I now believe John Edwards is right. Keep sending junior the same bill over & over again.

Make the idiot veto it time and again. He eventually will have to cave or bring the troops home.

He's already threatened to veto the next bill. Make him do it.

There is nothing else this asshole understands. IMHO

The public is on Congress' side.

It shows the American people what kind of person the President is.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

:)

Does anyone really think that come September Petraeus is gonna call it quits???? If you do, I have some ocean front property in Arizona for ya.

Phoenix will be the next San Diego....
(they used to say that when I was a kid--although Global Warming hadn't been coined yet)

As time goes on, Congress just MIGHT get enough votes to override the veto! Oooo, would I LOVE to see THAT!

I wish it would end today, but we both know that's not going to happen. Every day I hear more Pubs who are disgusted with the Shrub. I hope it builds quickly and they join the Dems in smacking him down!

They just need to stay strong, and WE need to keep calling our congresscritters and buoying them up - giving them LOTS of calcium supplement for their backbones. This is gonna keep going, and keep growing, and it's all gonna be in OUR favor. I think sooner than later, we'll have enough to override the veto. If those eleven republi-CONS are feeling enough heat from back home (in "red" districts, even?) that they feel the need to take their case directly to the schmuck-in-chief, you can bet they're getting absolutely hammered by their constituents. And you can also bet that they're not the only ones. On the Dem side, Murtha's already been on the talk shows mentioning outright how much he's hearing about IMPEACHMENT from the calls into his office. If he's saying this, and if those eleven republi-CONS are saying their version of it, you know it's a category-FIVE storm they're desperately trying to weather from the folks at home. They're ALL hearing it. The heat is ON. And turning up higher every day. The momentum is with US, guys. And that won't change or reverse. It'll only grow.

he should at least give Harry Reid the courtesy of a heads-up before proposing such action. His argument would be much more powerful if he were still in the senate.

Not bashing Edwards, just offering what I think is oonstructive criticism.

I think the world of you - but Edwards has been saying this for a while - Long before the first veto.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=185020

Granted they should perhaps had been some conversation between the two, but I feel certain Harry knew about John's comments well in advance of the veto.

BTW: Should be getting a fresh batch of Community in the mail any day....I do so ever love my mother in law.

and I guess if you are running for office you can't clear everything by everyone. But If I were a democratic candidate I'd like to stay on Harry and Nancy's good side.

There's a fight a "brewing" in New Orleans. Starbucks and a local guy are battling for a building right off of Jackson Square to set up shop. The last Starbucks (on Decatur) was a miserable failure, too close to Cafe Dumonde. I'm pulling for the local guy.

As with every other Mississippi democrat my contributions to this elections primary battles is virtually non-existent, but I look forward to getting incredibly active for the the party nominee. I'm in hibernation right now.

Why so many people think Starbucks is to die for baffles me....but then perhaps, they haven't experienced a "true" cafe au lait. :evilgrin:

Have a good evening!

was rather perturbed with Senator Edwards for making that proposal the first time.

looks like. People getting perturbed, getting over it and continuing to work the problem. After years of Republic CSPAN Theater, it's a cleansing breeze.

:)

And each time use as much heft in signing and delivering it, forcing his hand over and over.

He was right about the two Americas, he was right about challenging 2004 and he's right about this bill.

it boggles my mind why you would vote for someone that not only voted for the IWR, but wrote and sponsered it!

I wonder if it's harder to be right all along and unpopular like Dennis, or to admit a mistake. :hi:

lost their lives because of his vote?

and everyone that voted for that POS bears responsibility for each life lost or ruined.

And ditto for anyone who works to water down a bill that was already so weak as to be largely symbolic.

When we talked to Nancy's staff here, we were treated very politely like kooks because we asked about bases and about contractors and about the term "redeployment" and about framing the discussion as if IRAQUIS were somehow responsible for OUR aggression and, my favorite, the lack of a real mechanism to measure "progress" except whatever flies into Junior's pointed head.

/oops

Especially since I admire you so much.

Back during the Viet Nam days, I marched (when I could actually still march) and protested because I was so against the war.

Today, I still am against war and anyone who can vote to make it happen.

IMHO, edwards is an empty suit w/good hair. He'll do or say anything to be president. When he 1st ran for the senate, I voted for him. I was highly disappointed. He treated his constituents like shit.

Once he voted for the IWR, that was it for me. Apologizing for his vote after he decided to run for president again, and after too many deaths means jack shit to me. It was an opportunistic apology.

Nancy and to Harry by setting the bar higher and that's valuable all by itself.

I don't know enough about his record as a senator to comment and yes, he's going to use opportunity as it comes his way. They all do.

But you know, he's taken too many unpopular positions to be "an empty suit". Man, just even raising the issue of poverty -- pointing to it -- is a major no-no and, he did it anyway.

Having said that, I just hope the Democrats choose someone I can get behind. I hope they use this window when most people are sick to death of Junior and all his horrible failed policies.

But I guess if you have decided his one vote out of all those cast did that, well ... you have appointed yourself as the Edwards killer on this issue.

How many of the other Democrats who voted like Edwards have you been out attacking? And how many Democrats who voted for the IWR have admitted their mistake and apologized? Do you think they might bear more criticizing than those who have apologized?

Your extreme criticism of Edwards hurts your credibility on other issues.

IF you really are against this war, get off your holier than thou high horse and join Edwards in doing something positive about it instead of attacking Edwards who is trying to end it.

He knew what Durbin, Graham, Levin, Wyden and Mikulski knew and did it anyway. No excuse.

Durbin, Graham, Levin, Wyden and Mikulski ALL voted NO!

His floor speech in favor of the IWR was so GOOD it was posted on the GOP web site! Or was it the White House web site?

If Ann Coulter manages to post floor speeches of all the Democratic Candidates on her website, then following your logic we ought to be without any one of them as a viable Democratic Candidate for President.

What a load of hogwash!

I wasn't aware of that. Just one more item in the edward's con column.

The ones who knew the intelligence was hyped.

DEMS ON THE INTEL COMMITTEE WHO VOTED NO ON THE IWR -


BOB GRAHAM, voted NO on Durbin/Voted No on Levin, BUT also Voted NO on IWR

CARL LEVIN: the Levin Amendment to only vote to force bush to go to UN for a new resolution first, then come back to congress AFTER going to the UN, for another debate and vote in Congress - Amendment Defeated. Voted YES on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin

RON WYDEN - Voted YES on Durbin/Voted Yes on Levin

RICHARD DURBIN: the Durbin Amendment to limit authorization to an "imminent" threat from Iraq only. Amendment Defeated. Voted Yes on Durbin/Voted Yes on Levin

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI - Voted YES on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin
-------------

DEMS ON THE INTEL COMMITTEE WHO VOTED YES ON THE IWR -


JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin

DIANNE FEINSTEIN - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin

EVAN BAYH - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted NO on Levin

JOHN EDWARDS: Co-sponsor of IWR. Voted NO on Durbin/Voted NO on Levin

You posted: "He(Edwards) knew what Durbin, Graham, Levin, Wyden and Mikulski knew and did it anyway"

You cannot prove that. You cannot prove what any one of them knew. You can suspect all you want, but that is all it is -- speculation.

There was lots of different intelligence received by individual members of the Intelligence Committee. They all did not get the same intelligence, which is the foundation upon which you base your condemnation argument.

since you have made it clear that is your signature issue.

Please tell us which of the positions John Edwards has put forth on ending the war that you oppose.

And if there are no positions on ending the war that John Edwards has proposed which you disagree with, at least be honest enough to say so.

be honest enough to admit that.

K&R - Edwards has been saying this now for well over a month....

There ain't no Ponies in this war and by the time 2008 roles around, the American people will be close to storming the Gates of Bastille.

If it was right the first time, and it was, and the public was behind it, and they were, then send it again and make Bush have to veto it again.

Edwards is right. Do not compromise.

I'm not sure doing that accomplishes anything. Sounds cute, but it's not the solution.

It's time to make the bill even stronger with timelines and benchmarks that stand AND at the same time fire up the impeachment proceedings.

Time is running out...

to send Bush nothing more ... and let Edwards do his own PR stunts.

This isn't his opinion, rather just a stunt?

Everyone else are just stunt men.

:sarcasm:

I forgot for a moment. ;)

he wants to send Bush a tougher bill.

.

But that's just me - maybe I'm biased towards people who voted against IWR and take actual risks when they act, rather than just campaigning. After all, Feingold didn't raise 100.000 a day with proposing that law!

Let the little chimp veto it time and again!!!

Show the American public what you stand for! It's not the troops over there!

And perhaps at some point you'll have a veto proof majority. Bush may not feel the pressure for re-election, but the congress critters will. And over time if the same bill gets voted on over and over again, sooner or later the electorate is going to understand more and more that the Republicans have been on the wrong side of this travesty and will put pressure on the Repukes to get in line and stand up to the president.

Someone's been saying that if you repeat a lie often enough, it eventually becomes people's "truth". The same principle applies here but we can say if you tell people the truth enough, eventually they will understand that its the truth too!

The President is far less popular than this congress and far more visible. Make him take the fall. God knows, he deserves it.