« No More $$ to Shred our Constitution | Main | Executive Privilege, RNC Style »

July 10, 2007


The Democrats made their case for ending the occupation in Iraq and it passed in Congress in the form of the supplemental that included a 2008 withdrawal deadline. Bush vetoed it but it was Republicans in Congress who failed to override the veto. The payoff for sending Bush to the shitcan between now and September through aggressive investigation and direct confrontation on numerous non-Iraq war matters (Libby commuted sentence, US-A's, etc.) is not about Democrats trying to appear strong in the face of an obstinate lame duck, it's indirect by weakening the resistence of Republicans in Congress by showing the world that they continue to support a corrupt and incompetent man who also refuses to face the reality of Iraq.

To the extent Dems expose Bush for the lying fraud that he is, it gets a whole lot harder for Republicans to put their necks on the chopping block for him this September when Iraq war spending comes up again. Republicans got trounced in last November's elections. Many R's who are now up for re-election but still don't get the picture this fall will likely be gone as well next year. The best way to corner them in their quest to stay in office while getting them to support Democrats' initiatives to end the Iraq occupation is to smash any remaining thread of credibility Bush pretends to have. Initiating impeachment inquiries into abuses would only help.

this is very informative for me.

i had no idea what levin-reed was about (i was thinking reid-feingold, a different set of senators altogether it seems).

for me the point of this legislation being considered at all

is that the congress,

ponderous as it may be -

and how can a herd of 537(?) not be ponderous -

is working on matters important to this nation.

think progress has a similar post on the "webb-hagel" legislation to require soldiers to have longer leaves before going back into battle.

both of these legislative initiatives seem to me to be serious efforts to alleviate some of the suffering associated with bush/cheney's invasion and occupation of iraq.

it's comforting to see that gordon smith and olympia snow have had their "come to jesus" moment.

i'm certain their decisions were based solely on their concern for the nation and its people.

thanks for taking to time to provide the info and the links.

I continue to be puzzled by filibuster threats like these. It seems to me that the Democrats need to just call the bluff here. If the Republicans want to filibuster a bill to bring the troops home, I say make them filibuster. It'll take less than 24 hours for the public to see it as prolonging the war. If the GOP wants to talk itself into oblivion, then Harry Reid needs to just set aside a week and let them do so. What am I missing here?

We also need a concise, compelling, coordinated message from the Dem leadership, repeated by every Dem office holder, of what we are working to accomplish. Any effort to stop this thing via Congress will be attacked by the WH and Repub leadership as cowardly and "siding with the terrorists", and the TeeVee will give them the bully megaphone they always have, as if they hold the only opinion that matters. Their message must be countered and attacked in a way that is clear and simple and rings true. We must be seen as saving our country, and the GOP as participating with Bush and Cheney to destroy our entire way of life.

Our leaders must find courage and a good healthy dose of effective marketing. It's only our country that hangs in the balance.

70%. From USA Today. Wow.

I suspect that the Dems are loath to use the technique of slogan politics because it is counter to healthy discourse, and because it is one of the GOP’s favorite tactics. The problem with that somewhat altruistic stand is that slogan politics IS EFFECTIVE! In fact, it’s the way the GOP has gotten this far to begin with. Any attempt at serious discussion with any GOP sympathizers I know (I call them that since they aren’t really rich enough to actually be included in the club) always results in my logical points being countered by a Rovian sound bite (slogan).

Maybe it’s time for the Dems to partially drop this aversion and at least give a companion slogan for their discussions.

Following the same idea forward; how about congress getting together to rename some of these bills? I doubt there is a precedent for that, but I, for one, would love to see the “patriot act” renamed “trading freedom for security act”. By coupling that with the remark “and deserving neither” on TeeVee a few times and we have broken the spell.

OMG! I’m starting to think like Rove; I need to find a Repuglicant and use his gun to shoot myself! (The joke’d be on them since, for personal safety, I am still a registered Repug.)

Quick OT: does anyone believe it’s a coincident that a few weeks after my first comment on this blog, the IRS is contacting me with some weird claim?

The question which keeps coming back to me is, "Why are we in Iraq?"

There have been a lot of reasons given in public and a lot discussed on blogs and a lot rumored and a few I'm certain discussed only among political types.

Sure there was Iraqi nukes which might get to Al Qaeda. But, there was also, revenge for the assassination attempt on Bush I. There is the typical war as pork program. There is war as a distraction from those nasty Liberal plans for Corporate America. There is the silly 'Saddam was attacking American plans that flew over his territory." There is 'spreading Democracy'. There is 'Al Qaeda IS in Iraq.' There is probably, 'War forever, Republican Majority Forever.' How about the idea that if they spend America into so much debt that it's unable to borrow, then the Democrats won't be able to create any new programs? There's the ever-popular Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL). And, there are many other reasons/excuses/rationales.

Helen Thomas asked George Bush why we were in Iraq and Bush rebuffed her. Apparently he doesn't know why we're there either.

If you could find 50 Senators who all agree on one, just one, of those reasons, then you have a great case for putting American soldiers and wealth on the line. But, I think all those reasons were given because the creator of this foreign policy KNEW no one reason was sufficiently valid or acceptable to convince Congress to go along.

It reminds me a lot of the way the military guaranteed funding for the B-1 bomber: they ensured parts for it were made in every single congressional district in America!

So, who designed this "foreign policy"? It certainly doesn't seem to have much to do with nukes Al Qaeda might get, now does it.

Still, Democrats let it run it's course and are only now bailing in a big forceful way since it appears they might be stuck with this albatross when we've got a new Democratic President. So long as it was around Bush's neck they didn't seem to care so much. But, now Dubya says we'll be there forever and they don't much like it.

I find the entire policy of parading American soldiers around like sitting ducks to be immoral.

I find the idea of a phony war to be immoral.

I find the idea of government lying to Americans to gain our support to be immoral.

I find nothing appealing about the war and it's continuation.

And, I said all this in the Spring of 2004. Nothing has changed since then except some faces and the death toll.

If Republicans can only be moved by the possibility that the public will REmove them, then so be it. America must leave Iraq and probably Afghanistan too. Otherwise other nations should gang up on us and make us pay the price for being a rogue nation. [ I hate having to say that. But, what else would we do if some other nation were doing this evil thing? ]


And Bush's approval is now 3 degrees below freezing (29%) and his approval is at the Nixonian level of 66% in the Gallup Poll.

Levin-Reed is Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI). Feingold-Reid is Russ (D-WI) and Harry (D-NV).

And I agree about the filibiuster. Make them stand up there and talk the amendments to death, how we should keep the troops in Iraq. Keep them through August, if necessary. This is no time for compromise.

Great takedown of Lieberman by Jim Webb.

orionATL wrote:
"I continue to be puzzled by filibuster threats like these. It seems to me that the Democrats need to just call the bluff here. If the Republicans want to filibuster a bill to bring the troops home, I say make them filibuster. It'll take less than 24 hours for the public to see it as prolonging the war. If the GOP wants to talk itself into oblivion, then Harry Reid needs to just set aside a week and let them do so. What am I missing here?"

Exactly right, orionATL.

What you are missing is the Democratic leadership’s complete acceptance of their opponent’s rules of debate. When there was the slightest hint that the Democrats might block a Bush SC nominee, the words used were “filibuster” and “nuclear option”. Now it is described by Democrats and their supporters, like Mimikatz, as “failure to achieve cloture.” You are right. Why not make every Senator go on record?

Perhaps the Democratic leadership also wants to provide cover for the 8 to 12 members of their own party who will vote with the Republicans.

I applaud the optimism, but we are also allowing shooter to dismantle the government while the peacock puts on a show.
one chance, we all show the government that universal health care is going to be done and done now. the criminals we elect will then soil themselves attempting to be "with it" all along.
some reps are backing the HR to create universal care. are these the only people in government that care about what we demand? the states need to begin crafting amendments to the constitution that reflect the will of the people. Because if you believe anything else is going to make it so, we have only hope in people that have always let us down, and allowed 5 million people to have their lives destroyed. 1 million dead by now.
thanks to Michael, we now have 85% of the people behind one idea. and the idea has nothing to do with politics. except to the politicians. they are a deadly obstacle that is now our enemy, and enemy to life itself.

I for one would welcome a constitutional convention held by the states bypassing the federal government. This is what the founding fathers created for us to rid ourselves of our government if we need to. We need to. There is nothing the federal government can do if 34 states agree.

Perhaps this is what the blogs in this country can do?

note Rove claiming 80% of insurgent activity is al Qaeda...

certainly, most reports from Iraq identify insurgents as suspected al Queda evildoers...

my hunch is this is not correct, i.e. most of the insurgency is undertaken by iraqi citizens... but wait, weren't we supposedly liberating these guys???

"3 degrees below freezing"

i like that,

a lot.

Its nice to know about 70% of the public now favor getting our troops out of Iraq by next April.Bush already cornered by his own party members, he couldn't even gain the support of his party members for some of his recent decisions..
mobile phone deals

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad