I'm sure Thomas Friedman has all the military intelligence he needs at his disposal to make such a call.

No doubt he sits in on the joint chiefs of staff meetings, then passes this info along in his column in the NY Times.

Friedman has written in his column what many of us have been saying for over four years!

Hopefully our elected representatives will begin to listen. Remember, an election cycle is upon us!

Shalom

"No doubt he sits in on the joint chiefs of staff meetings, then passes this info along in his column in the NY Times."

Look at what the idiots that do sit on on these meetings have gotten us into.

Friedman was an early booster of this war which caused me to fall out with him (causing him immeasurable grief). However I've always found him to be a thoughtful and intellectually honest man. It is good that he has found his way back to the right side of this issue.

"Thousands of U.S. weapons that were handed out to police and army recruits have gone missing."

The good news is that the Bush Administration expects that we'll get most of the bullets back.

Congress has the power to end the war and bring the troops home at any time it might choose. It's call defunding the war. However, Congress will not do that as they want Bush to take the hit for surrender. Congress doesn't have the cajones to do it themselves and take the responsibility.

`

Oak Ridge Runner,
Your line is the tired old line from Sean Hannity, Rush, and others who continue to carry water for this failed administration. Did you watch John Warner on Meet the Press??? If you had, you would have heard the logical reason why congress has to let the President stew in his own juice--and from one of your own party members!

Rather than add to the discussion of when, how and why, ORR just spouts the party line trying to somehow blame the Democrats in Congress for the Bush-Cheney quagmire. The one in four who see and STILL do not believe are grasping for any straws they can to defend the indefensible acts of George W. Bush. Pitiful, pitiful.

`

"Congress doesn't have the cajones to do it themselves and take the responsibility."

So you're saying that the Republican congresscritters who continually vote against defunding/imposing timetables/etc don't have cajones.

I will certainly agree with you there- it's not like Republicans have "manned up" and accepted responsibility for the folly of their actions any time in recent history....

THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE,

I am puzzled by the difference between letting "the President stew in his own juice" and continued American deaths in Iraq. Aren't they the same?

Why can't/won't Congress use any means at their disposal to get our troops home?

I ask that sincerely. If the reason turns out to be fears over their re-election, then they aren't worthy to represent us. Their position demands responsibility to the citizens, not to their continued rule.

Roger

Roger that.

"Congress has the power to end the war and bring the troops home at any time it might choose. It's call defunding the war."

I've stated this many times myself. The democrats campaigned and was elected by the far left to do just that. But they lack the stones to defund the war. They would rather convince Bush that surrender is the right thing to do so when (and if) it happens, they can point a finger at Bush and accuse him of being 'soft' on terrorism, and therefore better elect more democrats in order to feel safer from another terrorist attack. What a joke!

THE LIBERAL CANADIAN says that some "doesn't know how congress works" then goes off on a ignorant and uninformed rant about having to have a "veto proof majority" in order to end the war...NOT SO.
Congress can stop funding the war at any time it chooses...IF they can muster the balls.

"The democrats campaigned and was (sic) elected by the far left to do just that."

Neo - are you saying 51% of Voting America is "Far Left?"

==

Here's some ultimate truth about Iraq: no one knows.

Even if Congress voted to de-fund the Bush Middle East Boondoogle, the prospect of the Bill being vetoed are great. Then there would have to be enough votes to override the veto. That is where the problem lies. It would take a 2/3 majority to override a Presidential Veto. Those numbers have not been there in the past. Maybe they are growing, I am uncertain.

Regardless, the useless loss of ALL lives in Iraq is solely in the hands of GWB and his cohorts. He is the accountable leadership person. Anyone that denies that needs to go back seven years plus and check history.

Shalom

From 'The Politico':


"Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options."

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.

As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement -- the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.
*************************************

"will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options."

In other words... traitorous congressional democrats will limit the ability of the military to wage war, but make it appear that it is Bush's fault for keeping them in a no win situation.

Darryl,

"...the useless loss of ALL lives in Iraq is solely in the hands of GWB and his cohorts. He is the accountable leadership person."

I completely disagree. The executive branch cannot act independently of the legislative branch. Not for long, at least. Then the third branch steps in.

It was a month or so ago that the Immigration Reform bill was defeated after we citizens contacted our representatives and voiced our displeasure. That bill was something Bush wanted, and the people influenced the vote to conquer it. With that in mind, why won't Congress bring war funding up for a vote and let the citizens contact their representatives to influence that legislation's passage or failure as well? Or bring up a vote to repeal their 10/10/2002 resolution to use force against Iraq. Bring it up, we'll call their offices, they'll cave to public pressure one way or the other, and then we can all be quiet about it. Useless gestures like their non-binding resolutions condemning Bush's policies do nothing except show a lack of true conviction.

Russ Feingold said, "If Congress doesn’t stop this war, it’s not because it doesn’t have the power. It’s because it doesn’t have the will."

They were voted in after they said they would bring the troops home.

What is their excuse today? Remember their hollow talk. The fact is that the polls regarding the next election are more important to them than another thousand troops being blown up and ten times that number being maimed.

Roger

`

Roger, Roger!
The slimeballs that got us into Iraq cannot be trusted to REMOVE us from Iraq...that will take a new crop of politicians!

Too many who post here just spout off anything to buttress their blind following of Bush & Company. The most ignorant resort to trying to divert attention from the real issue by using inflammatory language like "traitorous Democrats" as if the Dems are somehow responsible for Bush's folly. By calling for the Dems to step up to the plate, they divert attention to the President and his lackeys who put our troops in danger, and for what??? Oh that's right, so they don't follow us home....you know like "Charlie" did, right after Vietnam. Man, I can still remember all the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese who followed us home from that conflict.
Here's the latest GOP "Family Values" Senator and his troubles:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20467347/

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CRAIG_ARREST?SITE=ORLAG&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

What the heck is it with the GOP and all the closeted Homo-sheck-shewels??? How long before the Idaho Senator checks into
re-hab for alcoholism! You can't make up stuff like that! Guess he was en route to see Ted Haggard and Mark Foley to discuss abortion, flag burning and gay marriage. Guess GOP stands for "Gay Old Party". LOL!

`

`

Oh, and for any of you who remain firmly implanted in the rectum of Bush/Cheney, here is an interesting story about those who try to tell the truth about Iraq:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20430153/

This shows what life is like in "Bushworld". Yeah, just give him more authority to wire tap, and spy on Americans...that's the ticket.

`

THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE,

"By calling for the Dems to step up to the plate, they divert attention to the President and his lackeys who put our troops in danger..."

I just ask for people to do what they say they will. Why, if they are truly worried about the continuing deaths in Iraq, are blame and diverting attention the major concerns?

Might I request a response to my 12:14 post?

Thanks,
Roger

Bennet: I'll jump in on this - although my understanding is probably only 25%:

"Why can't/won't Congress use any means at their disposal to get our troops home?"

afaik, the only way they can do that is to simply not put forth ANY budget. As Majority, the Dem's have exclusively the power to present bills. By with-holding the appropriation, they with-hold the war funds. Any bill they DO present becomes fodder for presidential veto, and the 60% and 2/3rd's majority rules apply.

So perhaps they don't do that because they cannot split "supporting the troops" from "supporting the war" - perhaps they are concerned about the chaotic fall of Iraq and possible Israel with the rest of the Middle East .. I don't know - but it's an argument the chicken hawks have made good hay from (like the good hay made from Gore's big house).

Like you - I just wish folks would talk openly, honestly and productively about this stuff. Oh well, I might win the lottery too.

Roger, I hold GWB and his cohorts solely responsible because HE and those cronies are the ones who concocted the Middle East Boondoogle. They are the ones who prepared this mess. GWB was the "band leader" who led the charge to take action.

So, while the Congress may have voted to engage, it is those aforementioned people who presented the lies, misconceptions, etc. that have put us in this sad place. Now, those very people who led the American people to support these lies do not want to accept responsibility. Who should be responsible? And remember, some members of Congress were unseated in the 2006 election. I would guess that more may be forth coming.

Shalom

`

Roger,
Why are you not leading a lynch mob on the criminals in the Bush administration? Are they not culpable? Is it because YOU consider yourself a "conservative" or a member of the GOP, that keeps you from placing the blame where it truly belongs?

James,
Thanks for answering Roger's questions in my absence. I could not have said it better.

`

It has nothing to do with the culpability of the Bush Administration. It has more to do with wanting SOMEBODY to represent the majority of voters.

The democrats were elected, even by most of your own words, BECAUSE of Iraq. Not any of the hundreds of other issues out there. Personally, I believe a lot of the damage was done by our president's failure to deal with immigration but I'm alone in that belief, I think.

In my opinion, the frustration is a lot like the immigration issue.

I've been pissed because neither party will address illegal immigration and enforce the laws. That's although the vast majority of folks in this country are p.o.'ed about the illegal immigrant situation in this country.

Another vast majority of folks are p.o.'ed about Iraq. And they don't care WHO challenges the president, they just want SOMEBODY to stand up and do SOMETHING to say "enough is enough".

Force the President's hand if necessary. Make him veto them. Most people want out of Iraq. How will that hurt them????

James,

The options I presented would prevent Congress from having to take any responsibility of discerning troops and war. Bring a bill up, listen to the constituents, and if it's vetoed then have the will of the people behind the legislators to create the 2/3rds majority. That is why I brought up the Immigration Reform bill. That same tactic could be used here. 70% of the U.S. population is against sending more troops, which is more than enough to secure the veto-proof majority of any bill they might raise. And wouldn't they be shielded by saying, "Hey, it wasn't me. That's what my constituents wanted."

Lynching aside, the actual method of expressing displeasure with elected officials is by removing them from office legally. We citizens were fed up with the way things were run. We elected new officials with different ideas to take the place of the old ones. That is how government works. Why are things exactly the same as they were?

THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE,

The blame belongs with everyone who is not doing what we put them there to do. And a lot of the blame lies with the public for not holding those elected officials accountable, regardless of the "R" or "D" after their name. J.D.R. did post a well-reasoned reply, but he didn't cover the president-juices-stewing = acceptance-of-continuing-deaths angle. Would you field that? I'm still unsure of how you meant it.

Roger

Nit and Oak:

The Democrats have voted repeatedly to set withdrawal dates and to fund a withdrawal. One of the last votes took place on July 18 when the Senate voted 52-47 to close debate on a 120-day withdrawal. However, under Senate rules, 60 votes were needed to advance the vote; the Republicans filibustered the vote.

Under the present rules there is no way for Congress to set a withdrawal without either Republican cooperation (the Dems only hold a one-vote advantage in the Senate and less than a 2/3 majority in the House) or by refusing to act on spending bills. Refusal to pass a spending bill would have the effect of defunding the troops while they are still in harm's way. A withdrawal requires funds, and Republicans in the Senate refuse to allow a responsible bill that funds such a withdrawal to go forward.

There are majorities that support and have voted in a responsible way for withdrawal. However, without supermajorities to first overcome filibusters and to then overcome the President's veto, funding for a withdrawal cannot go forward. Since the option of abandoning troops in the field is a non-starter, the county is at an impasse.

I think I'm with Dave on this .. the country is at an impasse .. but let me add that in my idealized world - I DO NOT want my "leaders" to always vote the will of the people. I expect them - I require them - [I am usually disapointed by them] - to act in the best long term interest of my honor, my family, and my country - in that order and with apologies to Robert E Lee (.. it's a long story)

Agreed. I just don't understand why any extra effort can't be expended. Force true filibusters (because politics-lite is a sad direction for the country to head in). Once it is past that they can begin to worry about it being vetoed, and then rally the voters to build the supermajority. Let the 70% succeed. Or fail. But do something.

Like Hemingway said, "Never mistake motion for action."

Roger

Roger,

I agree with you. I also agree with a lot of what Dave says as well.

I guess the frustation of it is that for the last couple of decades, it seems that the election cycle has grown longer and longer to the point where the window of effective leadership and doing things for the sake of something besides election posturing has shunk to non-existent.

It's worse now than I've ever seen it. At one point, I believed that there was some degree of sincerity from our elected leaders. That's getting tougher by the day.

To be sure, the Democrats deserve some blame here. In the July 18 vote, several moderate Republicans grumbled about majority leader Reid's theatrics with the all-night session and about his forcing a vote on withdrawal (just two months ahead of Gen. Petraeus' report) rather than a more moderate alternative, such as adopting the Iraq Study Group's recommendations. Around the time of the July 18 vote, Sen. Lamar Alexander said he thought he could get as many as 70 votes for the latter alternative.

At this point, we might as well strap in and wait for September. However, as we just saw with the release of the latest National Intelligence Estimate ( http://odni.gov/press_releases/20070823_release.pdf ), the new information seems as likely harden positions as to bring both sides together.

`

The "Family Values" people have hijacked the GOP and given us the largest single group of political hypocrites--closeted Gay Republicans! They vote against their own interest, thinking it is IN their best interest! Instead of talking about ridiculous things, ie. flag burning, homosexual marriage, prayer in school, these leaders should be tackling the tough problems. Instead, they are playing footsie in the mens room with people they do not know!

Here's a great argument for shorter Congressional recesses:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/28/politics/main3211447.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/28/craig.arrest/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20467347/

Wonder why ol' neocomic doesn't comment about his beloved GOP "Closeted" homo-sheck-shuals....Probably because it was him playing footsie with Idaho Senator Craig! LOL!

`

`

And if you want to see MORE ridiculous causes being championed by the "Family Values" Republicans, take a look at this story from the American Library Association!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20480366/

Many are now saying the GOP is headed toward being a "regional party" with its core in the South. Suits me! Great club for bible thumpers, racists and homophobes, or as some call it, "The Base" of the GOP.

`

"Wonder why ol' neocomic doesn't comment about his beloved GOP "Closeted" homo-sheck-shuals...."

You see, without me, you'd have no one at all to play with.

Why are you going orgasmic over a senator that plays the flute, THE LIBERAL CANADIAN? I was led to believe by yourself and sweet pea that this was no big deal. In fact, the left has been bleating for years that this is just as natural as can be. Remember the movie 'Brokeback Mountain? Sweet pea informed all of us that this was 'simply a love story' where the two main characters 'just happened to be male'...remember? What's the big deal?
A male senator decides to act naturally and you're all over him like a duck on a June bug. What gives? Do you now consider this a despicable act? If so, why? Think carefully...sweet pea will be watching.

:]

~

neo,
It is dispicable because your beloved Senator Craig is a Gay Basher!

He stands up in the Senate denouncing

HO-MO-SHECK-SHEWELS while he's out

trolling the men's restrooms in a faraway

state.

CAN YOU SPELL H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E ???????

Guess he'll check into Jesus Camp and emerge as a NEW HETEROSEXUAL! It couldn't have happened to a more perfect mouthpiece (pardon the pun) for "family values" Republicans.

Now that he's been outed, he's saying he lied when he swore on the bible up in Minnesota. You can't make this stuff up! The GOP is heading toward regional party status at warp speed.

`

```

Here's Craig calling Bill Clinton "a nasty boy"!!

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=4cd0a427-b055-48a7-a57a-4aa55450fab7&f=00&fg=copy

Whew!! Gotta love those moralists who have taken over the Grand Old Party and turning into the Gay Old Party!!!!

`

Totally off thread, but I've been wondering what the fuss was about.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070828_Craig_Police_Reprot.pdf

At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot.... The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area. Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times.

According to the arrest report, Craig stated "that he has a wide stance when going to the bathroom and that his foot may have touched mine." Craig also told the arresting officer that he reached down with his right hand to pick up a piece of paper that was on the floor. "It should be noted that there was not a piece of paper on the bathroom floor, nor did Craig pick up a piece of paper," the arresting officer said in the report. The officer also noted that once he had shown the senator his police identification under the partition and indicated to him to exit the cubicle, Craig, after initially resisting the order, left the cubicle without flushing the toilet. According to the police report, at one point Craig handed the plainclothes sergeant who arrested him a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and said, "What do you think about that?".

In a press release on his website, Craig said that the officer misconstrued his actions, that he was not involved in any inappropriate conduct, and had failed to seek legal counsel: "In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously."

`

So he was he lying when he pled guilty or is he lying now that he's been "outed"?

The guy is a slimeball because he touts family values while trolling for gay sex in an airport bathroom! Give me a break.

`

`

So he was he lying when he pled guilty or is he lying now that he's been "outed"?

The guy is a slimeball because he touts family values while trolling for gay sex in an airport bathroom! Give me a break.

`