MISSING: my post-vote Angry. I had it yesterday, and this morning, but now my Angry is gone.

Man, did I ever have my Angry going since that vote. Damn those simpering cowardly backsliding spineless chicken-ass congressional Dems, roared my Angry, they wimped, they folded, they blinked, damn it and damn them and damn damn damn.

That was yesterday. Likewise, that was this morning. Somewhere over these last hours, though, the Angry I had like a hot coal in my chest went missing on me. I can't find it, can't summon it, can't wake it up or wrap my hands around it. Poof, gone.

I need help. I need someone here to get me pissed off about the vote yesterday, to help me restart the boiler and stoke the furnace and get me back to that Angry. I was water-is-wet certain that Angry was the correct, righteous, proper reaction to that vote. I had it, and lost it, and hope someone can help me find it.

Where exactly did I lose it? Jeez, if I knew that, it wouldn't be lost. :P

When did I lose it?

Hm...lessee...

I was gaming out the scenario that had the Dems repeatedly re-passing the timetable version of the supplemental, repeatedly re-sending it to the Senate for re-passage there, and then repeatedly re-sending it to Bush for repeated re-vetos. Lather, rinse, repeat. My Angry and I were both fairly confident this plan had a chance if used.

But how exactly? The best pressure point I could see being effectively attacked was that mob of 22 GOP Senators facing re-election next year. They're already burdened by the millstone around their neck that has "I Supported This War" written all over it. They're in trouble at the polls. So repeatedly re-passing that sup would present these 22 with a Hobson's Choice: Support Bush, vote against the majority-supported timetable, and face defeat...or abandon Bush, support the sup, and maybe hold the seat.

The game is in that second choice. Could we flip most or all of those 22, by repeatedly forcing them into public votes on the war, into fleeing Bush to save their seats? Could we push them into supporting the timetable by repeatedly cornering them with that choice? If it works, and most or all come to support the sup to save their seats, doesn't that amount to a bipartisan coalition in favor of the timetable, one that is large enough to override a veto?

There are enough maybes, could bes, possiblys and concievablys in that scenario to fill an oil tanker, H.S. Thompson would call it "a very hard dollar," a long shot times a long shot...but damn if it looks feasible on paper.

Meanwhile...

The GOP megaphone would clobber us with no-troop-support hyperbole, which we all know is garbage...but is apparently effective garbage the public seems to be swallowing. The last CBS/NYT poll told the tale: a huge majority dislikes the war, a goodly majority wants to withdraw, a similar majority wants timetables set for that withdrawal...but a significant majority is dead-set against anything that disrupts funding for the war they don't approve of.

Yes, that's from the same poll.

Remember the poll they did in Iraq a year or so ago? According to the data, something like 90% of all Iraqis desperately wanted democracy as their governing principle. That same poll of those same people had approval for the creation of an authoritarian dictatorial regime around that same 90%...clearly showing a collective Iraqi desire for an authoritarian democratic dictatorship. Hey, works for us.

The CBS poll provides the same kind of conflicted gibberish. Americans want out of Iraq, want timetables, they want this by big majorities...but they don't want anyone to touch the money that sustains the war they hate. Congress has the purse strings, people want the war ended, but people don't support congress' using those purse strings to end the war. A Rep. trying to thread that needle with legislation is pretty much doomed before they get out of bed in the morning.

Yeah...that's about when I noticed my Angry was gone.

Scant public support for cutting the war funds, combined with troop-support attack fodder served on a silver platter that could ravage our majority next November, a plan to send the sup again and again and again, premised on the theory that this will pressure enough GOP Senators into abandoning George, thus forcing the creation of a bi-partisan majority sizeable enough to pass the timetable and slap down any veto...

I've been known to go all-in with only an off-suit three seven, but that was just poker, maybe ten bucks on the line...and it was still stupid. No life. No death. No midterms. No consequences of any kind, and it was still dumb to bet that hopeless hand. I lost my Angry when I saw the odds here, saw how the available moves didn't stand much of a chance, saw those deranged poll numbers, played the send-it-again-and-again tape to the end, saw the margins involved there, and added in the awful fact that Bush is holding aces and betting them. His hand wasn't huge, but was enough to win the pot this time.

I lost my Angry when I realized that the only thing as important as getting that timetable through is the absolute need to hang on to at least one branch of government. This realization forced me to swallow an ugly necessity: hanging on to one branch of government requires political and tactical moves that are awful when war and death are involved, but are unavoidably required right now.

People want out of Iraq, but do not support the one sure means of getting out available to our congressional Dems. We could have done the re-send thing, but the odds of success were slim, the time needed to do it was very long, and the beatings we'd absorb along the way could very well make the whole thing moot come next November.

I may be missing something, so please tell me if I am. My Angry is gone, and all I've got now is this lousy Bummed. If you can help me find my Angry for this vote again, I'd be grateful.

ON EDIT: I have plenty of Angry about the war, Katrina, the lies, so much else. Im speaking specifically here about yesterday's-vote Angry.

the next three months. And for what? NADA! :grr:

But does that Angry deserve to be fired at the Dems? Do you have an idea that would stop the war?

if they only had the guts.

Redstone

We've tried voting yes for more than four years and it doesn't appear to be working. How about we give 'no' a try?

is 13%.

It galls, yeah.

Everyone wants out, wants timetables...but is dead-set against the way we can do it.

are about the same number. We will go with 'carry on'. After all, it is just piles of dead iraqis and a bunch of our kids who were such losers that they had to volunteer for a military job.

The polls supporting congress doing something to end the war were 75% in favor.Don't start with the damn polls.

Everyone wants out, but is against the way out.

It's like watching people who want to escape a burning house, but don't want to use the front door.

It sucks.

I was watching Bobby last night with one of my kids. We do not have leaders like King or RFK, or even Malcom, leaders who actually lead, rather than follow. Leaders with vision rather than bottom lines. 75% of Americans want out, but only 15% have realized where the path out is. It takes leadership to show those other 60% where that path is. It takes somebody willing to take big risks, and we don't have any of those, and we haven't for a very long time.

I've apologized elsewhere for the nastiness exuding from me right now. My anger is very much intact. I am finding everyone explaining this crap insufferable at the moment. In a few years I may settle down and accept that we are totally fucked, at the moment that is not an option.

So that we'd be left with this, and the Royal Bushies, and all their Loyal Bushies, would get to enjoy the fruits of that great Nazi-like Police State, where the Inferiors know their place and God help them if they even THINK about opposing the Superiors.

The Royal Bushies had heard so much about it, from the days when Great Granddad Prescott was laundering Jewish gold teeth into clean and blameless cash, that they knew it was for them.

In hindsight, it is clear that from the start they were not going to anyone get in their way.

"Lone Gunmen", my ass!

Nearly 50 years later, see the results of their effort and their billions.

Wellstone might have stood against this, for I believe had had character and strength that is vastly lacking in today's scattered sheep

And that's why he had to go and why the Bushies made sure he went and went fast. Got his wife, too, so she couldn't do was Mrs. Carnahan did, which delayed the Bushie Takeover for some months.

The answer is LEADERSHIP

...by voting for war funding, I think you're wrong. Our slim majority was voted in to stop the war. Yes, public sentiment is conflicted, yes it responds to the Rovian Wurlitzer with emotional swoon. We would get beat up if we kept voting spending bills with timetables. However...

We will get beat up by the public if they perceive us to have failed to stop the war, or even if they feel our attempts to stop it were weak and laughable. Not an easy position to be in.

What's called for is leadership, someone who charismatically can lead the public through your "front door" out of the burning house. Backroom political calculations is not leadsership, it's survivorship. But the American people will perceive the Democrats as spineless, as less than leaders, and the Republicans will use this in 2008 by stirring up the fear thing again and making the claim that they are the stronger leaders in unsafe times.

We need leaders, not tacticians basing their every breath on bleeps and dips on polls.

On edit, adding this:

Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. He who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or decisions possible or impossible to execute.
-- Abraham Lincoln

Karl Rove understands this perfectly, though he puts this understanding to evil use.

NT!

He'd let them go without supplies and keep dying until Congress gave the funding, because he doesn't care about the troops. He only cares about getting his way. Because he's the "Unitary Executive" (aka Dictator).

and yes, we could have fired the same damn bill back at our Idiot King. Over and over again, until he signed it.

Yes, I'm as mad as hell at the lack of moral courage demonstrated by the lion's share of our democratic representatives. People are dying and all they can think about is getting re-elected and/or spinning the fact that they are COWARDS. :grr:

that republicans and indi's who voted Dem last election because they thought it would get us out of the war will just cross back over in 08? This might be the damage done in my opinion.

and what are the gutless Democratic Representatives going to do about it? NOTHING!

I'm seeing a pattern here and I'll sum it up with one word: Hitler. :scared:

But they don't mind continuing to jeopardize their economic future (and the economic future of their kids, grand-kids, etc.) by continuing to borrow money to fund it... Aye! See: They Support The Troops!

And what's having a little "shot" at the Dems for not having kept their "promises" (a new direction, etc.) and voted for worst than that damn "staying the course" now called: the "surge" ...

Hey! It seems the 'murkan public will at least keep having their own selfish fun:

1. hate this war and the liars who started it (bu$che&co)
2. hate the dems for not keeping their promises (like always)
3. feeling self-satisfaction each time they have a chance to bash both #1 & #2 when answering polls...

Crazy, isn't it? :crazy:

All the while, the have's and the have-more's will keep on looting the Treasury, unaccounted, will keep on stealing Iraqis' oil and sending the 'murkin public's kids in harms way to get richer and richer, and will keep on gouging the 'murkan public at the pump...

wow... what is there left to do?

Good Question...

Hopefully this helps.......if it doesnt, I dont know what else to do.....:hi:

What happened to the move to impeach him?

Some hyper-rational posters made me go all calm. Don't regret the emails I sent, though.

for that disgraceful cave-in is a coward and a traitor.

I still have MY angry, and it's big enough that it's not likely to get lost.

Redstone

Serious question.

for one thing. Does that count for anything?

Do you think he'll hesitate for ONE SECOND to do whatever he wants to do now, no matter HOW many Americans or Iraqis die because of his stupidity?

No, he won't, because this congress has sent him a VERY clear message: "You can do whatever you want to, and we're not going to try to stop you."

Will, leave all the fucking "analysis" and "poloitical considerations" aside for one second (I know that's hard for you to do because it's your job to look at that stuff), and tell me exactly HOW that vote does NOT send bush the message above.

"A new Congress in town" my ass, Ms Pelosi.

Redstone

surprised to see you apologizing for thise cowards.

Redstone

I know you're heated, but we are friends, so please avoid directing fire my way.

I felt that anger, too...but it drained away after I couldn't come up with a single scenario that would have accomplished anything. I've been unspooling all of it for hours and hours. No public support for funding cuts + no real chance of success via the re-send tactic + exposing our jugular and possibly handing back control of Congress + no other moves beyond the symbolic I can think of = where we're at.

They didn't have the horses. They could have gone all-out, could have re-sent the thing for months, could have cut the funding in defiance of massive public opinion...and the timetables would have still failed, but at the cost of the wee bit of government we hold.

I'm not apologizing. But I seem to have separated my fury over the war et al. from my fury at these Dems. They couldn't win, and if they went Quixotic to show their spine, they'd still have lost but would have also imperiled our majority. We cannot lose that.

We really do.

And I'm not forgetting that we're friends; I'm arguing a point with you, not attacking you personally. If I did launched a personal attack on you, who would I have to go to Bukowski's with next time I'm in Boston? I don't want to go there by myself, after all.

Redstone

I never examined that angle. How would they have forced a constitutional crisis over this?

But what does that matter? Our side can't even be bothered to enforce a subpoena, let alone demand that congress's power of the purse string not be violated.

bushy veto it.

And then take to the airwaves so the American public understands exactly WHO is "not supporting the troops," to the point where enough citizens beat the shit out of their Republican congresspeople that a veto ovveride is possible.

And keep sending bush that bill. Over and over. Gridlock the fucking government over this issue. Stand up, and have some spine. Tell bushyboy that there really IS a "new Congress in town."

NOT back down. Stand and fight, and damn the torpedoes.

I'm not kidding. I really believe this.

Redstone

'NOT back down. Stand and fight, and damn the torpedoes.'

ATTN: Dems, take notes you guys could learn something.

Bullies NEVER back down until you show them you aren't backing down. Apparently Mr. Pitt doesn't think there are enough crimes to warrant a constitutional crisis. And yet I KNOW he knows just how bad it is.

I feel like I've felt for a long time- all of us are on a fucking roof waiting to drown, the government is ignoring us and the ones supposedly on our side, the only ones that care enough to save us-yeah the Democrats are saying "maybe tomorrow we can get to you." Trust your life with them?

That's why we must impeach. I know, I know, we can't garner the 67 votes in the Senate to convict. But everything that can be done must be done to throw sand into the gears of state, to slow it down. Putting impeachment back on the table gives us assets that can be used in negotiation on things like this spending bill. Saying from the start "impeachment is off the table" is like saying to your potential employer that you'll work for x, then asking for x+y, and wondering why the best offer was x. Stupid negotiation tactic.

I don't mean the House should vote for impeachment today and the Senate vote tomorrow, but as soon as Bush is impeached via House vote all the myriad investigations come together in a media circus of impeachment hearings, increasing the public focus on 9-11, Katrina, lying us into an illegal and immoral war, outing Plame, torture and renditions, wiretapping Americans, denying citizens and legal residents habeus corpus, the tragedies of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, and on and on.

That puts a lot of assets for negotiating back on the table, doesn't it?

of Americans oppose impeachment thus endangering their precious seats in Congress?

The last poll I saw showed 53% of Americans in favor of impeachment if it can be shown that Bush mislead us into war.

The Bushevik Meme on this one was that the Dems were insincere (the subconscious unspoken corollary, and Herr Roverer is especially good at constructing THOSE, was that therefore the Dems did not really care about the troops any more than the Royal and Loyal Bushies).

The Dems played right into it, stuck their chin (as always) right into the left uppercut. If I didn't know better, for all the times this has happened (which is to say 90%+), I'd say the Democrats were already full of Bushevik Moles and that the actual Democrats had completely lost control of things.

Now the meme is reinforced. You don't think this cookie-cutter Bushevik sophisticated smear, designed like all good advertising to work not on the conscious mind but the subconscious feelings than psychologists long ago discovered is at least as important as conscious thought in term of why people decide on one thing over another.

Conversely, the meme of Democratic Wimps is reinforced in the extreme (the unspoken, subconscious corollary there, is how can you expect this bunch of cowards to defend you when they can't even defend themselves).

I don't know if this new thing even has a name yet. I call it "Gestalt-based Propaganda" that combined the most salient principles of both propaganda and subconscious deep penetration advertising into something I and most have never seen before.

It is POWERFUL and worse, because it relies on subconscious feelings as psychological carrier, it cannot be battled directly or perhaps at all. Think of all Lakoff framing talk. Successful framing is only a byproduct of gestalt-based propaganda because successful framing is sort of the evolutionary beginning of how the Royal Bushies sell themselves.

EXCEPT BY FORCEFULLY BREAKING THE SPELL. Which brings me to my point: Another axiom of advertising, PR, propaganda & psychology is that subjects are more malleable when they are unaware they are being manipulated.

This is why people in psyhcological experiment are almost never informed they are in one, because their knowing would skew their honest repsonses and therefore the data.

By acting with courage and on principle, risking disfavor, no matter what the final outcome, the Democrats would have broken that meme (or gone a long way towards starting to) and done so at the subconscious level by battering down through the front door.

So when those subconscious mental "itches" that successful advertising (and now, gestalt-based propaganda) creates that appear like "devils on a person's shoulder" in the voting booth, the powerful example of REALITY would be there to argue with it.

Not so, now.

If they can't stand up to Bush...and everybody hates Bush-who the fuck votes are they worried about now-the 22% that would never vote for them anyway? How fucking stupid are these people-and oh yeah-what has maintaining that one branch of government done for us? HEARINGS. MEETINGS. With no teeth, no consequences. IF there was leadership, they could have said "We'll give you your funding if your fire Gonzalez." Can you imagine. Or something like that. And then when Gonzalez is gone, say just kidding, we will never support your war again. That's what people who have NO RESPECT for criminals would do. OH I KNOW that's not "how it's done" in the precious halls of congress. Has the Bush admin EVER played by the rules?

Gonzalez is a criminal. Bush is a criminal. Cheney is a criminal. And they cow-tow and over respect to them, and Bush always wins because they don't have the guts for America to find out they are criminals, and NEVER want to lose their fucking precious jobs that they have made meaningless. A congress full of hundreds of Neville Chamberlains.

to the ineffective, wishy washy, reputation the democrats so richly deserve. Politically correct pandering with no political effect, the hapless dems given a mandate, once again can not deliver. This image will only send the swing voters into a slightly less rabid republican candidates camp, because after all, what did the democrats accomplish with the mandate given to them.

You'll be angry 24/7... :mad:

:cry:

:hug:

Thank you :hug:

... but when I went to go see if my Nana made it back to NOLA the other day, I couldn't find her house because it had been bulldozed... being poor and black has its drawbacks, you know.

I was on this street looking for her. Now try to imagine this street with no houses and less debris:

I know I cannot fathom what you've been through :hug:

Is the gov't just going to wait for the city to be completely wiped out to finally do something? :grr:

:grouphug:

Feeling the sorrow your Nana and family must be in should make us all
good and angry!

I am disappointed that the Dems didn't at least incl. the Fed. Minimum Wage Hike into the Supplemental Bill. That inclusion would have forced Busholini to think hard about another veto. I doubt if he would have signed it. That would have given the Dems another shot with yet another Bill and some respect. Yeah, the caved in but I don't understand why they did so this early in the struggle.

If the next storm doesn't kill me and the rest of my family, I will likely leave.

I feel like our guys have been Liebermanized. They just won't fight!

:grr:

They don't give a Rats Ass about us everyday Citizens. :mad:

fucking powder dry. Well its becoming a desert because they kept their fuckiing powder dry.

DO SOMETHING NOW TO END THIS WAR!

...as either the Dems were obstructing the troops OR the Dems were acquiescing to Bush.

The Dems once again lost the war of the media...and that's not only sad, but portends more difficulty in the year to come.

Accepting that BS troop-support premise created those poll numbers against cutting the funds. Spot on.

for a tactical offensive. This is bullshit. Don't tell me that this is the first in American and Congressional history that there was a slim majority of one party in both houses with a leader of the opposition party in the White House. Even without bipartisonship, laws have been passed and the White House has had to compromise due to public pressure under these circumstances. Where are leaders like Tip O'Neill or Nicholas Longsworth?

is sorely lacking, outside of DU and the rest of the blogosphere.

Plan "B" is pulling up their trousers, and asking George if he wants fries with that.

Cowards.

Some Dems embraced "futile" a little sooner than we would've liked, but the veto-override votes weren't there for even the weakest SUGGESTION of timetables, and there's no way a majority in Congress would defund the war--not now. Two steps forward, one step back.

September means nothing.

especially if we didn't intend to go all the way. We end up just looking weak after all this.

And you told us no be patient they know what they are doing. They did know what they were doing, they were bending us over and screwing us.

'they tried' and a slim congressional majority actually is weak, but we would not have gotten a minimum wage increase without it.

with the original version of the bill? Just makes the Dems look weak, which IMHO they ARE for doing this.

It would have still been weak, but IMHO not so FOOLISH, if they'd just capitulated from the beginnning, if they were going to do this.

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=961131

The Dems know what we want. They know the majority of the American people want the war to end.

Before Bush vetoed the first bill, which gave him everything he asked for plus more, Congress should have just told him, "This is it, Mr. President. There will be no further funding bills for Iraq forthcoming. All the intelligence says we're just making things worse. Our troops are in the middle of a civil war, and that's not what they're supposed to be doing. The reasons for this war have all been proven to be wrong.

Sign the bill, or prepare to bring the troops home. We will provide funding to redeploy and bring them home, but nothing else."

War over. Bush ended it with his veto. The Dems didn't have to do ANYTHING.

I'm still angry.

'You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions-Stop The War-have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you for a handful of magic beans.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=961131

sort of "morph" themselves into, I dunno, gold bars? Or perhaps, platinium-diamonds' bracelets?

Or... million-dollars' mansions... Who knows at this point?

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our second quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

I was disappointed and disgusted, but not angry.

Now after having had the great pleasure of listening to republicans telling me how the Democrats caved in to the mighty powers of bush, I'm just slightly nauseous.

truly alive and well

Want some of my kerosene?

;-)

The three months is some fiction providing more cover for corruption arrogance and cowardice. But suppose it is for three months. Ok, now it is september.

Gen Scheiskopf says the next 6 months are critical.

Carl Rove and his Bullshit Media System are braying that if we dont sportdatroops by fundindawar we are working with Al Kader and His Big Band of Jihadi Thugs.

Our branch of the War Party votes Dumbfuck another 100B.

Our professional explainers trot out their weary excuses again.

Lather rinse repeat.

How fucking stupid are we?

Wait until they don't stop the next one either...the one in Iran.

Most important sentence:

but a significant majority is dead-set against anything that disrupts funding for the war they don't approve of

Our branch of the War Party voted once again for More War. Have another go at finding your angry.

timetables. Give him the money, but make him come back for more. I wish they would have only funded the amount for about 3 months...but he will have to come back to them. By September, I think a whole bunch of those GOP Reps. might have to bail on him, because we all know that the 'surge' ain't gonna do much except cause more death and destruction.

It took, what, 3 or 4 years before the Congress cutoff funding for Nam? I said this morning that I thought DU had been taken over by a bunch of 12 year olds, who seem to believe everything happens overnight. Politics is a game, like chess. One side moves and the other side must respond. The GOP will go full tilt to see something 'good' happening in Iraq, but American citizens will see the constant number of US deaths rise (even Bushie's said to expect that) and discontent will grow.

The public must put the pressure on the GOP.

Di Feinstein voted for it.

Last summer, she and hubby moved into a 16 million dollar mansion in one of San Francisco's better neighborhoods.

The place had according to the SF Chronicle, "a view to die for."

And die they did and die are and die they will.

When Feinstein first voted for the IRaqi War her hubby received about 27 MILLION dollars in war contracts - just weeks later.

And Feinstein got to vote for another round -- this time in terms of 100 Billion. Wanna guess how much of that goes to her and hubby?

Started for me with the IRW and subsequent stomach-churning 'shock and awe' murder spree, then came Roberts, then Alito with lots of little annoyances in between. Last night, to me, was like a dam breaking and regardless of what the political consequences are, it hurts and irks to have so few no votes. The majority of the Democratic caucus - even those in very safe seats - voted to continue the war. What was the alternative?

How about some real examination of those funding numbers? How much of the $96B of MY tax money is going to pay contractors? How much from the last authorizations went completely unaccounted for? Yet not a word was said about what is a HUGE authorization this is, a befouling of our treasury, and whether or not it could be trimmed back in any way. People are tired of the corruption and cronyism and they gave Bush every damn cent. They weren't good defenders of the public trust last night in any way, shape or form.

But I can't avoid this: anger at fifty things directed at one thing, just because it's there. That seems irrational to me, like a tantrum. No insult intended with that, because I feel the same way. But that's a little of what I'm seeing.

I'm sure you're relieved ;)

But always folding under pressure, always selling out the interests of the American people, afraid and compliant - that does take a toll. For some the breaking point was the Patriot Act, for some Alito, for me it was last night. I'm not sure it's irrational or just getting to the point where I've had enough.

for my anger at the other fifty things, and my angry is still directed at all 50 of those things.

You wanna know a big reason Americans don't support cutting off the funding? It's because they aren't even paying for the fucking funding. It's deficit spending that our grandchildren will have to deal with, not us. The Democrats could easily have made this an issue, but they chose not to. If that $100 billion was to be spent on health care, every fucking moron in the Beltway would be whining "but how are we going to pay for it?" but since that money's being used to make sure our troops get stuck in the shit even longer, nobody seems to have a fucking problem with how we're going to pay for it.

And Neecy raises a good point about how there's jackshit in this bill to deal with the rampant corruption. It's pathetic that there's nothing to address this. What are they fucking afraid of? Bush would veto it? Is the motherfucker going to stand in the White House rose garden and explain to the press that he's refusing to fund the troops because he believes that Halliburton should be able to sell the Army toilet paper for $20 a roll? "We'd try to introduce the tiniest modicum of accountability in this legislation, but we just don't have the votes." Fucking pathetic.

And this is just a tiny slice of what pisses me off.

I think your angry went away because you limited it's view of possible consequences.
You take into account serving up attack fodder on a silver platter only in the case of the dems standing firm.

What affect has their choosen path had on the public's view of those who capitulated?

The main stream press is full of stories about how the democrats made lots of noise and then backed down.
I'm sure this is going to have an affect come next election.
"should I vote for the new guy or the guy that backed down?"

What affect has their choosen path had on their own party?

I would love to be able to get my hands on data that showed a weekly break down of volunteer hours at all the primary campaigns. Since I can't get that I'll venture a guess that, based on what I've seen across the boards, they are falling off for most candidates.
I feel alienated by my own party and a lot of others feel the same way.
I know my future participation in party politics (precinct walks etc) is going to be affected by this.
I'm guessing this is the case for others as well.

In light of the negatives associated with the path they choose, the negatives had they gone the other don't carry enough weight to justify what they did.

I don't blame you for trying to look at this in a light that casts this as a required, but regrettable occurance.
I'd like to do that as well, but no matter how hard I try it doesn't seem to work for me.

I tend to look at these things in context, and the context is just as crappy as this one vote.

We watched the Dems cave time and time again, even when we were SURE that the stakes were too high to back down.

We got Alito this way
We got Roberts this way
We got the Patriot Act this way
We got the Iraq War this way
We got those three right wing freako judges this way
We lost the torture bill this way
We let Rice, Gonzales, Ashcroft, etc. get into office this way
We gave tax cuts to the rich this way

And it looks like many of these investigations are just going to result in meaningless reports. Plus we seem to have given the WH carte blanche to ignore our subpeonas.

So this capitulation is emblematic of years and years of capitulations....and it seems to me that a reasonable person in the context of all of the examples above (plus this incident) would presume that the next year and a half will be the same. That is what irks me the most.

And I agree that this will surely embolden the boy emperor. Today NPR announced that he thanked Congress for the bill as he signed it....he THANKED them?

In my final analysis, I know exactly why we have a big problem, and it is always why we have a problem. We have a big tent...so big that a significant portion of our tent votes with the other party while marginalizing the other side of the tent. As long as we have no discipline in the party and tolerance for turncoats, then this scenario will continue to happen no matter what majority we have. Nearly 50% of our Senators are DLC, and a significant portion of the House is DLC or blue dog. They are to the right of party supporters and they are to the right of the American people on this issue, and because we tolerate them, they hold all of the cards.

How would I stop the war? (because that is what the inevitable next question will be) By fighting, of course. Sound off like they have a pair (of something). Invite the American people into Democratically-sponsored protest marches and vociferously demand airtime to get the message out. Cut off the funds for the war and only release earmarked funds for a withdrawal. If he vetos it, fine....proceed further with the investigations and start impeachment proceedings on Gonzales and Cheney with impeachment for Bush "on the table". Send out bulldog Democratic pundits and fire the entire Democratic punditry (and campaign advisors) that is in place.

Send out packets describing the fight within the Democratic party to our ardent supporters. Inform them as to what their party truly consists of and why there "never is a plan".

But for god sakes....no more lying down. No more capitaulting, and no more treating Bush like he is our President or would ever act in good faith. Adhering to his rigged system is a fool's game.

How is that again?

Neither Bush nor these Dems enshrined our permanent state of war.

Lay that on Truman.

That's the hard nut underneath everything else. Preparation for and fighting of wars is essential to our economy, and has been so for decades. It is never discussed, but it's as important to the economy as consumer confidence and housing indices.

Cracking that nut is the ultimate goal, and no House bill will get it done. That's a generational fight.

Just sayin'.

is not the same as the endless bloody occupation of Iraq. Yes of course we need to do something about that too, but more importantly we need to stop butchering Iraqis. Now. No excuses.

How do you separate them?

and not actively killing anyone. But we aren't. Iraq is separate because it is not just corruption and looting of our treasury, it is piles and piles of dead Iraqis. That slight difference between simple corruption on a planetary scale and war crimes keeps gnawing at me.

It's the elephant in the room that nobody ever talks about.

That's the hard nut underneath everything else. Preparation for and fighting of wars is essential to our economy, and has been so for decades. It is never discussed, but it's as important to the economy as consumer confidence and housing indices.

Cracking that nut is the ultimate goal, and no House bill will get it done. That's a generational fight.

Yes, it's a generational fight--you are right about that too. But isn't it about time--in fact, long past time--that we began the task of shifting our economy onto a saner and healthier footing? If Bush's war in Iraq has proved anything, it's the fundamental absurdity and self-destructiveness of a permanent wartime economy. It's not something we can put off any more: We HAVE to confront it before it ends up killing us.

"It's the job that's never started as takes the longest to finish." (J.R.R. Tolkien)

BushCo is nothing if not catastrophically efficient. :(

at the Bush Admin and at Republicons in general still simmers white hot.. and probably will until I die

But, I got to thinking about what it probably takes to deal with king George, knowing full well he is a psychopathic/sociopathic narcissistic, self entitled bully with the power of the Executive and the Judiciary and Blackwater at his command ... right now. I got to thinking about what it might take to get through to him and to the Renfield gaggle that surround him. There is no guarantee that he would follow through on any of his promises if the Bill had passed and I would say that chances are he would NOT given his habit of signing statements, which might have caused even more problems for a Democratic Congress and maybe even for this country. Even I know that to approach a vicious cornered animal is asking for attack and must be done with great care and caution if it is to be done at all.

I would say that dealing with the hardened criminals who are currently occupying the White House is far more dangerous than any of us can conceive. We are still looking at these things as if ALL the players were fairly NORMAL.. this is NOT the case and I believe our Dem leaders know it.. perhaps more keenly than any of us can imagine.

So, Hope has reared it's ever present head in my heart... yet again... confound it!

I hope that there is more going on in the background than we can perceive. I hope that the Dem Leaders are doing what they can do without tipping their hands and that soon we will see a complete turnaround. I hope my belief that good outweighs evil is, in fact, a Universal Truth. I hope that they are gathering facts and proof of criminal activity that will lead to impeachment on a scale that we have never seen before. I hope with all my heart that the words, "Impeachment is off the table" are yet another feint within a feint and that this little lie was only made necessary by the proven machinations of Karl Rove.

I know I sound like a demented Mary Sunshine and there is definitely a part of my old psyche that is rolling it's eyes.. But my "Angry" has been usurped once again by a stubborn refusal to believe that there is NO hope left. Our Dems are all we have right now.. they are the only stop-gap between this country and the Neo-Con Abyss.

So, yeah I was pissed and I still am on a lot of levels..but I am just not ready yet to chew off my own foot.


INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT IMPRECATE INCARCERATE :patriot:

Talking to a friend helped me get my feelings organized...imagine your teenager has run away from home and taken your car and a credit card to keep it in gas. You're angry. You want the kid to come home. One of the first things you could do is turn the credit card off. You don't, because you don't want the car and the kid left stranded somewhere. You look for another way.
It might feel good to refuse the funding bill, but it is pretty doubtful that W would have brought the troops home...rather, he'd have more likely left them there without the things they need and been successful in blaming the Dems for all the extra casualties.
However, the dems better come up with a plan soon (de-authorizing, impeachment, etc.), or I'm all for cutting off that credit card.

has no remaining guard against absurdities
the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder,
is the sport of every wind."


Thomas Jefferson to James Smith in 1822

----------------------------------------------------------
"History will surely judge America's decision to invade and occupy a fragile
and unstable nation that did not attack us and posed no threat to us as a decision
that was not only tragic but absurd.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, to be sure, but not one who posed
an imminent danger to us. It is a decision that could have been made
only at a moment in time when reason was playing a sharply diminished
role in our national deliberations."

Al Gore
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Democracy is never a final achievement.

It is a call to untiring effort,
to continual sacrifice."

"Our duty as a party is not to our party alone, but
to the nation and, indeed, to all mankind.

Our duty is not merely the preservation of political
power but the preservation of peace and freedom.

John F. Kennedy,
speech planed for Dallas Texas
---------------------------------------------------------

I am on a ship without a rudder
with a torn sail and a storm in the distance.

but it encompasses so many things. It's a terrible and disheartening thing to realize that elected officials really don't give a shit about we the people.

*Medicare cuts
*health care costs
*prescription costs
*New Orleans in ruins
*the bankruptcy bill
*gas prices run amok
*the Iraq war

I'm sure I could come up with many more issues but what's the point. The people in D.C. do not give a shit about the poor and middle class Americans.

I keep hearing talk about ethics reform like it's some big mystery how to reform D.C. It's pretty simple....DO AWAY WITH LOBBYISTS. Period. STOP PADDING YOUR POCKETS WITH MONEY FROM BIG PHARMA, BIG OIL, DEFENSE CONTRACTORS, ETC.

Are the American people so stupid they don't get what is going on? Big business OWNS our representatives.....representatives, what a friggin' joke.

Many Oregon counties have been receiving payments from the federal government to offset the losses in their budgets from declining timber sales. These payments have been going on for years and years and counties have (quite foolishly, imo) relied on them more and more.

This May, voters in five counties rejected tax increases to pay for basics such as police and other emergency services, libraries, county prosecutors, and county jails/juvenile detention facilities. Those counties began handing out pink slips the day after the election - in some counties, sheriff deputies would no longer patrol and crimes relating to meth would no longer be investigated, let alone prosecuted. Libraries laid off entire staffs and closed or prepared to close.

This crappy bill saves a bunch of jobs for Oregonians and will help keep some of our rural areas safe. Yes, many Republicans live in Oregon's rural areas. Yes, they weren't willing to tax themselves to keep people safe.

So while I do think it sucks in general, I'm also rather relieved that so many Oregonians get their asses bailed out yet again.

but was better than what we have today.

True, politics looks like making sausage, but seriously. I really think minimum wage etc could have been voted separately and let the Republicans fall on their swords. We spared them so we could have their unused clean swords.

My .02

If it's not there...try the pockets of the pants you wore yesterday. :)

Seriously though, I get where you're coming from. The constant swinging between Angry and Bummed is gonna put us all in the nuthouse. *sigh*

It's not that I don't understand what you are saying, but it doesn't lessen my anger at the capitulation by the Dems, AND at them once again letting the Republicans frame the issue. That poll you cited says it well: the Republicans managed to change "Support the War" into "Support the Troops" so well that people just swallowed it whole, and think that stopping the blank check means literally abandoning the troops in the desert. It especially pisses me off to hear Bush say that if the Dems didn't give him a bill he could sign, they would be condemning the troops to longer stays, inadequate equipment, etc. What the fuck is up with THAT? Many of us know that that is what is already going on, and has been going on since the start of this illegal war. It isn't the Dems who originated that; it was Bush. But damnit, it IS the Dems who didn't speak out enough, didn't work hard to clarify that the bill they originally submitted was a means to start ending the war, not a bill that would be deserting the troops.

I have plenty of Angry, Will. Please take as much as you want.

"I lost my Angry when I realized that the only thing as important as getting that timetable through is the absolute need to hang on to at least one branch of government. This realization forced me to swallow an ugly necessity: hanging on to one branch of government requires political and tactical moves that are awful when war and death are involved, but are unavoidably required right now."

I haven't quit fighting. We lost an important battle, but momentum is with us. The American people are with us.

And yes, we need to hang on to the Senate. Thanks for saying it better than I have here.

it has become clear that the Senate would not have passed a bill with a timeline a second time. So the bill would have died at the Senate and increased the partisan attacks from the other side.

I'm still so mad that you coudn't drive a hat pin up my an*s with a ball-peen hammer.

That's mad.

And it's also TMI!

I like to share.

Leaving now.

<grumbles in disgust as he slinks away>

Dems were right to vote for funding with no benchmarks because they can't defend their position at a time when over 60% of the public thinks the war was a mistake and we should get out?

If they can't do their job, it's time to vote them out.

Guess you missed the poll data segment.

between sending the same bill and sending the bill Bush wanted?

With false choices like that, you'll never be angy enough to make a difference.

Because I really want to be angry too. But you make good political sense. I can be happy that my representative voted his conscience, but the political reality is as you describe it.

I so wanted you to be wrong, to hold onto my righteous indignation.

From the start right after the november 2006 midterms election the damn impeachment was off the table and here they come with their lousy , lame 6 for 06 slogan , a weak show of political strength in my opinion .

People wanted out of this damn war , not proof of grade school tactics .

All the efforts of the rally's landed on deaf ears was proof to me no one was listening .

If they want to play political games them to hell with all of them . let them spend their mega million campaign funds and then not one of us go out and vote , screw them , let them feel the crunch of their own illusion .

make what the legislators did any less wrong- cowardly- or disappointing.

Yet we have our own choices to make--quit everything-- live in denial-- live in on-going rage (which is deadly for everyone)-- or eventually come to terms with what has been done.

I understand acceptance- Anger is an emotion i deal very poorly with. But we're all being given special ed classes in this, not only from the angerer in chief, but from the elected officials we helped put into power in hopes they would bring us some relief.

I'm angry at the resignation of our professional 'representatives'- and my faith in their word- and willingness to do the uncomfortable frustrating work they've been hired to do, has been greatly diminished.

And the deaths that * so piously told us we need to 'expect' will likely only rekindle this anger-

Apathy would be a far more dangerous and destructive response.

So I'll sit with the anger for awhile- and try to learn from it.

Get back to us still-pissed people after the long weekend.

It's gonna take a five-star drunk for me to get back to where I can discuss this rationally with anyone.

I'm not just sleeping-on-the-couch pissed, I'm door-slamming, motel room-renting, peeling-out-of-the-driveway-flipping-the bird pissed at these Judas Democrats.

Betrayal. That's something I can't get over in a day. This one's gonna take quite a while.

Bet there's a lot of folks here who are there, too.

:grr:

I hate being taken for granted. That's exactly what they are doing. THEY ARE TAKING US FOR GRANTED.

They've made this calculation that they've fucked around on us and slept with Gucci-shoed handsome lobbyists, but with a little bit of making up, we'll all be making out on the couch with them and donating money and letting them diddle us again by next week.

It's an abusive relationship! You're down with that?

Not this cowboy.

Oh man...

faith. I saw no reason for the Democrats who voted for that abomination to have done so.

Where's habeas corpus? They still could have put it into this.

My disappointment and anger is less than some, I guess, because I largely gave up having expectations after that moment.

I just don't understand why put up token resistance at the beginning, if they were going to fold.

They could have all that "strategy" that you mention in your OP without having made themselves look quite so ridiculous and weak IMHO.

I feel your pain.

I was the person that called and asked you to please find your way to Crawford in early August of 2005.

I've been hugged by Scott Ritter and Daniel Ellsberg, along with Cindy and all the rest.

Something is really wrong. Sell out just doesn't seem close.

Love you lots.

A

This first one is the morning we all left for Crawford for the first time, August 6, 2005.

keeping us there. Congress is in an unenviable position and I think they did the right thing.

If * would've changed, that would've been terrific. But that's not ever likely to happen from him.

The subject has been changed, the priorities have been brought to light, and the next votes will show howmuch the debate has been changed from what it was with the jingoistic president and right-wing congress.

And reason has to be cold. It has to cool the fires of anger and hate. It has to look at what is in play, what the goals are, and how we can best get there.

We can harness anger and use it an impetus to get moving. But we cannot use it to guide our movements. Keep track of your anger. But don't let it control you.

I find it highly ironic that the man everyone is shouting for just wrote a book about reason. And here people are jumping up and down in an emotional froth. We need reason. Its the only way to combat this emotional rollercoaster we find ourselves on.

Quoting William Pitt...

>>>The GOP megaphone would clobber us with no-troop-support hyperbole, which we all know is garbage...but is apparently effective garbage the public seems to be swallowing. The last CBS/NYT poll told the tale: a huge majority dislikes the war, a goodly majority wants to withdraw, a similar majority wants timetables set for that withdrawal...but a significant majority is dead-set against anything that disrupts funding for the war they don't approve of.<<<

That is exactly it -- distilled down as much as it can be.



"These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it Now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict the more glorius the triumph."

Thomas Paine, The Crisis -- December 1776

Thanks for your post. We need to pick ourselves up and go on from here. The Democrats are not the enemy of the people. Surely, this is something that's well known here at DU.

glc

next novemeber. Well yes, INDEED the most important thing to America is insuring Hillary Clinton is president. I'm sure she'll NEVER be pro-war again. Let's sure hope that Bush doesn't provoke Iran-because she'll have to finish that you know-to look tough to win the 2012 elections. And then GOD forbid, if she is not, and we have all these nasty laws on the books and precedents for presidential power and then a Republico-fascist, you know someone that makes Bush look like a nice guy becomes president in 2008 or 2012 or 2016. The future is being set now, for decades. Much as our future was written in so many ways by that "healing" pardon of Mr. Ford, that led to the "healing" of Iran- Contra that will lead (I am certain) to the Cheney/Bush/Gonzalez/Rumsfeld evil axis being let off the hook for all eternity if we do luck out and get a Democrat in there.

No the time is now, for lives, now. Waiting is for fools. But I see the only thing that ever matters to you and to them is the next election.

My anger has turned into bemusement.

I told you so. Before election 2006. They would back down. I was correct. And I will continue to be correct with THESE people. They are the wrong people at the wrong time in a crucial time in our country.

That's if you have medical insurance that will actually pay, here in the U.S. of A. All that money being spent on this insane war would go a long way in that general direction.

Reasoned anger is a mark of a caring citizen. My Angry just can't stand politicians who have a moist finger in the wind constantly, and who need help standing up because they have no spine.

This is a clever piece, but doesn't stir my respect and admiration, as articles from you in the past have. I'm planning to register as an Independent as soon as I can. My Angry is urging me to do so.

Why didn't the Congress, just accept the veto and move on to other topics?

Not send any sort of bill on funding Iraq/Afghanistan back. When the press or the public starts to howl, the Dems could have rightly said, "We passed a funding bill. The pResident vetoed it. Aim your anger at him."

Call the administrations bluff, as it were. They're not holding aces with an approval rating at around 30%.
edit to add: Congress had the strong hand - funding with timetables for withdrawal, bith of which polls say the public wants. They folded and dealt a new hand by bringing forward a new bill. They'd have been better off playing the hand they had.

You can always be counted on for one thing. To beautifully and eloquently explain away the failings of the Democratic Party.

Kind of like a mom, married to a violent drunk who continually kicks the shit out of us, “the children”, who cuddles us and tells us everything will be alright if we would just keep quiet and stay out of Dad's way. When maybe what you should be doing is helping lead the way out of this nightmare.

I hope you don’t take this too personally, because It’s not meant to be personal.

I have fussed and cussed about alternative ways to end this damn war. Lots of them right here on this board and looked plenty damn stupid after wiser and more knowledgeable heads countered with reality at every twist and turn I could muster.

Repeal the AUMF....can't, subject to a veto by the President.

Use the War Powers Act to end war authorization by simple majority vote of Congress not subject to Presidential veto....cussed and fussed long and hard on that one. Seems the Supreme Court has ruled against that tactic of a "legislative veto" and if we went down that road and lost in court, Bush might feel free of the restrictions of the War Powers Act all together and attack Iran. We can't risk that judicial loss of Congressional authority.

Defund the war by just not sending Bush any supplemental funding bill....Opposed by the vast majority of Americans as Mr. Pitt mentions. You won't end a war by going against the publics wishes. And you won't get Congressmen to get out in front of the public on this deal. We lost the linguistic framing debate on this Supplemental funding bill. "Defunding the Troops" was a loser for us. So were "surrender dates". Our leadership has got to learn to frame properly early and utilize learned resources like George Lakoff to better use linguistics to present our case to the public.

What was the correct course? Exactly what Pelosi/Reid did. I figured it out yesterday. Which gave me four good days of righteous anger. Like I said, I'll beat a dead horse. But not forever.

I was furious about the vote but looking a the reality of the right wing attack machine I can understand why many of them voted the way they did.

The issue was lost when it was framed as support for the troops. Bush would have been perfectly willing to let these soldiers go into battle without equipment or training just so he could hang their bleeding corpses around the Democrats' necks.

I still think they should have faced him down.

Who's holding the cards???

Oh, yes, the 'right wing attack machine'! Oh heavens, can't really expect anyone to face up to that now can we??

I swear, my chin is permanently black and blue from it hitting the pavement so many times. You mean to tell me, no one in our party can effectively counter the attack machine with clear, impassioned, truthful indignation and outrage?? Are you kidding me?? If they can't do that, what the hell makes anyone think they can stand up to anything at all, let alone effectively lead a country back to principles this party is supposed to stand for.

Sure it's about supporting the troops. What... there isn't a democrat who can show how our position supports the troops and how their destroys them? Dear lord.. a clear majority of the people have woken up to that truth -- Every time * plays the 'support the troops' card, we double the megaphone on how everything he has done has worked to destroy them -- reinforce what the people ALREADY KNOW!! Get specific!! Over and over and over again.

This time the 'right wing attack machine' was proven right. 'The democrats are weak.' 'They didn't even stand up for the majority of the people, so how can you expect them to stand up to terrorists.' 'You don't know what they stand for because they don't know themselves.' 'Can't trust them.' There's a way to smash the attack machine and a way to add fodder to it. The dems did the latter.

Oh yeah... my angry is definitely intact!

I'm not loyal to 'party', I'm loyal to principle. I've been a life-long Democrat because of the principles they stood for. The operative word is 'stood', not empty rhetoric. Precious few stand tall for what's right anymore. That's where my support is, and I'll fight like hell for them against all the political expediency sending this country and the world further and further into a cesspool.

As good Democrats we should show our support of impotence by backing them no matter what they do.

about this fiasco. I've been forced to conclude over the past few days that the Dems in Congress are MORE afraid of the right-wing attack machine, the great Wurlitzer, than of anything else on earth. They are more afraid of it than they are of Bush and the neocon mafia and DEFINITELY more afraid of it than they are of the voters, no question about THAT! And worse yet, they let the other side know it, in no uncertain terms.

The RWWs on another forum I frequent are all crowing about Bush's great "victory," and it's killing me. And YES, they are calling the Democrats weak and spineless--what else would you expect? I can hardly stand to read their posts these days.

To me it seems like the old RW memes are rapidly losing their effectiveness from overuse: Support our troops, fight them there so we don't have to fight them here, and blah blah blah. The Dems COULD have taken the chance of standing up to the attack machine now, but seem to have chosen not to. I guess they just didn't quite have the nerve, and I can understand that in a way. The political landscape is strewn with the bodies of the Great Wurlitzer's victims: Dan Rather, John Kerry, and even Al Gore in 2000, although he seems to have recovered and come back swinging. So in a way I don't blame them for being afraid, but SOME DAY they are going to have to stand up to the attack machine. And they just made it that much harder for themselves.

The US intervention in Iraq is doomed to failure. When our troops are brought home (as eventually they must) the aftermath is likely to be very ugly -- both in Iraq and in American politics. BLAME will be big part of the game, for decades to come.

Simply put, the Democratic Party does not want to take ownership of this war, and therefore the blame. You and I know this war belongs to the Bush/Cheney neocons, but consider this scenario:

The Democratic congress, against White House protests, forces a troop withdrawal. Iraq devolves into prolonged sectarian violence worse than ever, the jihadist movement thrives amid the chaos, and this result is played up as a major "defeat" for the United States.

By forcing the troop withdrawal, Democrats are incessantly blamed for this result.

I don't know for sure what the post-withdrawal scenario will be and I certainly don't think giving Bush what he wants will prevent it, but you have to admit the above scenario is a real possibility.

Iraq is and will likely continue to be a disaster. The Democrats don't want to be held responsible for it.

This may be an abdication of leadership, but I also think it is the political reality of this situation.

That way, the Democrats don't have to be blamed for anything, ever again!

They can do this in many areas of government, but deep down I don't think they want to take responsibility for the inevitable failure in Iraq. I'm not saying I agree with that position; I'm just saying I think it is a big part of their acquiesence on the war funding bill.

Ultimately though, this isn't a Democratic problem or a Republican problem -- we ALL have to deal with this problem. True leaders will take the bull by the horns no matter how deep the bullshit. The Dem leadership may think they are avoiding blame here, but they're also demonstrating they lack true leadership when it is most needed. As misinformed as the American people are, I think they'll recognize that trait and it will hurt the Dems at the polls.

I want the war to end too, but I realize what the Dems are up against. This war has been like a speeding freight train, and it's going to take a while to stop it. It took the Congress quite a while to stop the Vietnam war, too--but it finally happened. Before they cut off funding back then they did several other moves, like limiting the amount of troops in-country.

Did you notice something curious in the * reaction yesterday: he was saying nice things about the Dems. Nice?
This arrogant little sorry excuse for a president was talking nice? That tells me that he well knows the trouble he's in, and what sort of power the Dems have over him. He knows he's in trouble and is probably worrying about what's coming down the pike to run him over, in the not-too-distant future.

I do think the Dems have a plan, I really do. This is chess, not checkers!

that by resending the funding bill with with drawl time lines back to the president, is providing funding for the troops. It is the President's choice not to accept the funding, because of time lines that end the occupation. All that is needed is for Reid and Pelosi to stand on capitol hill in front of all the cameras a say; ... "Mr. President, we again give you bill with the funding to support the troops, until the orderly with drawl can be accomplished. The with drawl, the citizens of this country overwhelmingly, support. We ask you to sign this bill to insure the necessary funds are in place to insure the troops' safety."

Then it is his stubbornness, in the face of the publics own mandate, that denies support to the troops. The funds were provided, he chose to play politics.

I believe you are soft peddling an excuse for a betrayal of the mandate the voters gave the democratic party. And, in doing so you are also not mentioning the 'hide your accountability scheme' played in the House, further insulting the peoples' right to a transparent, open and accountable, political process. That later alone, deserves some lasting anger, government by stealth, indeed.

fuck the kingdom, fuck the horse; if it were absurd, one could bow before it like some Fisher King :rofl:

And a man stood there, as still as moss,
A lichen form that stared;
With an old blind hound that, at a loss,
Forever around him fared,
With a snarling fang half bared.

I looked at the man; I saw him plain;
Like a dead weed, gray and wan,
Or a breath of dust. I looked again--
And man and dog were gone,
Like wisps of the graying dawn...

--Madison Cawein, "Wasteland"

:(

but my anger only lasted one day while I sent lots of emails to my senators here that voted for it. Unless we the people revolt, I feel we have no say these days.

I was listening to Al Gore on some show last night and when asked over and over about 2000 he finally said what more could we have done than revolt? and then he said what he always does about it even though he didn't like the supreme court answer he wanted to believe in our system.

I thought it was interesting he even mentioned the word revolution. Made me wonder if he thinks deep down and won't say it thats what we should all do.

:hi:

.. basically I live in a state of utter despair and escapism.

out of fear of that next election. There will always be another election.

Sure, we need to have even more seats to have even more power, but then when we DO get that people will say 'be careful not to be too progressive too quickly, or we will lose the power we have next election'.

Maybe the solution is to just give up too much progress and settle down right in the middle....

"Thank you Sir,may I have another?"

Or here's one I know you like;

"If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."

There's plenty to be angry about. It's Bush's war.

However, anger is a negative emotion that gets in the way of clear thinking. Anger over Bush's war led many to lose their clear thinking and get angry at Congressional Democrats. It's understandable...Congressional Democrats (and even a rare Republican) will at least listen, something the President refuses to do.

The thing to do is to channel that anger into a determination to think clearly in order to better effect what is making you angry. Remember: anger and clear thinking cannot coexist! (It's an Obi Wan Kenobi kind of thing).

What you're missing is that the Democratic leadership knew all along that this sellout was how the deal was going to go down.

But.... they went through the whole "send a bill to be vetoed" exercise anyway - just to be able to tell you and me how hard they tried.

They played us all for fools. Please seriously consider getting back angry about that. It's worth it.

When I first started reading this all I could hear was:

I've been up (up), I've been down (down), and tryin' to get the feelin'
I've been up (up), I've been down (down), I've been tryin' to get
I've tried and I've tried and I've tried to get (up) the feelin' (down)
I've been trying to get the feelin' again
I wanna get that feelin'
I want to get that feelin'
I've got to get that feelin'
I've gotta get that feelin' again (up)
And again (down) and again (tryin' to get that feelin')
Tryin' to get (up) the feelin' (down)
I've been tryin' to get the feelin' again

Now I'm not angry anymore either, since my NEW party didn't vote for the fucking war! Sorry you lame-ass Democrats, but you won't have my vote anymore. You had my vote, but you've shown that you didn't really want it, or didn't really need it, (or my campaign contributions).

Now to go start a new website: The Green Underground!

Come on, Pitt - you get "bummed" out of this vote? There was a time when you at least *seemed* more warm-blooded than that.

...you are overqualified for Democratic Underground.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Doubtlessly, some Democratic politicians cowardly voted yes because they were afraid to get tagged with an anti-troop label. After reading a bunch of statements explaining the votes, I've come to accept that some of them voted yes because they truly believe was in the best interests of the troops (Murtha's and Webb's come to mind).

I also realized that I'm not at all convinced that refusing to authorize the spending bill would have ended the war. It would have been a big "fuck you" to bush, which would have been nice, but not if it was only going to be a "fuck you". Does the Pentagon/NSA have enough money to keep the troops there, undersupplied and underequiped, if bush tells them to? I'm thinking yes. He'd make a big show about how the troops were suffering because the Democrats took away their food and flak jackets, but he wouldn't bring them home because he cares more about his ego than he does about them.

If a Senator or Representative thought that there was a significant likelihood of that possibility, then I understand why they thought a yes vote was the right thing and I can't be angry at them.