Dems betray public, give into Bush - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Meridae'n · 05-23-2007, 12:40 AM

Quote:

In grudging concessions to President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday. The legislation would include the first federal minimum wage increase in more than a decade, a top priority for the Democrats who took control of Congress in January, the officials added.

While details remain subject to change, the measure is designed to close the books by Friday on a bruising veto fight between Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the war. It would provide funds for military operations in Iraq through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. Democrats in both houses are expected to seek other opportunities later this year to challenge Bush's handling of the unpopular conflict.

Democratic officials stressed the legislation was subject to change. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss provisions before a planned presentation to members of the party's rank and file later in the day. Democrats in Congress have insisted for months they would not give Bush a blank check for his war policies, and officials said the legislation is expected to include political and military goals for the Iraqi government to meet toward establishment of a more democratic society. Failure to make progress toward the goals could cost the Iraqis some of the reconstruction aid the United States has promised, although it was not clear whether Democrats intended to give Bush power to order the aid to be spent regardless of progress.

Several officials said it was possible that Democrats would attempt to draft a second bill, to include much of the domestic spending that Bush and congressional Republicans have said they oppose. Either way, Democratic leaders have said they hope to clear a war spending bill through both houses of Congress and send it to Bush's desk by week's end. They added the intention was to avoid a veto.

Bush vetoed one bill this spring after Democrats included a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq, and Republicans in the House upheld his rejection of the measure. The House then passed legislation to provide war funds in two 60-day installments. Bush threatened a veto, and the measure was sidetracked in the Senate in favor of a non-controversial bill that merely pledged to give the troops the resources they need. That set the stage for the current House-Senate negotiations on a measure to send to Bush. The Democrats' attempt to draft war funding legislation occurred after an inconclusive meeting on Friday involving White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and the Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress.

Democrats criticized the administration for rejecting calls for a troop withdrawal timetable even if Bush has the power to waive it. For his part, Bolten criticized Democrats for persisting with an approach that had already sparked one veto. He noted the president had already said he was willing to consider legislation that included so-called benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

Both the House and Senate have approved legislation raising the minimum wage of $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour in three separate 70-cent increases over 26 months. The measures both included modest tax breaks, mainly aimed at helping businesses that hire low-skilled or handicapped workers.
White House officials have said Bush is amenable to accepting an increase in the minimum wage, although they and key GOP lawmakers favor larger tax cuts to accompany the measure.

Essentially, the Dems in Congress have once again given in to the Friedman Unit worldview of the Iraq War. The GOP has been stringing out the "deadline" for when you will "need to see results" in Iraq for years. Literally.

The new official Republican deadline is this September. So, of course, you're not allowed to say anything about Iraq until "we have time to see if the surge is working." And, of course, it's Congress's "duty" to fund the war up until September so "our troops have a chance to succeed." The Iraq War is a fucking failure. Why are you being told you need to "wait and see," again and again, before you can say what it is and begin ending it?

ratbastid · 05-23-2007, 03:55 AM

Yeah, when I heard there was a compromise in the works, it sounded like a bad idea on several levels. Obviously, it's not conducive to ending the "Q-word". And once again, it's congress playing the administration's game.

What they need to do is resubmit fundamentally the same Iraq extension bill, with fundamentally the same deadlines, but only give the funding a 60 or 90-day extension. That way it has to go back to Bush's desk for a veto every couple months, ensuring that the public remembers exactly who's forcing our troops to stay in a deadly and unwinnable situation.

seretogis · 05-23-2007, 07:31 AM

Quote:

In grudging concessions to President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday. The legislation would include the first federal minimum wage increase in more than a decade, a top priority for the Democrats who took control of Congress in January, the officials added.

I've bolded what you should really be concerned with, for your convenience.

aceventura3 · 05-23-2007, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meridae'n

Link
They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss provisions...

The above was in the article above. This really strikes me as odd. Who gives "authorization" for our elected official to tell us what the hell they are doing? Why wouldn't they want to get a read on how people in the nation feel about the bill they are working on? This whole thing with the funding seems like it was and still is political grandstanding. At a time of war Congress should be ashamed.

dc_dux · 05-23-2007, 08:09 AM

Its hard for me to understand how it is political grandstanding or shameful for the Democrats in Congress to pursue a course of action that the American people voted them in office to do...ie, opposing Bush's failed policies in Iraq and pursuing a policy that would set a date to begin to bring the troops home in a manner that was in our best interest and least harmful to the future prospects for Iraq.

aceventura3 · 05-23-2007, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Its hard for me to understand how it is political grandstanding or shameful for the Democrats in Congress to pursue a course of action that the American people voted them in office to do...ie, opposing Bush's failed policies in Iraq and pursuing a policy that would set a date to begin to bring the troops home in a manner that was in our best interest and least harmful to the future prospects for Iraq.

I will go slow to keep focused, assuming that you really don't get it.

Why does a member of Congress need authority to talk about the bill?

dc_dux · 05-23-2007, 08:18 AM

Its interesting that Sec of Defense Gates described the Congressional debate about funding and timelines to be helpful, not shameful.:

Quote:

First, at a time when Bush was hammering away at Democrat-sponsored spending bills that would set a withdrawal deadline, Gates suggested on a trip to Jordan last week that the debate on Capitol Hill over an Iraq-withdrawal deadline was "helpful in demonstrating to the Iraqis that American patience is limited." Then, during a stop in Iraq a few days later, Gates said "the clock is ticking" and that U.S. troops would not be patrolling Iraqi streets "open-endedly."
http://www.talk.newsweek.com/default.asp?item=578856

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I will go slow to keep focused, assuming that you really don't get it.

Why does a member of Congress need authority to talk about the bill?

There is no need to be condescending with the "i dont get it" comment.

I get it...the Dems were talking about possible changes in the final bill that were still under consideration.....not about the bill as it currently stands. You dont seem to see the difference. It is perfectly reasonable for members of a caucus in Congress to have private discussions on possible amendments to determine possible support prior to proposing such amendments. Does that make sense?

aceventura3 · 05-23-2007, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Its interesting that Sec of Defense Gates described the Congressional debate about funding and timelines to be helpful, not shameful.:

Good for him.

I see you choose not to answer my question. I understand.

Edit: I see you did answer the question.

Why would member of Congress want to be anonomous when discussing the bill and possible changes to the bill?

dc_dux · 05-23-2007, 08:36 AM

If you dont see the value of private conversations among members of Congress regarding potential amendments to a bill then I just have to agree with Roachboys assessment of the "fantasies that enable your politics" (link)

Perhaps you can answer my question....why is it political grandstanding for Democrats to do what the American people voted them in office to do?

aceventura3 · 05-23-2007, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

If you dont see the value of private conversations among members of Congress regarding potential amendments to a bill then I just have to agree with Roachboys assessment of the "fantasies that enable your politics" (link)

Perhaps you can answer my question....why is it political grandstanding for Democrats to do what the American people voted them in office to do?

It is not. When members of Congress vote based on their beliefs or based on what they promised their constituents
, I think that is honorable. How do Democrats feel about funding and brining our troops home? I have asked this question before in different forms, never got an answer, I don't expect one at this point.

When Congress was considering the first bill, Bush stated what and why he would veto a bill. Congress sent a bill that would be veto'd anyway. Several weeks later, there is a leak in the media about a new bill. The information is leaked by unnamed sources who are not authorized to give any details. This is the most important issue of the day, and it is liekely to pass at the eleventh hour, possibly over a long holiday weekend to minimize news coverage. There is strategy at play here, isn't it? But, Bush will get what he wants, perhaps in exchange for a few political favors.

Here an interesting point of view from the editorial page of IBD.

Quote:

The Democrats Blink

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 5/22/2007

Iraq: When Democratic leaders dropped their demand for a withdrawal timeline this week, it was more than being outmaneuvered in negotiations. They left the president in firm possession of the moral high ground.

Related Topics: Iraq | Global War On Terror

Only a short time ago, Democrats were cockily promising they would send the president a pullout bill as many times as it would take, until finally he would have to relent. Just last Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were insisting on a timeline in negotiations with the White House on a war funding bull.

But the tables have now been turned on congressional Democrats. All of a sudden, it is they who face a deadline: If Congress does not manage to pass a war spending bill that the president is willing to sign before the Memorial Day recess, Democrats become vulnerable to the charge of refusing to fund our combat troops.

And so, faced with the president's famous "stubbornness" (so often portrayed as a character flaw by liberal Democrats and the media establishment), Democratic leaders have been forced to blink, dropping their insistence that war funding be linked to a troop withdrawal timeline — even a nonbinding one.

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and others who pander to the party's liberal base are blasting the Pelosi-Reid cave- in. "Congress should send the same bill back to him again and again until he realizes he has no choice but to start bringing our troops home," Edwards said in a statement.

Democrats now have plans for a bill amenable to the president that would fund our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan up to the end of the fiscal year, a little more than four months from now. A minimum wage increase is likely to be included in the legislation.

This loss of nerve on the part of Reid and Pelosi amounts to a significant blow to Democrats for at least two reasons:

• Disunity in the Democrats' ranks. After portraying the congressional elections that brought them into power last year as a referendum on the Iraq War, those in charge of the new Democratic Congress cannot deliver a withdrawal, and have no stomach for repeated presidential vetoes of their funding cut-off bills.

Consequently, many of the 73 Democratic House members who make up California Rep. Maxine Waters' Out of Iraq Caucus have already begun to revolt against the Democratic leadership, announcing they will not vote for a bill not containing a deadline.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, also from California and a caucus co-founder, warned that "This is a Republican bill, so it better be Republican votes that pass it."

Hard-core war opponents in Congress may soon be heard attacking Democratic leaders as much as they do the White House.

• Defeat is not a winning issue. Confronted with a president who will not back down in his support for victory in Iraq, it is now obvious the Democrats who run Congress are afraid to take him on toe-to-toe.

For all their rhetoric during last year's campaign about it being the will of the American people to cut and run, Pelosi and Reid were unwilling to make an explicit attempt to use Congress' power of the purse to follow through on their promises.

With Congress' poll ratings falling below 30% and registering lower than President Bush's, Pelosi and Reid may doubt the American public would be with them in trying to force a pullout.

It leaves the president looking committed and determined in his beliefs, while congressional leaders appear afraid to stand behind their own policies. Meanwhile, the liberal rank and file grow increasingly restless.

If nothing else, Pelosi's and Reid's concession gives Bush some political breathing space as America races against time to win in Iraq.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...64727642819830

dc_dux · 05-23-2007, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

It is not. When members of Congress vote based on their beliefs or based on what they promised their constituents
, I think that is honorable. How do Democrats feel about funding and brining our troops home? I have asked this question before in different forms, never got an answer, I don't expect one at this point.

What truly leaves me bemused and befuddled is how you can say you dont understand or never got an answer how the Democrats feel about funding and bringing the troops home. ...when it was laid out clearly in the Iraq Accountability Act (which i posted at least twice in response to your question), with the actions they included regarding redeployment,diplomatic strategies, etc.:

Directs the President to commence the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq no later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all U.S. combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number essential for: (1) protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure; (2) training and equipping Iraqi forces; and (3) conducting targeted counterterrorism operations.

Requires redeployment implementation as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community to collectively bring stability to Iraq.

Requires reports from the President to Congress every 90 days on progress made in implementing such redeployment.

All 51 Dem senators voted for it and 219 Dem House members (10 opposed).

Why is that so hard to understand?

I got as far into the IBD editorial as "they left the president in firm possession of the moral high ground." ....then i couldnt take it seriously.

aceventura3 · 05-23-2007, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

What truly leaves me bemused and befuddled is how you can say you dont understand how the Democrats feel about funding and bringing the troops home. ...when it was laid out clearly in the Iraq Accountability Act, along with the actions they included regarding redeployment,diplomatic strategies, etc.:

Directs the President to commence the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq no later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all U.S. combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number essential for: (1) protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure; (2) training and equipping Iraqi forces; and (3) conducting targeted counterterrorism operations.

Requires redeployment implementation as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community to collectively bring stability to Iraq.

Requires reports from the President to Congress every 90 days on progress made in implementing such redeployment.

All 51 Dem senators voted for it and 219 Dem House members (10 opposed).

Why is that so hard to understand?

I guess it is too vaugue.

What is a limited number?
Diplomatic strategy?
Economic strategy?
Engaging Iraqs neighbors?

I am sure Bush already thinks he is addressing those issues with his current plan. And, if that is what they want, why compromise now?

dc_dux · 05-23-2007, 11:03 AM

You guess its too vague? as opposed to Bush's current strategy...which you are SURE Bush thinks he is addressing (reading Bush's mind again?.....funny how you are SURE about what Bush is thinking, but question the motives and thinking of Dems).

THey compromised out of necessity because they did not have a veto proof majority? Why is that so hard to understand.

In the end, the Dems caved. I was dissapointed to see this, but at same time, see no merit in going back and forth with a bill..a veto..another bill..another veto.....that accomplished nothing.

IMO, the hyprocrisy and the moral low ground can be found among the many Repubs who have publicly and privately said the current policy is failing, but continue to support the Pres for political reasons..rather then whats best for the troops or the country.

At the very least, the process put many Repubs on the record saying they expect to see serious progress by September if they are to continue to support the failed Bush strategy.

seretogis · 05-23-2007, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

In the end, the Dems caved. I was dissapointed to see this, but at same time, see no merit in going back and forth with a bill..a veto..another bill..another veto.....that accomplished nothing. IMO, the hyprocrisy is among the many Repubs who have publicly and privately said the current policy is failing, but continue to support the Pres for political reasons..rather then whats best for the troops or the country.

Sometimes doing nothing is more honorable and more beneficial than "just doing SOMETHING." Ever hear of a strike? Refusing to work is a very effective way of making someone reconsider their position. If Congress REFUSED to give in without a deadline and actually meant it, Bush would be forced to reconsider.

Instead, appropriately, Democrats cut-and-ran from their own supposed principles.

dc_dux · 05-23-2007, 11:14 AM

Sorry Seretogis...call if "cut and run" if you wish...many Dem members just didnt see the benefit of playing russian roulette with the troops in the middle and IMO,that is a principled stand.

Quote:

If Congress REFUSED to give in without a deadline and actually meant it, Bush would be forced to reconsider.

Obviously, you dont understand the numbers....Bush would not be forced to reconsider as long as the Dems did not have a veto=proof majority (meaning Repub support which did not exist)

I can wait until the next go round in late summer when Congress takes up the 08 Defense Approp, bill and we shall see if the Repubs who have spoken against the Bush plan..but wanted 4 more months....will vote their principles or politics...if there is little or no meaningful progress in Iraq?

aceventura3 · 05-23-2007, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

You guess its too vague? as opposed to Bush's current strategy...which you are SURE Bush thinks he is addressing (reading Bush's mind again?.....funny how you are SURE about what Bush is thinking, but question the motives and thinking of Dems).

Bush says what he thinks and does what he says. he has been saying stay the course since prior to his second term. Guess what - he is staying the course.

The plan is vague. I know if I were Bush, I would say I am alreading addressing the issues in the bill veto'd. He has not needed to say it, but if the bill had any real support his "machine" would have picked it apart, starting with how vague it is. The bill was pure theater.

Quote:

THey compromised out of necessity because they did not have a veto proof majority?

Here we go again. People with convictions, don't compromise those convictions.

Quote:

Why is that so hard to understand.

Because I have a few convictions that I would not compromise. I some cases I would choose death over compromise. So when people say they feel strongly about an issue and then turn-around and compromise, I truly don't get it, other than to assume what they said was b.s. to begin with.

Quote:

In the end, the Dems caved. I was dissapointed to see this, but at same time, see no merit in going back and forth with a bill..a veto..another bill..another veto.....that accomplished nothing.

IMO, the hyprocrisy and the moral low ground can be found among the many Repubs who have publicly and privately said the current policy is failing, but continue to support the Pres for political reasons..rather then whats best for the troops or the country.

At the very least, the process put many Repubs on the record saying they expect to see serious progress by September if they are to continue to support the failed Bush strategy.

I lump them all together when I referred to Congress.

seretogis · 05-23-2007, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Sorry Seretogis...call if "cut and run" if you wish...many Dem members just didnt see the benefit of playing russian roulette with the troops in the middle and IMO,that is a principled stand.

Is it as principled of a stand as Bush playing russian roulette with the troops in the middle by staying in Iraq? Someone has to take a stand for what is right (non-aggression), and, yes, they may even be called dirty names and blamed for unrelated events by doing so. If the Democrats truly wanted to get us out of Iraq they would do so, not cave to Bush. If the Democrats truly wanted to get us out of Iraq, it would be more important to them than being re-elected.

Clearly, it isn't. The compromise is all about political job-security, nothing more.

dc_dux · 05-23-2007, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Bush says what he thinks and does what he says. he has been saying stay the course since prior to his second term. Guess what - he is staying the course.

Here we go again. People with convictions, don't compromise those convictions.
.

ace...I understand

You think its honorable that Bush is staying the course" even though it has not achieved any measurable success......our troops continue to die in greater numbers since the surge began, sectarian violence continues unabated, millions of Iraqis have been displaced from their homes, reconstruction is rife with corruption, the government is dysfunctional and has not enacted any meaningful legislation to address the problems (debaathification), etc...and there are absolutely no signs that the surge will bring about any poistive results.

I dont see that as conviction...I see as someone who is too stubborn to admit when he is wrong and morally indefensible.

aceventura3 · 05-23-2007, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...I understand

You think its honorable that Bush is staying the course" even though it has not achieved any measurable success......

I say what I think. I know you have read my current view on removing our troops from Iraq.

Quote:

I dont see that as conviction...I see as someone who is too stubborn to admit when he is wrong.

I have also stated that the only way to get Bush to change his position on Iraq is to force him to. This is not brain surgery. Congress knows what needs to be done, why won't they do it?

dc_dux · 05-23-2007, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3
]have also stated that the only way to get Bush to change his position on Iraq is to force him to. This is not brain surgery. Congress knows what needs to be done, why won't they do it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis
If the Democrats truly wanted to get us out of Iraq they would do so, not cave to Bush. If the Democrats truly wanted to get us out of Iraq, it would be more important to them than being re-elected.

The Democrats in Congress cannot do it alone.They dont have the numbers. How hard is that to understand?

That is a question that needs to be asked of the Republican members of Congress...particularly those who have publicly and privately said the Bush plan is failing but wont vote against it or propose an alternative of their own.

aceventura3 · 05-23-2007, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The Democrats in Congress cannot do it alone.That is a question that needs to be asked of the Republican members of Congress...particularly those who have publicly said the BUsh plan is failing.

So, you can see the hypocrisy when it applies to Republicans.

I say "Congress" is playing political games with this issue and grandstanding, you pretend my view is outlandish, then you conceed the point against Republicans. Well, Democrats are trying to cover their behinds and/or make political hay out of this issue also.

dc_dux · 05-23-2007, 11:57 AM

The Demcrats did what the public asked them to do....they sent the President a plan for phased redeployment...and it failed.

They can do it again and again and it will continue to fail without Republican support. Its not fuzzy math.

ratbastid · 05-23-2007, 12:12 PM

Ace, there's NO SUCH THING as "congress", in the sense you're using. Like, "Why doesn't congress...?", as if it's one unified thing.

Congress is split down party lines on this issue. You're trying to turn it into an attack on Democrats, because this mythical atomic construct you call "congress" is "controlled" by Democrats. It's the REPUBLICANS in congress who, with their sizeable minority, are preventing "congress" from taking a strong line against the administration's policy. Including Republicans whose convictions that we should get out of Iraq are getting shoved aside for party-loyalty purposes.

I had thought this couldn't get said any plainer and simpler the third time dc_dux said it to you. What part of this aren't you understanding?

aceventura3 · 05-23-2007, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Ace, there's NO SUCH THING as "congress", in the sense you're using. Like, "Why doesn't congress...?", as if it's one unified thing.

Congress is split down party lines on this issue. You're trying to turn it into an attack on Democrats, because this mythical atomic construct you call "congress" is "controlled" by Democrats. It's the REPUBLICANS in congress who, with their sizeable minority, are preventing "congress" from taking a strong line against the administration's policy. Including Republicans whose convictions that we should get out of Iraq are getting shoved aside for party-loyalty purposes.

I had thought this couldn't get said any plainer and simpler the third time dc_dux said it to you. What part of this aren't you understanding?

Quote:

con·gress /n. ˈkɒŋgrɪs; v. kənˈgrɛs, kəŋ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[n. kong-gris; v. kuhn-gres, kuhng-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. (initial capital letter)
a. the national legislative body of the U.S., consisting of the Senate, or upper house, and the House of Representatives, or lower house, as a continuous institution.
b. this body as it exists for a period of two years during which it has the same membership: the 96th Congress.
c. a session of this body: to speak in Congress.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/congress

Quote:

The United States Congress is the legislature of the United States federal government. It is bicameral, comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives has 435 voting members, each representing a congressional district and serving a two-year term. House seats are apportioned among the states on the basis of population. American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands send non-voting delegates to the House; Puerto Rico sends a non-voting Resident Commissioner who serves a four-year term; and the Northern Mariana Islands are not represented. The Senate has 100 members serving staggered six-year terms. Each state has two Senators, regardless of population. Every two years, approximately one-third of the Senate is elected. Both Senators and Representatives are chosen through direct election.

The United States Constitution vests all legislative power in the Congress. The House and Senate are coequal houses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congres..._United_States

If you mis-understood what I meant by "Congress" perhaps the info above will help clarify.

ubertuber · 05-23-2007, 12:33 PM

powerclown · 05-23-2007, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The Democrats in Congress cannot do it alone.

Not true. They could do it alone, if they had a unified stance on troop withdrawal. If enough Dems could agree to put a timeline for withdrawal in the legislation, they would have enough votes to override Bush's veto. That they don't, says to me that they don't actually want to leave Iraq...which is consistent with, for example, the unabated construction of the World's Largest American Embassy (in the Green zone) as well as hundreds of millions in ongoing funding for military bases throughout Iraq.

The Dems are between a rock and a hard place: They have the certainty of a Bush veto if they ever demand a specific date for withdrawal, and they have an increasingly vocal constituency demanding the US immediately get out of Iraq. I also think the Dems have a third problem: they haven't yet told their constituency, for obvious reasons, that the US in fact has no plans to leave Iraq for a long, long time. This dirty little secret could have dire consequences for a Democratically controlled, anti-war Congress.

dc_dux · 05-23-2007, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Not true. They could do it alone, if they had a unified stance on troop withdrawal. If enough Dems could agree to put a timeline for withdrawal in the legislation, they would have enough votes to override Bush's veto.

Powerclown...it is true...the Dems do not have the numbers...it takes 2/3 to override a veto....288 votes in the House; there are 238 Democrats.....and 67 in the Senate; there are 51 Democrats.

How do you figure the Democrats can do it alone?

seretogis · 05-23-2007, 04:18 PM

They don't have to override the veto, all they need do is continue to pass and send the same bill to Bush over and over and over and over again. Failure to do so shows that they really don't care that much about getting out of Iraq. Refer to my previous posts.

roachboy · 05-23-2007, 04:22 PM

it seems to me that the democrats are being framed in a bizarre way now--as somehow "anti-war"--as favoring immediate withdrawal--which i havent actually seen and i dont think is accurate. what they seem to be angling for is something like a sane approach to this bush-made, republican-made debacle. you know, a plan. something that was optional before, apparently. something that manly Resoluteness was supposed to fill in for.

it also seems to me that this stalemate is not the only thing happening, that the bush people are madly scrambling--with co-operation from all sides, it appears, behind the scenes to figure out something that might approach sanity. i even saw something earlier today somewhere (normally i would look for it, but at the moment, i have other things to tend to so havent the time) that the bush people are looking to approach the united nations in an effort to internationalize the conflict. which is saner than either of the nitwit meme-level approaches that are being floated at the level of television identity politics, which it seems that folk are most willing to fall for, simply because it does what it is supposed to do: distract you from the debacle itself. and it IS a fucking debacle.

so i dunno, folks: i dont think this is the central or interesting level at which to look at what may happen in iraq, this pissing match over funding and what, if anything, it'll get tied to, and these one-dimensional correlates that seem to follow from it.

off to make sure that my cooking project doesnt go to hell.
i have a plan, you see.
of course, cooking is not a war. but cooking needs a plan. so does a fucking war. jeez.

powerclown · 05-23-2007, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

How do you figure the Democrats can do it alone?

You are correct DC, I misspoke. Looking over the bill online, I see they needed some republican votes in there as well. What I don't understand is, why did the Dems send this to the President, knowing beforehand that 1) Bush would veto, 2) they wouldn't have the votes to override the veto?

edit: seretogis provides an answer to that question.

Quote:

it seems to me that the democrats are being framed in a bizarre way now--as somehow "anti-war"

sorry, 'anti-war democrats' in regard to those in favor of setting a timetable for withdrawal:

Defections now likely on Iraq bill
By Mike Soraghan
May 23, 2007

Liberal Democrats who reluctantly have backed House leaders on the Iraq spending bill may defect due to the leadership’s decision to eliminate any timeline for withdrawal from the legislation.

That could force the leadership to rely on Republican votes to pass the war-spending bill, which is expected to come to the floor as early as Thursday.

“The anti-war Democrats have reached their tipping point,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), a leader of the Out of Iraq caucus. “It’s going to take Republican votes to pass it.”

Woolsey has voted consistently against Iraq supplemental spending bills, saying they don’t do enough to get the U.S. out of Iraq.

Her observation is backed by comments by members like Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.). He was a surprise vote in favor of the original supplemental this year, but he said yesterday he cannot back the bill again without a timeline.

Grijalva said: “I’ve supported it all the way to this point. I understand the work that went into it. But if the goal is accountability, I don’t think this gets us closer to that goal.”

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) said he expects enough Democrats to switch that leadership vote-counters will lose the margin of victory they have enjoyed so far.

“I’m on the edge,” he said. “I’m not liking this. A lot of people have bought into the notion that you have to fund the troops. Funding the troops means more troops are going to die.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) indicated that just because he has voted for it before does not mean he will vote for it without a timeline.

“Probably not,” Nadler said. “If it doesn’t have some sort of timeline, it’s going to be tough for me to vote for it.”

Freshman Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), who ran against the war and enthusiastically supported the first supplemental and its call for withdrawal, is also wavering. Asked whether he could support the new plan, he shook his head and said, “I don’t know.”

If Democrats are looking for Republican votes, Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) thinks they can find them. He says he would be surprised if the proposal cannot garner 10 to 15 GOP votes.

“If the bill is without timelines, there would be a few Republicans who have bases and military retirees in their districts who feel the need to support the troops,” Jones said.

[At a caucus meeting at press time, House Democratic leaders outlined their plan to get around liberal defections. The supplemental spending bill will be brought to the House floor as two amendments to the Senate bill. The first will be President Bush’s original Iraq supplemental request. It is expected to pass with the votes of many Republicans and conservative Democrats. The second, a domestic spending bill to include money for children’s health insurance, Gulf Coast hurricane relief, minimum wage and other items. They will be combined procedurally without a vote and sent to the Senate.

“It’s a concession to reality,” said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.).]

The timeline for withdrawal of troops fell to the cutting-room floor as leaders sought to fashion a bill that President Bush could sign and that could be passed by the Memorial Day break. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the House will not leave for that recess until a bill is sent to the president.

Democratic Caucus briefings on the bill were delayed twice this week. A Monday night caucus meeting was canceled, and the regular Tuesday meeting ended before Iraq came up, after a long discussion on trade.

The legislation is expected to include minimum-wage provisions and money for Gulf Coast hurricane relief and children’s health insurance, but it will exclude agricultural relief spending.

“There will be an awful lot of things in the supplemental that members will consider very important,” Hoyer said.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) predicted that the final war-funding measure would incorporate the benchmarks-based provision authored by Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) and cosponsored by Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.).

Supporters of the plan to remove timelines say it takes the question of whether Democrats will “fund the troops” off the table and opens the door to an uninhibited debate on Iraq policy in upcoming bills like the regular defense appropriations bill. Moran, for example, said he intends to vote for the supplemental “under the assumption that there will be stronger language” in future bills.

“This bill will get us to funding the troops,” said Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.). “We’re going to come to an accommodation on funding the troops and keep the process going. Eventually, there will be a date certain.”
Lawmakers say they have to work with President Bush on this bill to keep moving towards ending the war, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) said.

“In the end, the president has the last say,” Ruppersberger said. “The most important thing is the endgame — getting our troops out.”

dc_dux · 05-23-2007, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

You are correct DC, I misspoke. Looking over the bill online, I see they needed some republican votes in there as well. What I don't understand is, why did the Dems send this to the President, knowing beforehand that 1) Bush would veto, 2) they wouldn't have the votes to override the veto?

They did it because they had a mandate from the American people as a result of the 06 election to do it. And at the very least, the vote put every member of the House and Senate on the record.

However, even if Congress were to submit a veto-proof bill, Bush, through his mouthpiece, Tony Snow, has indicated he would use a Civil War era law, the Feed and Forage Act of 1864 to continue to fund his surge.

The Food and Forage Law has been used twice by Rumsfeld/Bush:

Quote:

Should the situation get dire, the secretary of defense could invoke the Civil War-era “Feed and Forage Act” to continue war operations. The act allows the military to obligate money for clothing, food, fuel, housing, transportation and medical supplies in excess of available appropriations for the year, without first getting congressional approval.

The authority under the Feed and Forage Act has some limitations, but it allows the military to continue its essential contracts and operations. It requires congressional notification, and Congress has to appropriate the necessary funds after that. Obligated funds can only be disbursed after a congressional appropriation.

In 2005, when the supplemental was delayed until May, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned that he would have to invoke the Feed and Forage Act to keep the deployed troops operating because funds were running out at the beginning of May. The supplemental was signed May 5, 2005.

Rumsfeld also invoked the act in 2001 after the terrorist attacks, but Congress came up with money quickly, before the Pentagon incurred any expenses.

The Pentagon and the administration can also use the act as a tool to tell Congress that it can spend money without the lawmakers’ power of the purse.

“If there is no relief, they [the Pentagon] would invoke the Feed and Forage provision,” an Office of Management and Budget spokesman told The Hill. Disruptions in the Pentagon’s war operations will start around April 15, he said, and if supplemental funds are still lacking by May 15, the Department of Defense may warn that it will invoke the act.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-03-28.html

Until the publilc outcry against continuing the failed Bush pollicy becomes even greater than the 60% + current level to the point that it becomes politically unpaletable even to a lame duck and the Republican members of Congress, Bush will get his way...and the Republicans in 08 will ultimately suffer the consequences.

roachboy · 05-23-2007, 05:52 PM

my sense is kinda what dc said above. but it only a thin dimension of what has to be going on regarding iraq.
where i disagree is that it will be the republicans who will really pay for this in 08: the people of iraq are the ones REALLY paying...

ratbastid · 05-23-2007, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

If you mis-understood what I meant by "Congress" perhaps the info above will help clarify.

Oh for fuck's sake. Do you have any interest at all in discussion? Go look up "asinine", because that was the single most asinine response I've ever seen on TFP and that's saying something.

The only rhetorical strategy you have is to ignore everything everyone else is saying. You therefore lose this argument.

aceventura3 · 05-24-2007, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Oh for fuck's sake. Do you have any interest at all in discussion? Go look up "asinine", because that was the single most asinine response I've ever seen on TFP and that's saying something.

The only rhetorical strategy you have is to ignore everything everyone else is saying. You therefore lose this argument.

According to poll results the approval ratings of Congress is as low as the approval ratings for Bush. I, along with about 60 to 65% of those surveyed do not approve of the way Congress is conducting our nation's business including the Iraq war - the biggest issue facing the country. You say I ignore what everyone is saying. Am I ignoring what people are saying or are you?

I still don't get your point about Congress not existing, I re-read it a few times, perhaps you can clarify your point.

ubertuber · 05-24-2007, 06:52 AM

Congress exists the way baseball fans exist. You can (and people do) look at them as a group that has defined views and hard edges, but you'd be missing out on the reality that they don't all think alike. While there may be consensus among fans about the All Star game, that consensus arises from many viewpoints, some of them conflicting.

I think you have understood this all along.

roachboy · 05-24-2007, 07:02 AM

in the present pseudo-democracy, such situations are possible.
ideally, though--and this if the notion of accountability had any actual content (which it doesnt)--i would think that this would be a good time for everyone who was involved with the fabrication of the case for the iraq debacle, the pursuit of that debacle, and who voted for that debacle to accept responsibility for it and resign. we should have new elections. that is the only meaningful way in which the magnitude of this fuck up could possibly be acknowledged. it would indicate that elected officials understood that if they are responsible for the case for war or if they approved of it, they self-evidently demonstrated that they are not competent to hold office.
their judgments cannot be relied upon.
it is time to push reset.

holding extraordinary elections is a logistical issue, nothing more.

the present state of affairs grinds away at such legitimacy as this system still has, particularly internationally--but domestically as well.
the ongoing theater of paralysis simply demonstrates that the incompetence of this particular population to make coherent judgments concerning the iraq debacle has not changed.
but there is nothing like that happening.
there is no such thing as responsibility within this system, then.
no such thing as personal accountability.
it is apparently enough that the american people are politically free one day every four years.
and so it is apparently adequate to our collective purposes, what it going on in iraq.
and there is no pressure on the elements of the oligarchy that runs the show to do anything to demonstrate that they place system interests above personal power.
because they dont.

the system is itself a joke. the bush administration is walking talking demonstrations of that fact, as is everyone in office who believed them.
the debacle in iraq is, in fact, of that order of magnitude.
no wonder folk prefer to play along with the exchanges of trivia that passes for debate.
the assumption must be that the illusion of movement is movement, that the illusion of considered debate is considered debate.

but something is very very wrong with this. with all of it.

aceventura3 · 05-24-2007, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Congress exists the way baseball fans exist. You can (and people do) look at them as a group that has defined views and hard edges, but you'd be missing out on the reality that they don't all think alike. While there may be consensus among fans about the All Star game, that consensus arises from many viewpoints, some of them conflicting.

I think you have understood this all along.

Where did "they all think alike" come from. I never said that. In-fact I have questioned why they don't sit down and come together a develop an alternative plan to the Bush plan that they can agree on, or at least get passed. Given the rhetoric that the Bush plan has failed, I think Congress has an obilgation to put forth an alternative plan or shut-up.

So i am still at a loss for what Rat's point is. If his point is that they don't all think alike, o.k., I agree.

Rekna · 05-24-2007, 07:39 AM

ace congressional approval ratings don't mean much. Because it doesn't state who they are unhappy with. In order to make the assertions that you are making they need to have questions like: Do you feel congress should do more to try and get us out of Iraq? And Do you feel congress has gone to far to try and get us out of Iraq? Otherwise you have X% unhappy with congress because they haven't done enough and Y% unhappy with congress because they have done to much and then you are adding them together saying (X+Y)% of the people are unhappy with congress trying to get us out of Iraq. Sorry that is fuzzy conclusions.

aceventura3 · 05-24-2007, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

ace congressional approval ratings don't mean much. Because it doesn't state who they are unhappy with. In order to make the assertions that you are making they need to have questions like: Do you feel congress should do more to try and get us out of Iraq? And Do you feel congress has gone to far to try and get us out of Iraq? Otherwise you have X% unhappy with congress because they haven't done enough and Y% unhappy with congress because they have done to much and then you are adding them together saying (X+Y)% of the people are unhappy with congress trying to get us out of Iraq. Sorry that is fuzzy conclusions.

I say Congress' lack of conviction and political grandstanding on this issue is shameful.
Then I am told Congress is doing what they were elected to do and has or had a plan.
Then I say that plan was too vague.
Then I am told about Bush's plan, rather than addressing the vague Congressional plan.
Then I outline how the Bush machine could respond to the Congressional plan if the Congressional plan got any traction.
Then I am told that Democrats in Congress can't do it alone, when I never suggested that.
Then, I am told that Congress doesn't exist, and that this had been clearly explained to me.
Then I gave links showing what I meant by Congress.
Then I am told I am told to look up asinine because it may apply to me, and that I don't listen to people.
Then I make reference to what people surveyed think about the job Congress is doing and that I did not get the point of Congress not existing.
Then I am told Congress exists the way baseball fans exist and they don't all think alike, and I understood that all along.
I say I never suggested they all think alike.
Now, you tell me that Congressional approval ratings don't mean much because of the questions and fuzzy conclusions drawn from the surveys.

I officially throw up the white flag, I give.

Congress is acting honorable. Congress has a workable alternative plan to the Bush's plan. Congress is doing what the people want, eventhough the Democrats can't do it alone. Congress doesn't really exist the way I think they do, and they certainly don't all think alike. And, don't use polls to make a determination if Congress is actually doing what the people want or if your views are inline with those of the general public.

I think I got it.

Thanks

ubertuber · 05-24-2007, 08:17 AM

You forgot to include the part where you said Congress didn't have a plan and then dc_dux gave both a link and a summary to the plan.

05-23-2007, 08:09 AM	#5 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Its hard for me to understand how it is political grandstanding or shameful for the Democrats in Congress to pursue a course of action that the American people voted them in office to do...ie, opposing Bush's failed policies in Iraq and pursuing a policy that would set a date to begin to bring the troops home in a manner that was in our best interest and least harmful to the future prospects for Iraq. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

05-23-2007, 08:36 AM	#9 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	If you dont see the value of private conversations among members of Congress regarding potential amendments to a bill then I just have to agree with Roachboys assessment of the "fantasies that enable your politics" (link) Perhaps you can answer my question....why is it political grandstanding for Democrats to do what the American people voted them in office to do? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-23-2007 at 08:50 AM..

05-23-2007, 11:03 AM	#13 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	You guess its too vague? as opposed to Bush's current strategy...which you are SURE Bush thinks he is addressing (reading Bush's mind again?.....funny how you are SURE about what Bush is thinking, but question the motives and thinking of Dems). THey compromised out of necessity because they did not have a veto proof majority? Why is that so hard to understand. In the end, the Dems caved. I was dissapointed to see this, but at same time, see no merit in going back and forth with a bill..a veto..another bill..another veto.....that accomplished nothing. IMO, the hyprocrisy and the moral low ground can be found among the many Repubs who have publicly and privately said the current policy is failing, but continue to support the Pres for political reasons..rather then whats best for the troops or the country. At the very least, the process put many Repubs on the record saying they expect to see serious progress by September if they are to continue to support the failed Bush strategy. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-23-2007 at 11:11 AM..

05-23-2007, 11:57 AM	#22 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The Demcrats did what the public asked them to do....they sent the President a plan for phased redeployment...and it failed. They can do it again and again and it will continue to fail without Republican support. Its not fuzzy math. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

05-23-2007, 12:33 PM	#25 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	__________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-23-2007, 03:55 AM	#2 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Yeah, when I heard there was a compromise in the works, it sounded like a bad idea on several levels. Obviously, it's not conducive to ending the "Q-word". And once again, it's congress playing the administration's game. What they need to do is resubmit fundamentally the same Iraq extension bill, with fundamentally the same deadlines, but only give the funding a 60 or 90-day extension. That way it has to go back to Bush's desk for a veto every couple months, ensuring that the public remembers exactly who's forcing our troops to stay in a deadly and unwinnable situation.

05-23-2007, 12:12 PM	#23 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Ace, there's NO SUCH THING as "congress", in the sense you're using. Like, "Why doesn't congress...?", as if it's one unified thing. Congress is split down party lines on this issue. You're trying to turn it into an attack on Democrats, because this mythical atomic construct you call "congress" is "controlled" by Democrats. It's the REPUBLICANS in congress who, with their sizeable minority, are preventing "congress" from taking a strong line against the administration's policy. Including Republicans whose convictions that we should get out of Iraq are getting shoved aside for party-loyalty purposes. I had thought this couldn't get said any plainer and simpler the third time dc_dux said it to you. What part of this aren't you understanding?

05-23-2007, 04:18 PM	#28 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	They don't have to override the veto, all they need do is continue to pass and send the same bill to Bush over and over and over and over again. Failure to do so shows that they really don't care that much about getting out of Iraq. Refer to my previous posts. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

05-23-2007, 04:22 PM	#29 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it seems to me that the democrats are being framed in a bizarre way now--as somehow "anti-war"--as favoring immediate withdrawal--which i havent actually seen and i dont think is accurate. what they seem to be angling for is something like a sane approach to this bush-made, republican-made debacle. you know, a plan. something that was optional before, apparently. something that manly Resoluteness was supposed to fill in for. it also seems to me that this stalemate is not the only thing happening, that the bush people are madly scrambling--with co-operation from all sides, it appears, behind the scenes to figure out something that might approach sanity. i even saw something earlier today somewhere (normally i would look for it, but at the moment, i have other things to tend to so havent the time) that the bush people are looking to approach the united nations in an effort to internationalize the conflict. which is saner than either of the nitwit meme-level approaches that are being floated at the level of television identity politics, which it seems that folk are most willing to fall for, simply because it does what it is supposed to do: distract you from the debacle itself. and it IS a fucking debacle. so i dunno, folks: i dont think this is the central or interesting level at which to look at what may happen in iraq, this pissing match over funding and what, if anything, it'll get tied to, and these one-dimensional correlates that seem to follow from it. off to make sure that my cooking project doesnt go to hell. i have a plan, you see. of course, cooking is not a war. but cooking needs a plan. so does a fucking war. jeez. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-23-2007, 05:52 PM	#32 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	my sense is kinda what dc said above. but it only a thin dimension of what has to be going on regarding iraq. where i disagree is that it will be the republicans who will really pay for this in 08: the people of iraq are the ones REALLY paying... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-24-2007, 06:52 AM	#35 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Congress exists the way baseball fans exist. You can (and people do) look at them as a group that has defined views and hard edges, but you'd be missing out on the reality that they don't all think alike. While there may be consensus among fans about the All Star game, that consensus arises from many viewpoints, some of them conflicting. I think you have understood this all along. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-24-2007, 07:02 AM	#36 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	in the present pseudo-democracy, such situations are possible. ideally, though--and this if the notion of accountability had any actual content (which it doesnt)--i would think that this would be a good time for everyone who was involved with the fabrication of the case for the iraq debacle, the pursuit of that debacle, and who voted for that debacle to accept responsibility for it and resign. we should have new elections. that is the only meaningful way in which the magnitude of this fuck up could possibly be acknowledged. it would indicate that elected officials understood that if they are responsible for the case for war or if they approved of it, they self-evidently demonstrated that they are not competent to hold office. their judgments cannot be relied upon. it is time to push reset. holding extraordinary elections is a logistical issue, nothing more. the present state of affairs grinds away at such legitimacy as this system still has, particularly internationally--but domestically as well. the ongoing theater of paralysis simply demonstrates that the incompetence of this particular population to make coherent judgments concerning the iraq debacle has not changed. but there is nothing like that happening. there is no such thing as responsibility within this system, then. no such thing as personal accountability. it is apparently enough that the american people are politically free one day every four years. and so it is apparently adequate to our collective purposes, what it going on in iraq. and there is no pressure on the elements of the oligarchy that runs the show to do anything to demonstrate that they place system interests above personal power. because they dont. the system is itself a joke. the bush administration is walking talking demonstrations of that fact, as is everyone in office who believed them. the debacle in iraq is, in fact, of that order of magnitude. no wonder folk prefer to play along with the exchanges of trivia that passes for debate. the assumption must be that the illusion of movement is movement, that the illusion of considered debate is considered debate. but something is very very wrong with this. with all of it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 05-24-2007 at 07:05 AM..

05-24-2007, 07:39 AM	#38 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	ace congressional approval ratings don't mean much. Because it doesn't state who they are unhappy with. In order to make the assertions that you are making they need to have questions like: Do you feel congress should do more to try and get us out of Iraq? And Do you feel congress has gone to far to try and get us out of Iraq? Otherwise you have X% unhappy with congress because they haven't done enough and Y% unhappy with congress because they have done to much and then you are adding them together saying (X+Y)% of the people are unhappy with congress trying to get us out of Iraq. Sorry that is fuzzy conclusions.

05-24-2007, 08:17 AM	#40 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	You forgot to include the part where you said Congress didn't have a plan and then dc_dux gave both a link and a summary to the plan. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam