Seems a bit odd that they would actually want to send the bill to the President rather than kill it in the Senate. What McConnell's statement really says to me is that they have counted heads and they don't think the bill can muster 51 votes. That being the case, there is no point in a filibuster. That's probably a smart tactic; why engage in a procedural maneuver that many voters regard as generally suspect, if you can kill it on a straight up-or-down vote?

The bad side is that it looks to me that this year's funding for the war is going to consist of a string of continuing resolutions. That's bad for troop morale, and it makes planning nearly impossible. However, it's still better than passing a bill with a surrender deadline, and the one good thing about continuing resolutions is that they are about the only thing Congress does that can't be used as a pork vehicle.

Way to show some back bone Republicans!

which passed its emergency spending bill with tons of pork in order to get the far lefty Democrats to sign on

I thought it was the far lefties that were on board and the "new" blue dog Democrats were the holdouts but took the goodies in return for their vote.

Or was the far left enticed to go along with this bill because they wanted the troops de-funded completely?

barneyRUBBLE:

Way to show some back bone Republicans!

That may or may not be true, however to take your word on it is a more questionable proposition.

And it doesn't address the matter of the democrats having zero intestinal fortitude to, A) draft a simple bill to cutoff funds and B) not pack the bill they did draft with bribes for those sitting on the fence.

No one on the Democrats side have ever called for an immediate withdraw of the troops. That is why they will not vote cut-off funding. The President said our presence in Iraq is not open ended. This bill fully funds the troops and gives the President a year and half to get the job done. Even most of the armchair Generals agree that we will know by the end of summer if the surge is working, so what is the problem?

Yeah, let the bill die. With luck, its the last bill with funds for the bloodbath in Iraq that Congress will ever offer.

BTW - if the surge doesn't work by the end of the summer, do we STILL send more kids to Iraq to get killed? What's plan B?

No one on the Democrats side have ever called for an immediate withdraw of the troops

Gee, so much for that November mandate we kept hearing about.

Oh and...psssst.....you better not let the lefty bloggers hear of your disloyalty. You may get banned for not properly disseminating the marching orders of the day.

BTW - if the surge doesn't work by the end of the summer, do we STILL send more kids to Iraq to get killed? What's plan B?

BTW - if the surge doesn't work by the end of the summer, do we STILL send more kids to Iraq to get killed?

What is it with lefties and their condescending references to "men and women" that serve in the military that as "kids".

BTW- what if the surge "works" and yet there is an arbitrary date attached on withdrawal?

Will lefties repudiate the withdrawal date with a "never mind"?

"Will lefties repudiate the withdrawal date with a "never mind"? " Jumping

The short answer is yes. The calls for meeting benchmarks and deadline. If the benchmarks are not reached, the pullout begins. If the goals are met, the troops can stay.

Also, I am one of those that want an orderly immediate pullout. The original plan was to begin the pullout once control was handed over to the provisional government. That was Bush and Rummy's plan. They should have kept it.

The short answer is yes

Oh...Okay then.....there is no reason I wouldn't believe Democrats would go along with that.

But....I think the "hey look, I pooped on the flag" guy would be a harder sell and he seems to have a lot of say in what goes on in the Democratic party platform...therefore I remain a bit skeptical with the "yes" thing.

The bad side is that it looks to me that this year's funding for the war is going to consist of a string of continuing resolutions.

That's how it's been from the beginning. The war has always been funded by Bush's emergency resolutions requesting additional money from Congress. It's never been included in the budget.

But....I think the "hey look, I pooped on the flag" guy would be a harder sell and he seems to have a lot of say in what goes on in the Democratic party platform...

Nope. The only ones who seem to be paying any attention to that guy are you and the right-wing blogs. Maybe you and the "pooped on the flag" guy should get a room.

It's amazing that the "liberals" here can not look at this bill as the monstrosity that it is.

You people approve of it?

It should be three separate bills... 1) war funding, 2) war commanding (pull out dates, benchmarks, etc., and 3) domestic funding.

But they can't pass the "we know how best to run a war" bits without the war funding stick and can't pass the war funding stick without the domestic pork carrot.

This is bad politics. All around.

Can't you guys even admit *that*? You want more of this? More than 2 years more of this?

Too bad Synova. Next time don't loose the trust of the American people and don't loose the election. Now go and cry to someone that cares.

Well, Barney. The Republicans *did* lose the the trust of the American people. You think the Dems can't?

You'd think that the Democrats would try something different.

Do you think this bill is good? Do you want more of the same?

Or is it really more important to gloat over the last election? Silly question, of course it is!

barneyRUBBLE:

No one on the Democrats side have ever called for an immediate withdraw of the troops.

Really! As is your norm, your factually challenged. H. R. 1234, written by Dennis "Peace Dept" Kucinich, purposes just that, and to quote its "STATEMENT OF POLICY: It is the policy of the United States that--

(1) the United States should end the occupation of Iraq immediately,..... yadda, yadda... more moonbattiness to follow.

What say barneyRUBBLE? Are you sadly misinformed, under contract to moveon or just a normal everyday liar of the first order?

More nonsense from barneyRUBBLE:

The original plan was to begin the pullout once control was handed over to the provisional government. That was Bush and Rummy's [sic] plan. They should have kept it.

The original plan also called for leaving behind a stable Iraq. Funny how easily you avoid that part.

Well...not "funny," just more proof your cashing moveon's checks.

It's amazing that the "liberals" here can not look at this bill as the monstrosity that it is.

You people approve of it?

It should be three separate bills...

This is bad politics. All around.

Can't you guys even admit *that*? You want more of this? More than 2 years more of this?

Ahem.

Republicans yesterday derailed a vote on a bill giving the District its first full seat in the House of Representatives by trying to tie the legislation to a drastic weakening of the city's gun-control laws.

You seem to be passionate about this issue. To illustrate, please point us to where you condemned the Republicans' attempt to conflate disparate issues into a single bill.

The original plan also called for leaving behind a stable Iraq. Funny how easily you avoid that part.

The only ones who have avoided that part of the plan have been Bush and Rummy. The American people are simply recognizing that fact.

Brain:

The only ones who have avoided that part of the plan

Well gee... point me in the direction where I can see whatever point you attempting to make?

You're "point" has nothing whatsoever to do with my comment that was directed specifically at someone other than YOU.

Point me in the direction of a thread (on your blog? Fat chance that's TOO HARD, it's easier to be a troll) that contains the subject matter to which you refer and I'll gladly discuss it with you. Til then get back on the this threads topic.

"To illustrate, please point us to where you condemned the Republicans' attempt to conflate disparate issues into a single bill."

I'm not familiar with the DC issue so I couldn't say if the two elements (representation and gun control) have anything to do with each other or not. They do each have to do with DC's strange non-state status, so they might.

Though it is sort of interesting that you can't do anything that I don't do first.

But if "the Republicans do it too" is enough of an excuse I guess I'm pretty right on to point out that the Republicans screwed up and lost the majority. To use this as an excuse to do what they do only *more* seems foolish, but please... carry on.

Well gee... point me in the direction where I can see whatever point you attempting to make?

Sure. That would be here, where you reminded us that the original plan called for leaving behind a stable Iraq, a goal towards which Bush has failed to make any progress.

I couldn't say if the two elements (representation and gun control) have anything to do with each other or not.

Oh, c'mon. You can't even admit that it was nothing more than a ploy to kill the bill? Have at least that much honesty, will you?

Though it is sort of interesting that you can't do anything that I don't do first.

You asked "us guys" to condemn behavior that "you guys" are actively practicing. I think it's fair to ask you your opinion of what "your guys" are doing.

But if "the Republicans do it too" is enough of an excuse I guess I'm pretty right on to point out that the Republicans screwed up and lost the majority. To use this as an excuse to do what they do only *more* seems foolish

I agree. There's lots of what the Dems are doing that makes me want to smack them in the head and say "that's what the Reps were doing, and America tossed their asses out for it!"

Well, Brian, that's all I was asking for but finding common ground seems a bit like betrayal to some, it seems.

As for the DC issue, on reflection it seems a politically motivated move by the Dems to gain another seat that they have never had before. Would they be for it if the district was majority Republican? And no, I don't know that gun control isn't relevant to the issue of representation because I haven't looked into the issue. What is the governing arrangement for DC? It's not a state and that's on purpose.