, 2007 10:57 AM:

Blame the Blue Dogs and the easily fooled voters of Connecticut for this craptacular mess.

David K wrote on February 23, 2007 11:06 AM:

A very large needs to march at its earliest convenience on the house of Lieberman (figuratively that is). I would settle for his office in Hartford. Demand that he step down. The man lied his way back into the Senate after getting his ass kicked in the primary. Dumb as they are, I can't imagine Connecticut Dems think a whole lot of him now.

Tom in DC wrote on February 23, 2007 11:17 AM:

I feel sorry for Barbara with her son in Iraq. Her misguided notion of what this war is has polluted her brain. I hope this hasn't been passed on to her son.

Perhaps the Dems cannot garner enough support because more people are pro defending this country than they would have us believe.

and one more thing...War does peace. In fact, it ensures it. You will never have peace with these islamic terrorists until you defeat them. Bush knows this. Thank god he doesn't bow to public pressure.

Texasjon wrote on February 23, 2007 11:26 AM:

Right, we don't have the votes to push these restrictions through.

Instead we should be moving to PUNISH those who lied us into this war. The only way we can show the world where the AMERICAN PEOPLE stand is to hold these arrogant leaders accountable. Bush, Cheaney, et al, need to be punished, removed from office and reduced to paupers.

I am so dissappointed in my country.

Tom in DC wrote on February 23, 2007 11:29 AM:

To: Texasjon.

Make sure you include in your list of "liars": Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Tony Blair, Hilary Clinton, yadda yadda yadda. They all said the same story, reading the same intelligence. It's convenient how so many have forgotten this.

Hedley Lamarr wrote on February 23, 2007 11:30 AM:

They need to change that to March 2007; not 2008.

What Barbara said - who will be the last one to die for a tragic mistake by our resident moron?

Dave H wrote on February 23, 2007 11:36 AM:

To Tom in DC:
I feel sorry for you, Tom. What, exactly, is Barbara's "misguided notion." I suppose it depends on what the purpose of the war is, right? So, Tom, what is the purpose of the war this week?

Is it to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction? Can't be that because there were none and the group appointed by the president himself has said so. In fact, the president himself has said they found no weapons of mass destruction.

So is the purpose of the war to defeat terrorism?
Can't be that either because America's being there is just creating more recruiting opportunities for Al Qaeda. Even Rummy himself said "we have no metric for knowing if we are winning." I'm confident of the quote, though I might be off by a word or two.
Moreover, American generals have said we are creating terrorists faster than we can kill them.

Is the purpose of the war to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here"?
Well, if Bush and his cronies were even halfway competent we wouldn't have to send armies and navies, and Barbara's son, overseas. But I suppose the skill and subtlety that is needed for non-military action is beyond the intelligence of Bush and his kind of Republican. Or maybe it's just not manly enough.

Is that it, Tom? Are you one of those Tom Clancy fans who gets himself hot and bothered reading about butch special forces guys "taking out the bad guys", all for "freedom and the American way"?
That's it, isn't it Tom? You ain't happy unless America is bombing the hell out of someone, are you?

LionelEHutz wrote on February 23, 2007 11:42 AM:

To Tom in DC,

Bush lied to Congress and to the American people so that he could start the Iraq war. Congress never had the same intelligence as Bush because he cherry picked the bits that supported his policy. Congress members have already said this. So, blaming Congress and your fellow Americans for Bush's lies is really no better than telling a rape victim that it was their fault they were raped. Have you no shame?

And FYI -- Bill Clinton wasn't President in 2003 when we went to war. George W. Bush was.

P J Evans wrote on February 23, 2007 11:43 AM:

What year are the Democrats planning to become a real political party again, instead of a high school speech class, talking about what they plan to be when they grow up? I'd like real action on this, rather than more f*cking speeches. Either get with the withdrawal idea, or admit that you really like the GOP better.

Tom in DC wrote on February 23, 2007 11:47 AM:

Hey Dave H:

Is that it, Tom? Are you one of those Tom Clancy fans who gets himself hot and bothered reading about butch special forces guys "taking out the bad guys", all for "freedom and the American way"?

this paragrpah says it all. you put BAD GUYS and FREEDOM and the AMERICAN WAY in quotes, to suggest that it is either bogus, or disingenuous, or somehow not worthy of our support.

I can read you like a book.

and yes, i do get happy when America is out bombing the enemy. when it is an enemy that has killed Americans, is killing Americans, and has vowed to kill more Americans, you are damn right that I want us to attack them. That you aren't is shocking.

and i LOVE your "argument" (yes, i use quotes to suggest it is bogus) that we are creating more terrorists. as if we stop being so mean to the bad guys, they'll stop vowing to kill us. why do they hate us so much? waaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh! perhaps it is because they are evil. just a thought.

markg8 wrote on February 23, 2007 11:53 AM:

This is pathetic. We spend how many hundreds of billions on our military and we can't even supply and train them to fight the war they're fighting? We can't even see to it that the wounded are cared for decently? Even if you think killing Arabs willy nilly is a great idea you can't support these incompetents wasting our money and endangering the lives of our soldiers. That's the msg we should be bludgeoning the Republicans with.

Steve LaBonne wrote on February 23, 2007 12:05 PM:

"when it is an enemy that has killed Americans, is killing Americans, and has vowed to kill more Americans"

Moron. We invaded a country that did NOT kill any Americans, however unattractive its regime may have been. (Or are you such a retard you still believe in the "Saddam was behind 9/11 lie?) Our troops now find themselves in the middle of a civil war touched off by OUR ill-advised and incompetent intervention. All in order to allow sick fucks like your to jerk off to the sound of bombs. Your disgusting perversions have nothing to do with defending this country, a country which of which you are thoroughly unworthy to be a citizen.

Bob Gaines wrote on February 23, 2007 12:09 PM:

To Tom in DC:

Tom, I assume you must be a veteran who has fought for our country (or at least seen service). If you aren't, and you are under 41 and never convicted of a felony, why are you in DC rather than volunteering to join in the fighting you are advocating?

Dave H wrote on February 23, 2007 12:17 PM:

Hey Tom in DC:

No, Tom, I didn't put them in quotes so as to suggest that freedom is unworthy of support.
They were put there ironically to mock Tom Clancy's style of writing and what I suspect is your flag waving, chest pounding, "America is Number 1" sort of patriotism.
Now, Tom, I know 'ironically' is a pretty big word, what with five syllables and all. Try not to move your lips as you read it. I'm sure you could read me like a book...if the book were full of lots of pretty pictures.

But, on to substance. I will quote you. You said,
"I do get happy when America is bombing the enemy."
Good. Me too.

Uh, which enemy?

19 of the 20 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis. None of them were Iraqis.
"The enemy" was in Afghanistan. Your Dear Leader failed in his mission to capture Bin Laden dead or alive. Then he pulled out the bulk of the troops and went off on a wild WMD chase.
(Yes, Tom, HE failed. You can't have it both ways. If Bush is the man in charge, then HE failed. You can't blame the generals, the colonels, the majors, the lieutenants, the sergeants, or the privates. Because if you do, then you're not supporting the troops. You probably give Reagan all the credit for "winning the cold war" because he was in charge at the time. As I said, you can't have it both ways. If Reagan gets credit for winning the cold war because he was in charge at the time, then Bush gets the blame for screwing up the war in Afghanistan, because he was in charge at the time.)

OK, now, a little more substance.
Charles Duelfer was the guy who completed the investigation into Hussein's missing WMD. He said, "We were almost all wrong." and later Bush himself said,
"the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't . . ."

No stay with me Tom, I'll go slowly for you.
If there were no WMD and that was the reason for invading Iraq, then why stay? Why put Barbara's son in danger for nothing?
I'm not saying being nice to the terrorists. I'm just saying maybe if we stop killing people in a country that never attacked us, then maybe the relatives of those people will stop killing our soldiers.
What do you think, Tom? Doesn't that make sense?
To me it's pretty clear. If I went and killed your brother, or sister, or son, or daughter, or bombed your house, or arrested your cousin for no reason, you might want to kill me.
How about if I just avoid you being pissed off at me by not killing your relatives?

All I know is the only time Iraqis have ever killed Americans is when WE invaded THEM. Unless I was out of the country when that giant Iraqi navy sailed up to the East coast and unloaded that giant Iraqi army onto our territory, and that giant Iraqi air force bombed our cities.
Oh, yeah, that never happened.

So, how about it, Tom? We leave them alone in their own country so our guys can come home and they leave us alone.
As for the Al Qaeda terrorists, well, that's a different story. There might still be some fighting to do in Afghanistan, but it seems your Commander In Chief doesn't want to take Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan very seriously.

EH wrote on February 23, 2007 12:21 PM:

What of the difficult question of Sen's and Rep's allegiances to their constituents and their desire to preserve their electability? Given a Blue Dog who says a particular resolution is too aggressive, does this mean that they fear their district will vote them out the next chance they get; is "too aggressive" a real measure of the will and sentiment of those constituents, or what?

jason wrote on February 23, 2007 12:23 PM:

Tom in DC is a waste of time and space, too stupid to realize that al-Qada was not in Iraq before the war, and Saddam was not a source of terrorism against Americans. The mentality of people like him is the reason we are engaged in this folly, and losing too.

T. Lassiter Jones wrote on February 23, 2007 12:27 PM:

"Congress has no business micromanaging a war." - Well, that would only possibly be true if Congress had actually *declared* a war. But since they didn't, there is no war, only an illegal police action being waged by the executive branch, and Congress is in fact obliged to cut off all funding for it, lest it be culpable in the executive branch's illegalities.

jason wrote on February 23, 2007 12:34 PM:

Tom in DC and his buddy Cheney love making strawman arguments, like saying that those opposed to the Iraq war are claiming that if we leave things will be tranquil there, and terrorists will be nice to us. Uh, no. That's not what anyone is saying to my knowledge. What we are saying is that the situation there is nearly hopeless, and only the Iraqis themselves can dig themselves out of this mess. I don't expect Iraq to be tranquil after we leave. However, it probably can't get that much worse. If it does, the Iraqis will have to fight it out themselves. We can help still help them, but we cannot continue to fight their fights for them.

bjobotts wrote on February 23, 2007 12:35 PM:

As far as new legislation the Senate may as well just close down till '08 elections. Senate repubs are such small minded men who spout concern for troops but whose only concern is their own image. They demonstrate how truly pathetic they are but they will never acknowledge it. More and more people are seeing that the only way to get things done is to get rid of them first

TR wrote on February 23, 2007 12:36 PM:

Congress should pass the Murtha proposal and specify that training standards are set by the various Army Field Manuals. If they don't have the votes even with a democratic majority, let those members who don't support proper training and equipment answer to their constituents.

On a larger point, if voters had thought the democrats were not going to substantively (read as, through binding legislation) challenge the president's war policies, we would probably not have a democratic majority in congress right now.

OCPatriot wrote on February 23, 2007 12:48 PM:

I have said, repeatedly, that the only thing Bush & Co. understand is a metaphorical whack on the side of the head with a 2x4. Anything less is worthless. The Democrats who are afraid of their own shadow can be thanked for prolonging the war, and need to be replaced. This is not the time for shilly shallying. People are being killed and we are being dragged further and further into a conflict we have no business being involved in (unless of course - horrors! - you think that Big Oil is involved in all of it, whereupon it takes on new meaning).

Steve wrote on February 23, 2007 1:01 PM:

To Tom in DC,

Where is your compassion? Since you feel the war in Iraq is justified why don't you enlist? Barbara has earned the right to voice her opinion. Unlike you she has skin in the game.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was no threat to the United States.They were a dictatorship. They were also a sworn enemy to Al Quaida. We are in Iraq for one reason and that is OIL! http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml

We have wasted tremendous resources in Iraq instead of fighting our real enemy which is Al Quaida. By the way, where is Bin Laden?

Bush and Cheney lied us into a war which has killed more than 3,000 American soldiers, wounded tens of thousand more, and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. The war has also cost the American taxpayer 1/2 trillion dollars and has helped create a new generation of terrorists.

Thank God our country is starting to wake up.

Rylan wrote on February 23, 2007 1:07 PM:

Well, if we're going to make sure that this war is tied to Bush forever, as seems to be our only hope right now, then we also need to make the effort to make sure that those who have enabled him are also tied up in the same knot. This includes all the so-called "moderate" democrats and others who prevent the rest of the reality-based-community from crafting an exit from this hell. Time for Pelosi and company to start exacting some revenge on those dems who are preventing progress. Otherwise she's not the speaker I thought she would be.

Steve wrote on February 23, 2007 1:12 PM:

I agree. Democrats need to challenge Bush on this illegal war which was based on a lie. Those Dems who aren't on board need to be challenged in a primary fight. The American public voted for the Democrats because they want us out of Iraq.

In addition, Democrats also need to start impeachment proceedings against both Bush and Cheney.

bjobotts wrote on February 23, 2007 1:26 PM:

and to Tom in DC the Dems you mention did not start a fucking war, did not lose billions in cash fucking up his war, and caused the death of so many innocent people who never attacked us or planned to attack us. Get a grip. Now they all hate us thanks to Bush and Osama and followers still live and are thriving. If the whole thing were not being orchestrated by Corporate greed and fascists then none of this would be happeneing and Osama would be dead or crippled. We would be negotiating for oil instead of trying to steal it. You get mad and put blinders on and start shooting everything that disagrees. We are all angry at the death and destruction and the mistakes and corruption and this is exactly what the terrorists wanted. Give 'em enough rope.... Fuck what we "think", these people don't hate us for what we "think". They hate us for what we have done and are doing and you sir are suffering from blame damage like the rest of us. Having the power to do something is not the same as doing it. America is incapable of accepting its mistakes or admitting failures. We don't have to be incapable of acknowledging and correcting them.
We are not defending this country by our war in Iraq. We are trying to get a good foothold in the middle east. The terrorists that attacked us aren't even in Iraq they are in Afghanistan.
" Bush doesn't bow to public pressure" you mean like the 63% of Americans, the Iraq study group, National Intelligence Estimate, most of the generals on the ground, a majority of congress and the Senate and most of the world...just one step away from dictator...yeah he doesn't cave to public pressure alright. But he certainly has the support of uninformed, uneducated, closed minded, prejudiced, racial, war mongoring hate filled, ignorant, biased , fanatical bigots who swallow the mob rule rhetoric because they are too blind to see the hands in their pockets or what is really going on behind the scenes. To show your support Tom I suggest you enlist so you can go "defend us against Islamic terrorists", and when you return with no legs I will weep for you.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on February 23, 2007 1:27 PM:

No more special appropriations for Whore-for-hay's fallacy. Force the Chimp-in-Charge into the sunlight. Cut off all special funds for'contractors'. A Marshll-like plan would use Iraqis and pay Iraqis to clean up their stuff.

Fully fund the support and programs that America needs for the health of the union . . . Cut the Give-away to Sam Walton's family and friends. Then fund the 'War Department" at levels similar to our last two big wars . . . WWII and the cold war.

The problem with this thinking is those living off our labors and driving us into debt are happy with a permanent state of war. Profits abound when Orwellian words and thought patterns declare 'War is peace.' Facsism rules when patriotism is defined as blind adherence instead of choosing death before loss of rights or honor.

Call your Senators and Congress person daily. E-mail them. Especially if they are 'red' (spelled R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N).

Richard L. Adlof wrote on February 23, 2007 1:27 PM:

No more special appropriations for Whore-for-hay's fallacy. Force the Chimp-in-Charge into the sunlight. Cut off all special funds for'contractors'. A Marshll-like plan would use Iraqis and pay Iraqis to clean up their stuff.

Fully fund the support and programs that America needs for the health of the union . . . Cut the Give-away to Sam Walton's family and friends. Then fund the 'War Department" at levels similar to our last two big wars . . . WWII and the cold war.

The problem with this thinking is those living off our labors and driving us into debt are happy with a permanent state of war. Profits abound when Orwellian words and thought patterns declare 'War is peace.' Facsism rules when patriotism is defined as blind adherence instead of choosing death before loss of rights or honor.

Call your Senators and Congress person daily. E-mail them. Especially if they are 'red' (spelled R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N).

villy wrote on February 23, 2007 1:36 PM:

to Tom H.

Even this info is what they told you, don't you think it as reliable as everything else? How the pictures of 19 people can pop up on TV in 1 day?

Be more thoughtful and less naive.

Rich wrote on February 23, 2007 1:54 PM:

You don't build a big tent party, which is the only way to control Congress, by having one point of view in your caucus.

The difference between the Blue Dogs and Lieberman is that the Blue Dogs express their differences, but remain committed to the Democratic party, while Lieberman keeps threatening to leave.

I would ask him to leave now.

Steve wrote on February 23, 2007 2:18 PM:

Your point is well taken. The Democratic party should be a big tent party. There will not always be agreement on a number of issues. I think many people would agree.

However, there should be zero tolerance for elected officials who break the law and have no respect for our constituion. This administration has:

1. lied us into a war with manufactured intelligence.
2. outed a CIA operative with 20 years of contacts which have now been compromised.
3. They have wiretapped Americans in violation of the FISA laws.
4. Bush has circumvented Congress by using signing statements. Therefore, he's been able to ignore laws passed by Congress.

I think it is important to respect different points of view. However, I have no tolerance for people who break the law whether they be Republicans or Democrats.

This administration needs to be stopped before they do any more damage.

Mark F. wrote on February 23, 2007 5:50 PM:

Barbara said: "And the Democrats can't muster enough courage to stop this."

It has nothing whatsoever to do with courage. In order to pass, any bill would need 60 votes in the Senate. Not likely at this point. In order to override a veto it would require 67. Not possible at this point.

Americans are going to need to put a lot more pressure on our lawmakers (particularly Republican lawmakers) to get this done. It's not congressional Democrats' fault--it's the fault of the Republicans, who may not be in the majority, but who still have enough votes to kill any bill that might put a stop to this insanity.

P J Evans wrote on February 23, 2007 9:24 PM:

Amendment to my comment earlier:

The Democrats sound like a high school speech class, arguing about who should be on the debate team, while the other team is reviewing all the points they intend to hit in the next half hour.

Then they'll spend the next four years arguing about why they lost again.

vox clamantis in red state wrote on February 23, 2007 9:37 PM:

Why does the argument that if we leave Iraq, total chaos will result have any credibility at all?
I'm sure the British felt deeply that if they gave this nation over to the Continental Congress and its army, chaos would result. (They may have been right, but we still managed to govern ourselves for over 200 years now.
We left Vietnam rather uncerimoniously, to put it mildly. Other than the boat people fleeing, the Vietnamese seem to be functioning quite well as a nation.
Surely, Hitler had Germany convinced Norway couldn't govern itself without his troops there, and Norwegians killed a lot of German occupiers until the Germans withdrew. And Norway continues to be a model for Scandanavian democracy.
This whole argument about Iraq being in a Civil War is crap, as big a lie as WMD. The Iraquis want us gone, and the chaos is directed largely toward the collaboraters in our occupation.

jeff spicolli wrote on February 23, 2007 11:32 PM:

Fitzgerald: "There is a cloud over Dick Cheney"

Fitz, as in Patrick Fitzgerald, recently finished making a case against Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby for lying and obstructing justice in the government’s investigation of who leaked the classified identity of a CIA NOC, Valarie Plame.

It seems, from evidence presented at trial, that the who that leaked is Scooter Libby under the direction of Dick Cheney but Fitz can’t prove it yet because Libby is lying to protect the guilty parties.

In Fitz’s closing argument he explained “There is a cloud over Dick Cheney.” Fitz has enough goods to question Cheney’s actions in this public forum. THAT is NEWS.

If that son of bitch, Cheney, leaked classified info about a CIA NOC as an act of political retribution toward the CIA agent’s husband, Cheney must be impeached.

Fitz! is the supportive cry for the principled prosecutor who doggedly pursued the case, in spite of all the right wing propoganda that would have him quietly walk away. Fitz is a rather conservative guy but he believes in the rule of law not partisan favoritism and cronyism.

MeFTW wrote on February 24, 2007 3:29 AM:

Tom in DC came out of the closet to say: "perhaps it is because they are evil."

This kind of Moralism and dualistic thinking is a mentality imbued with a slavish morality more concerned with self-aggrandizement than with problem solving.

You embrace a protofascist position of nationalism intent on universalizing a way of life by force, conflating America's perceived hegemonic interests with the interests of the rest of the world.

You are weak. You are a slave to groupthink. You are the infamous Last Man. You are born of a decadent, outdated, vacuous cultural space with no redeeming qualities, merely commonness and vulgarity. You are not concerned with real greatness, only aggrandizement.

Pompano Pete wrote on February 24, 2007 2:53 PM:

"In order to pass, any bill would need 60 votes in the Senate. Not likely at this point. In order to override a veto it would require 67. Not possible at this point." Absolutely true.

And the only solution is to keep showing the public who is doing and saying what about this grotesque situation.

Make every resolution to cut funding subject to a voice vote after a period of debate. Make everyone of those slimebuckets stand in front of a podium and say Yea or Nay. And don't do it just once or twice do it every month at least. Make certain that the votes are captured on CSpan and then transfer them to YouTube. But more importantly, fund an organization like VoteVets or MoveOn to create ads and buy local media spots in markets covering Districts represented by "Blue Dog's" and Republicans facing a tough re-election.

Congress has at least a dozen major authorization bills they must pass to keep the government functioning. Attach Iraq resolutions to each one of them, and dare the President to veto them.

For Cripe's sake, have we been out of power for so long that we have forgotten how to fuck with our opponents? Or have we entered into a period where instant gratification rules the day, and if it doesn't work the first time we give up and start crying??

Tom McFarland wrote on March 2, 2007 7:28 AM:

Without really trying to find connections, two additional pieces of defense spending news have slapped me this morning, in addition to the TPM discussion here. While Congress resolves the "conditioning" of military spending - the WP decusses the readiness of our National Guard:
"Army National Guard units in the United States have on average about half of their authorized stock of dual-use equipment, needed both for fighting wars and for domestic missions, according to a recent Government Accountability Office report. The National Guard estimates that it would require $38 billion for equipment to restore domestic Army and Air National Guard units to full readiness. The Army has budgeted $21 billion to augment Guard equipment through 2011."
Meanwhile, the DOD threw a 2/2 press conference (http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3880) in which a brigade commander from the 82nd Airborne is asked if he's happy with his active force's equipment capabilities, and he says:
"No. I'm very happy with the way we've been equipped. The Army has bent over backwards to supply us with the latest technologies and also the latest protective gear. We continue to fabricate some protective armor pieces, and I won't get into the details of that for operational security reasons. But we continue to try to protect our troopers and our soldiers as best we can."
As best as we can? With the funding and equipment issues of our active and reserve military in their current state, I'm having a hard time finding a convergence in which this administration has made us safer. Wars on terror include being ready to handle possibility of domestic disasters they've been using to scare us since 2000. What if something else, let's say a hurricane, comes along. It did? Do we have footage on that?

kriss@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 1:01 PM:

urethra penis

tom@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 2:24 PM:

hello

dmitry@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 3:06 AM:

hello

dmitry@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 3:07 AM:

hello

dmitry@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 3:07 AM:

hello

catarina@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 2:44 PM:

hello

jyxbgp ytcouzvdl wrote on September 6, 2007 4:58 PM:

wlorce lrtxp mgyadu lrhzgej grnzhk kjpxs xsqu