I'm sure you've all seen the stories by now:

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=:ePkh8BM9E0KzgxVohwELPlsAkqAG2g/2-0-3&fp =465461dad701263f&ei=K8pURsn3HpqoqgOy_cjNDQ&url=http%3A//www.nytimes.com/cq/2007 /05/23/cq_2778.html&cid=1116487860

I am not sorry that the Democrats' plan for a withdrawal timetable failed - that was a bad idea. What I'm disappointed in is how they seem to have rolled over for Bush and let him do whatever he wants - AGAIN - on Iraq, with no accountability. This is not what American voters voted for in November 2006.

Democrats, instead of a foolish attempt to attach an Iraqi withdrawal timetable to the Iraq-Afghanistan funding bill, should have simply come to Bush and Cheney and said, "Look. You've had four years to get Iraq right and you've failed, repeatedly. Now we want you to come up with a strategy for peace and stability in Iraq, while avoiding a failed state and an endless US military occupation of Iraq. We'll give you 90 days to come up with a new strategy we can all agree on. If you cannot, we will impeach and remove the both of you and appoint new leaders for the remainder of your term who can succeed in Iraq."

Who could be against that?

Andrew

Andrew, I don't think they rolled over for Bush. They fought hard. He happened to hold the cards this time.

As predicted, Iran has been emboldened a great deal by Congress. They are planning a major offensive in Iraq to try to push Congress over the brink and get it to move us out of Iraq.

We now have three enemies to deal with in this situation, Iraq (insurgents), Iran and our own Congress.

By the way, the Dems didn't run on a platform of ending the war. They ran on a platform of cleaning up the corruption, and the voters fell for it hook, line and sinker. Nothing got cleaned up. Voters never learn.

Well when you start with a bad plan for war....what do expect.

>>>"Well when you start with a bad plan for war....what do expect."

Bad plan it may have been, but what's best for America at this point is what Congress should be doing. The current rhetoric in trying to appeal to the extreme left which is under the control of George Soros is doing us a great deal of harm.

Could of, would of, should of talk doesn't do any good.

Deane, you've faithfully parroted most of the right's talking points. Good job.

Now let's talk about the real issues. The first is the fallacy of "defunding our troops" by not approving the supplemental. The Pentagon is flush for funding this war well through the summer, and after that has the power to readjust budgets as needed to keep the money flowing to the troops. Bush's has artfully created a sense of false urgency, and he scores political points for that.

Second is the disunity of the Dems, which is appalling. They are actually holding all the cards, they just don't seem to realize it: a poorly executed and failing war; a constantly worsening civil war that we are stoking with our presence, not quelling; a solid majority of citizens against Bush's policies; a president below 30%; a great opportunity to direct our resources toward terrorism (Taliban, Iran) and away from this quagmire. But they freak out at any real showdown with this White House. They are an embarassment as leaders and as the spokespeople of the citizens of this nation.

Third, we forget one key issue. As long as Bush keeps his surge and keeps his open-ended commitment, it remains his war. Once the Dems grow a backbone and force this president to plan a conclusion to this mess and set real benchmarks for success, then it will begin to become Congress' war. I think that's what made them blink - if they win this showdown with Bush they also win the deed to the Iraq mess.

The political costs were rising, and the "prize" too radioactive, so they backed down. It's all politics for Bush and the Dems...but I'm still ashamed. Of both of them.

I agree that nobody is doing anything of any substance, however the responsibility lies firmly at Bush's feet and the man continues to not only trip over his own feet but the feet of dead solders and Iraqi civilians.

At the rate we are going in Iraq the death toll combined will equal what Saddam did to his own people and possibly more.

Could of, would of, should of....it doesn’t change anything...but then again Bush doesn't have the balls to make the changes that are needed.

I'll give you this much Deane- I know you wouldn't follow Bush into the fox hole all the way, but the GOP has got to come up with some better ideas too. Don't put this all on the dems shoulders. But it's so messed up that real change won't happen until Jan 09. It shouldn't have too.

Keith Olbermann had a pretty scathing comment at the end of last night's show, mostly aimed at the Democrats. But, then he aimed back at Bush, just as Chris is describing, and got even more passionate. The guy is pretty spot on, and articulate.

Bottom line, both Congress and Bush are basically ignoring the public will and desires on this war. It's shameful on all counts.

Completely agreed.

There is a transcript here:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/23/special-comment-the-only-things-truly-c ompromised-are-the-trust-of-the-votersfriends-and-family-in-iraq/#more-17635

C&L went softball on the Dems, but the transcript is worth the read. What a mess!

Keith is probably not on Bush's Christmas card list.

We're a republic, we elect leaders to make the best decisions for the country, not on polls.

Still waiting for Bush to make a good decision.

"still waiting"

Geez, there's a better chance of Portland getting the #1 lottery pick next year than a good decision from the White House. Forget the Iraq war, who is up for draft next year?

Just a few for example.
He changed the rules, allowing servicemen to keep drawing BAS, while assigned to hostile zones or in the hospital.

He increase available SQLI to 400,000 dollars.
He changed the rules, so seriously injured servicemen receive part of SGLI.

He increased military pay more than any president except Nixon.

FYI-

Nwokie can you cut down on the acronyms and just spell it out for me. You lost me at BAS, SGLI and SQLI.

Sorry my civilian is showing.

Two good Bush decisions:

He nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme court.

God bless Mr. Nixon.

He really cared about the troops.

Herb

OK Herb, you have officially convinced me that being gay IS a choice.

Chickenjuggler, as you point out, either in jest or seriousness, it's as much of a choice as plenty of other transgressions, nor is it necessarily any better or worse. One person's sin is not necessarily another person's. We all fall short.

But without regard to one's personal struggles, God loves us no matter what. However, He also loves us too much to approve of our continuing to choose the wrong path.

Herb

Walk this way, talk this way
Walk this way, walk this way
Walk this way, walk this way
Walk this way, talk this way

I'm not a robot without emotions-i'm not what you see
I've come to help you with your problems, so we can be free
I'm not a hero, i'm not a saviour, forget what you know
I'm just a man whose circumstances went beyond his control
Beyond my control-we all need control
I need control-we all need control
I am the modren man, who hides behind a mask
So no one else can see my true identity

"Chickenjuggler, as you point out, either in jest or seriousness..."

Jest. I don't honestly think that you are gay for Nixon. You just sound like you are. And as you note, ACTING on that tendency is where people have a problem sometimes. But I don't think you chose to love Nixon - I think you were born that way.

God loves you anyway.

"He nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme court."


Like I said, who is up for draft next year?

Sorry, Herb but I gotta ask, if being gay is a choice (and it isn't, but let's just table that for this question), and it's isn't necessarily worse than a lot of other choices, and it's characterized as a transgression, then why some much effort aimed at it?

Transgressions are like speeding, sampling from the produce section, etc...

Full on sins, crimes, etc... do real harm. Hitting an animal, murder, theft of substantial property, not the pen from work, etc...

Additionally, transgressions can often be easily morally justified.

Does this not mean, you are really supporting the legislation of others morality? Nobody really likes this you know, but it's nice for you and DD to come right out and say it.

Put me at ease and just lay it on the table right now. You guys want moral choices legislated.

Back OT:

IMHO, the Democrats fear manupulation from the LIARS at the GOP. That's why they backed down. As it is right now, W threw a fit, so they are letting him have his war his way.

Had our (P)resident actually engaged the process, stepped up and allowed for some accountability (which was the issue) in any form, it would be fairly easy to declare Iraq a shared burden from that point forward. So there it is. It's officially a GOP war --specifically a Bush war, with their rubber stamp support.

Given the likely results, it's better to just let the GOP have their war and point out just how ugly it is, how difficult they are to work with, the dubious return on investment, and the overall cost when it comes time to decide who we keep in office and who we don't.

After some considerable anger, I'm ok with this.

There is no debating liars. Doing this is a fools errand as a liar cannot be held accountable for their statements as ordinary trustworthy people can. This is the cornerstone of debates. Our understanding of what is and what is not absolutely true is less than perfect; therefore, a debate is an attempt to get at said truth or at the least justify ones stand on a matter. A lie, opens up any such justification, thus engaging in it makes a travesty of what would otherwise be a solid debate.

Better to just let them do their thing and hang themselves. This is costly, but not more costly than having another cycle of LIARS running things for the next 8 years.

"You guys want moral choices legislated."

Absolutely.

Every time you voice an opinion against murder, rape, child pornography and drunk driving, you want moral choices legislated.

Herb

Herb writes:
Every time you voice an opinion against murder, rape, child pornography and drunk driving, you want moral choices legislated.

Wrong - speak for yourself, oh moral legislator!

I want laws against murder, rape, child porn, and drunk driving not because they are "wrong" but because I want protection from murder, don't want my female friends raped, don't want my kids exploited by child porn, and don't want to be killed by a drunk driver. Has nothing to do with any moral sense of right or wrong (although I may indeed find those behaviors morally objectionable, too.) Actually I don't see a "moral" problem with drunk driving - it's just stupid and reckless, and it puts my life in danger. That's why I want legislation preventing it.

Andrew

"I want laws against murder, rape, child porn, and drunk driving not because they are "wrong."

You are in the minority.

Besides, they are wrong because they are immoral, not immoral because they are wrong.

Herb

Would someone please point out the elephant in the room to Herb.

No. He knows it - we just disagree.

Yeah, it's got the big number 25 on it.

Percent that is.

3 of 4 Americans do not see it your way Herb. Those percentages are roughly represented here on this board, in most polls that matter and proven out via the election results last cycle.

Going forward, Herb cannot say, "you are in the minority" without bringing substantial support for that statement to the table here. To do otherwise is, at this point where we've not established that as plausable fact, is a lie, manupulation or just dodge.

No, I'm not in the minority when it comes to this issue.

Virtually every state in the union has voted against gay marriage.

Nice try.

Spin on.

Herbert Milhous Nixon IX

"Gay Marriage" and "Gay Rights" are not the same things, Herb.

Andrew

Call it what you want. There's a difference between tolerance and endorsement.

Besides, just like Multnomah County's 'gay marriage' law, Oregon's recent bill is in the process of being recalled, anyway.

Herb

What is that difference exactly?

The law, as written, is a tolerance law. In other words, you had better tolerate it or see some trouble.

Endorsement would require the law act as some advocacy, and that's just not the case.

We have the law because way too many people are not being as tolerant of others as they should be.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/number_of_republicans_in _u_s_hits_new_low

On this set of approvals, I would normally just make a table, but this time it's not required. You see, the lower number is the GOP, the higher number is the Democrats! Easy, Cheezy.

Net Dem Advtg.

Nat'l Security


46%


43%


+3

Taxes


47%


42%


+5

Abortion


45%


38%


+7

Economy


48%


40%


+8

Ethics & Corruption


43%


32%


+11

War in Iraq


49%


37%


+12

Immigration


47%


33%


+14

Education


50%


35%


+15

Soc. Security


50%


34%


+16

Healthcare


57%


30%


+27

The link at the top of this post is to the currently shrinking number of Americans, who self-identify as Republican.

You might be right Herb. Perhaps on this ONE ISSUE, we might have enough bigoted Americans walking around to make a difference. However, the social pressure that comes from pretty much everything that matters is going to weigh significantly.

Tie that in with Cheney not showing the party unity and the awkward questions that are gonna come up as a result of that and it's all not looking too good where deciding an election on that single issue is concerned.

We just don't have a majority of Americans willing to single issue vote to let the nation burn so as to keep gay people from getting married or having relationships.

Besides, it's just a transgression right?

Have a great holiday weekend folks!

"...you had better tolerate it or see some trouble."

Go ahead and try to ram it down people's throats.
That's the democrat way.
We saw what happened in Multnomah County.
It was repealed, even in leftist Oregon.
Voters dislike being ignored.
But they absolutely will not tolerate politicians who do the opposite of what is voted upon.

Herb

I know a member of the base. He's staunch! Flies the flag, has worn, but pretty solid looking "one man, one woman" stickers on his car, etc... Don't get me wrong, he's been a decent guy. I've no problem there.

But... he's selling that car and that nice house. Why? Well the moral majority really appreciates his support, but could care less about his job being taken by less than legal people, willing to work for a lot less. Finding new work, that pays is proving difficult and man, those health care costs are a killer! (tell me about it)

I'm sure that was not a worry when battling about those moral choices, but somehow it is now! Funny how that all works. Funny indeed. Talk about somebody learning a lesson.

Church wants to help, but that plate isn't as full these days either. Between having to pay for increased costs on nearly every level, that small tax cut really doesn't pack the punch they thought it would. What money is being made, just doesn't go quite so far. Hard to give when there is so much taking going on. I think a significant fraction of that base might just be getting pretty hungry, right along with the majority of us.

Damn shame. It really is. By all rights, we should have enough to not have to sweat the little things right. We all should be focused really hard on what choices our fellow Americans are making in bed! That's what matters right?

Ask this guy that.

Having to explain to his family why they support the people who haven't returned the favor is somewhat tough. It's tempting, but I'm just not gonna go there. I've my own worries and it sure as hell isn't making sure my neighbors are doing the moral thing! I'm trying to feed the kids and keep people alive.

That's what matters, just as the poll shows it does.

Know what is really interesting? He didn't have that same spark when it came to politics last time we spoke. Having to decide if a tralier is better than an apartment really does put these things into some perspective. I seriously doubt the whole gay thing will be at the top of his list this next time around.

Having just dropped out of the shrinking middle class tends to put matters into a whole new perspective.

Don't get me wrong either. Hope me makes it. But, I grew up dirt ass poor. Been there and know exactly what matters and what does not. The numbers above represent your average joe and jane and what matters to them.

To quote David Byrne " MY GOD - WHAT HAVE I DONE?!?"

But honestly, I would really like to talk about this more. I have very specific questions that require very specific answers. It's not a heated thing for me - today. So I am willing to just talk about it. Just Mano y Mano - and Merkin. I really want to get to the bottom of things about where people stand and why they stand there. I'm not going to judge anyone for their positions - I just want to talk.

If I stated a thread - or someone else did - could we try it my way this time?

I cannot expect anyone to accept my rules - but it would be cool if we could just talk about our individual views without labeling too much or citing generalizations ( like voting records - however valid they may be ). Just on an individual level.

Who's in?

Say yes or no. It's cool if you're not in the mood to too.

CJ- You're being way too pragmatic. That's what I like about you.

I'm totally in.

Shoot.

And I agree with Chris.

"Why? Well the moral majority really appreciates his support, but could care less about his job being taken by less than legal people.."

You want it both ways. Sorry. It doesn't work that way. That's because if Christians take sides and support the working man, they're considered 'immigrant unfriendly.' If they support the immigrant, then they're 'working man unfriendly.'

As if the labour unions have helped one bit. That's why big labour is dying and I don't blame union members for feeling sold out. They're being shafted by their own.

Herb

Another reason I say the moral majority is neither.

Don't blame others. Labour has sold their own down the river.

Herb

I don't think unions are in play here.

We have aggressive wage pressure (downward), combined with concentrated efforts to compartmentalize products and services to reduce competition, an influx of competeting workers, etc...

Our currency is losing value because we do not produce as we once did. (among other things)

We also have serious efforts to push as much onto the person, "take care of ones own self" as is possible.

Something has got to give, and it's people!!

Specifically, our once healthy middle class.

Unions are mixed in there, but do not explain what I am relating here. Now I picked a member of the base to make a point, but that's not the scope of it. Many of my peers are experiencing this kind of thing, and it's getting worse, not better.

A very high percentage of people, who find themselves unemployed, find like employment very difficult to find, yet the burden they must carry is on the increase.

We see record profits everywhere right? Markets going through the roof.

Could it be as simple as we are getting squeezed to the max, running dry one by one?

I sure think so. And the blame sure as heck does not lie with the average working joe.

Tell you what. That's exactly what I'm feeling. I make regular gains. I know, among my peers, this is increasingly not the norm. Those gains keep pace, but don't end up building equity for me as they used to.

Face it. Both big business and labour formed a cabal and the working American suffers.

Both parties can be blamed, but you'd at least expect labour to not abandon their own.

Herb

My point is this, and I'm thread crossing here, sorry.

So what?

Yes, that's Andrew's line, but it's relevant. If we focus on this stuff, we suffer all the other things. Should be the other way around.

We are getting played into thinking this really matters, when it so clearly doesn't!

YAY!

Cabal. Used with a straight face!

Took yesterdayoff, wasn't near a computer. Heres answer to military acrinyms.

Base pay, this is tjhe ay all soldiers etc recieve based on rank and time of service. Your retierment pay is based on this alone.

Additionally all servicemen recieve various allowances.

The primary ones most receive are.
BAQ, basic allowance for quarters, this is for you to pay for living. most single live in the barrecks , so they receive 0 dollars for this, and married living on post receive 0 dollars, unless living in sub standard housing.

BAS, basic allowance for substience. This is a meals allowance for the troops. If you live in the barrecks you get a meal card, which entitles you to 3 or 4 meals free of charge. If your married, live off base, or receive special permission, you get a cash allowance. and have to pay for meals in the dining hall. The cost of which , if you eat 3 a day the amount of your BAS.

In the past, if you received BAS, and were in a ituation where the govt provided you a meal, they deducted the amount form your BAS allowance. Examples would be, in the field, on a deployment, or in the hospital.

Once this came to the Presidents attention, he changed the rlues, letting service personnel assigned to Iraq, and those hospitalized keep drawing their full BAS. Its a couple of hundred dollars per month.

If a soldier dies his family receives a death gratuity, about 15 thousand dollars, immediatly, to help defray immediate expenses. All servicemen are allowed to sigh up for SGLI, servicemen Group Life Insurance, it only costs about $10.00 per month, and President Bush increased it to 400,000 dollars. He also changed the rules, so if your seriously injured you get a portion, based on the injury.

As to base pay, in President Bush's first 3 years, he increased it more than Clinton did in 8 years.

It's clear that the left wants to side-step any responsibility regarding labour's obligation to their members.

It's laughable.

I have yet to see anyone own up to that fact. You guys want to play politics. I'm saying that it was a conspiracy between big business and labour to make the working man the fall guy. You're being intellectually dishonest and overtly partisan to deny it.

Herb

Hey, unions are not all rosy. I've never denied that. I don't blanket support them and totally accept they have caused trouble.

But, it's not been demonstrated that unions are the primary cause of our employment situation today.

It's more complex than unions did it. It just is. That's honest.

Also, there are many industries where there are no unions. Mine happens to be one of them. Guess what? It's still a mess and getting worse. That's all big business period. No unions, no thought of unions. Just big companies screwing those that build their wealth for them.

I have zero experience with Unions.

I have good and bad experience with unions.

When I was growing up, my parents worked in a cotton mill, low wages and very little benefits.
Then the mill went out of business, and they gor factory jobs, union, much better pay and benefits. However like clockwork, they went on strike every 3 years, usually for 3 or 4 months.

And as time went on, the unions priced themselves out of business, and those plants shut down.

While working for the govt, we often had civilian employees around, and they were unionized, and often that got in the way of the mission. IE union said stop work at 5:00, even if you only needed a few more minutes to finish, you couldnt have a gentlemans agreement, with a union worker, work 15 more minutes today, and come in late 30 minutes tomorrow. Quiting time meant quitting time.

Unions get a little silly, which has hastened their demise.

Getting back to the original thread topic, "Congressional Democrats fold like a deck of cards on Iraq," Keith does it again:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18831132/

Nailed it!

We need more people, willing to make statements and offer them for our consideration like this.