Obeys little outburst-----I can see why he would be frustrated----just as

many of us are frustrated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030901504.html

A Reality Show That Obey Would Rather Forget

By Lyndsey Layton and Michael D. Shear
Saturday, March 10, 2007; Page A11


......"We're trying to use the supplemental to end the war," said Obey, chairman of the Appropriations Committee and sponsor of the legislation that would end any combat role for U.S. troops by Aug. 31, 2008. "You can't end the war if you're going against the supplemental. It's time these idiot liberals understood that!"

As another protester joined Richards, Obey continued: "That bill ends the war! If that isn't good enough for you, you're smoking something illegal. You've got your facts screwed up. We can't get the votes! Do you see a magic wand in my pocket? We don't have the votes for it. We do have the votes if you guys quit screwing it up. We do have the votes to end the legal authority for the war, that's the same as de-funding it."

Obey released an apologetic statement yesterday. "I am sorry that I yelled at them," he said. "I respect their passion on the issue, I wish they would respect mine. We are both frustrated, and that led us to have an argument that we never should have had because we both want to see an end to U.S. involvement in that war."

Richards, 44, was mystified by the encounter. "I don't understand why it has to be that way," she said in an interview yesterday.

To see the encounter, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com.

We have to understand that confrontations are inevitable when people are passionate about achieving an important goal. And we must recognize that we're all on the same team, and find a way to resolve our differences and keep moving forward.

I actually first heard a variation of that from a very enlightend boss about the company where I worked, but it applies here as well.

Peace.

NGU.

administrations where the balance of power was similar to today. In the house we rule! We can and will do what needs to be done. In the senate we need extra votes from the other party to pass bills and especially if *ss uses his veto powers. So we have got to quit demanding that they do it OUR way every time something does not seem to hit the target. Many things will be accomplished with stealth that would never be accomplished with direct attack.

it is time to stop voting for the funding. If bills for funding are not passed by the majority of congress, then there is no funding... Bush cannot veto a bill that has not passed. only congress can supply funding for the war. Only congress can provide funding for the war, or NOT. It should be done on terms that only provides for the safe and quick departure of US troops (not a year and a half from now, subject to Bush's discretion, as provided in the bill Obey is supporting)... not saying that troops there have a "new mission", not "limiting" their mission, but ending the illegal, immoral, insane mission they were sent on by Bush and Congress.

how this can be after 5 years of failed strategy is more that I would no, I now we are
finding out that the military commanders thought that the surge had a 1 in 4 chance of
succeeding, that means that this will go on and on, with more blood and treasure lost
both to US and the Iraqis for the same result.

...where's the legislative support for what you're proposing? Where do we get the votes (or non-votes) for that?

NGU.

even if 30 or so Dem members voted for the Bushwar. The problem is that many Dems want this war to continue,in one form or another.

Bush needs to get a majority to vote for funding the war, otherwise it is unfunded. It takes an affirmative action from congress to continue the war. Congress can dictate the terms to bush.

Please provide links.

By the way, it's not a war. It's an occupation.

NGU.