Rock on, Oregon Democratic Reps!

Senate debate isn't sounding too great.

Yay! Thank you Earl. And thank you David, Peter and Darlene.

I called to let Earl know how I felt, but I'm pretty sure that he was gonna vote the way we wanted anyway.

Can't say that I have a lot of hope for the Senate. But we only need 40 of them to stand strong so that it doesn't come to a vote. I will cross my fingers but not hold my breath.

Keep calling your Reps and Senators folks.

This was a clever failure of leadership. The Democrats wanted it both ways, and they got it. They crafted a bill giving Bush everything he wanted, knowing it will pass given the solid Republican voting bloc, in spite of most Democrats voting against it.

This certainly sends a message about Democrats.

It's a proud day to be an invertebrate.

Nancy Pelosi wins a date with Karl Rove.

Honorable mention goes to David Wu, Earl Blumenauer, Peter DeFazio, and Darlene Hooley, and all the rest of the Democrats in congress for their help in enabling this.

The Democrats certainly managed to engineer a solid no-win situation for themselves Jenni.

Republicans are having a really great time right now. Somewhere they're celebrating this. The Democrats have managed to engineer a great Republican victory.

Hey Dem Voter,

Way to be a troll. All of our Representatvies voted against it and were not on the appropriate committees to do anything about it before that.

Lay blame, if you must, with the right people. There's enough to go around without bringing any to bear against those that are undeserving of it.

Faolan, that was not intended to be a troll post. I voiced my opinion and disgust about the actions that the Democratic leadership had orchestrated. I am not living in California or Nevada, so neither Pelosi nor Reid is likely to give a rip what I think of them, but my own representatives might. I am assuming that my representatives have and continue to support the leadership of their delegations, so they get my ire, which they can pass on, as my representative in congress, or they can own it.

Nancy Pelosi also voted no to the bill, after she engineered that it be guaranteed to pass with the solid Republican support for giving them everything that they wanted.

i wrote to smith yesterday to tell him that he was right that the war is absurd, and oregonians would notice him giving bush a blank check to continue it. i guess he doesn't care that most of his constituents want this war to end.

And tomorrow, the Bush twins are enlisting, right? Or are they still partying in Cannes?

"Defunding the war is bad foreign policy."

The war against Iraq is good foreign policy?

At the risk of being burned at the stake, let me put in a moderating voice. I don't know how I would have voted on this (no is safe in Oregon), but I understand the larger political landscape. This is Bush's war, and there's nothing the Dems can do substantively from their position as legislators to change its course. I've been opposed to the war since long before it started, but there are both foreign policy and domestic political considerations.

Hogwash. There are times when people have to accept current conditions, and there are other times to refuse and stand up for what is right regardless of the consequences. This is a time to stand up and be a profile in courage even if it means the end of one's political career. The Dems were looking at the "larger political landscape" and had "political considerations?" Well, the consequence of their considering what they saw as the politics of the situation is that they have come across as a bunch of gutless and incompetent specimens defeated once again by the "worst president" in American history. Karl Rove must be thinking this isn't much fun anymore because the Dems are such easy prey. "Political considerations" and looking at the "larger political landscape" are too often just excuses for lacking the guts to do what is right. Too bad they didn't have "considerations" for the military personnel who will be killed, maimed and destroyed psychologically beyond the deadline that no longer exists. Too bad they are not looking at the larger cemeteries and longer lists of patients in military hospitals and the countless poor souls living in their own hells because of their experiences in Iraq.

This is Bush's war, and there's nothing the Dems can do substantively from their position as legislators to change its course.

How about standing together and speaking in a louder voice instead of leaving it up to a few honorable advocates such as Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich?

I could only listen to NPR in short spurts today because the news (i.e. Democrats defending their "Yes" votes) was really disappointing.

I am tempted to send cards of condolence on the loss of their balls (or ovaries - whatever).

The caption below Smith is what is really absurd. He's voting to fund something he finds absurd and possibly criminal? There's got to be some kind of award for that.

Jeff: It looks like the bloggers at Think Progress don't agree with you either.

This is terrible. If Pelosi and Reid want to redeem themselves, they say "OK, we're going to pass an appropriation that lets the President have the money for his Iraqi fantasy, but only at the expense of the entire budgets for selective service, the new bunker buster nukes, the militarization of space, the F22, Star Wars (yes, folks, it's still going on, merrily wasting billions), and overseas bases.

That is, Congress passes the Constitutionally required appropriation, but it allows Bush the option of using the money EITHER for those programs or for Iraq. NOT BOTH.

As it is, the Dems have shown that they will not only allow Bush to have the cake and eat it too, they'll make themselves laughingstocks to do it.

Jeff...you're dead on. Thank god someone finally said it. This is a battle in a war and one we can't win. Bush isn't going to pull out and its about time people realize that.

The bottom line is if the Congressional Dems pursue this they lose seats...a lot of them. Cry foul all you want but the narrow margins in our big 2006 win guarantee that. The Repubs did too good a job rezoning districts while we were the minority.

What we need to do is realize the Congressional Dems are going to have to cave occasionally because a Republican is President and the Dems don't have a veto proof majority. Blaming Dems for saving their seats is asinine. I want them all to keep their seats. I want a veto proof majority and its political reality that 40% of the country doesn't agree with us at all. It's called compromise...maybe you've heard of it. We fund our troops and in 2008 we've got a cannon to shoot at the Repubs that says you are a bunch of morons who stood behind a complete idiot. I know too many Congressional staffers that are so tired of code pink screaming at them when their Democratic employer is against the war but unwilling to defund the troops. Political suicide means Republicans in office. We have a 2 party system so pick one. Fundamentally they're opposed...realistically they're funding until someone who will actually pull the troops out is in power. Don't be bitter at Dems that voted against this...just realize we live in a giant progressive bubble and South Carolina is a bit different than Portland Oregon.

Jeff and Garrett, I think you're missing a key piece of what this supplemental bill is.

Let me first remind you: Most Americans support a timetable for withdrawal. Sixty-three percent say the United States should set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq sometime in 2008.

No such thing in today's supplemental. But you're right, when push comes to shove, perhaps the rest of the country is different than our Portland bubble.

Sixty-nine percent, including 62 percent of Republicans, say Congress should allow financing, but on the condition that the United States sets benchmarks for progress and the Iraqi government meets those goals.

The supplemental today also doesn't fully accomplish this: The bill establishes a series of goals for the Iraqi government to meet as it strives to build a democratic country able to defend its own borders. Continued U.S. reconstruction aid would be conditioned on progress toward the so-called benchmarks, although Bush retains the authority to order that the funds be spent regardless of how the Baghdad government performs.

Blocking funds for the war may be "bad foreign policy," but by all reality-based estimates the one that Congress passed today is going to cost more American and Iraqi lives.

I consider that far worse foreign policy.

At least Obama and Hillary! voted "no" (although they dragged their feet a lot first) so I can't scratch either of them off the list of presidential candidates I could support.

Also it was good to see Oregon Democrats voting in a solid bloc against the Capitulation Bill, even though my own congressman, Bushbot Greg Walden, of course voted for it.

Garrett writes:

"Jeff...you're dead on. Thank god someone finally said it. This is a battle in a war and one we can't win. Bush isn't going to pull out and its about time people realize that."

So does this mean the Dems just wasted all our time with election rhetoric, or they just dont know how to pick their battles? I think if you want to prosecute a war, you need to be President.

"The bottom line is if the Congressional Dems pursue this they lose seats...a lot of them. Cry foul all you want but the narrow margins in our big 2006 win guarantee that. The Repubs did too good a job rezoning districts while we were the minority."

Could you provide data that says Repubs gained more seats than Democrats in redistricting over the last 10 years? I think this is state controlled, no?

"What we need to do is realize the Congressional Dems are going to have to cave occasionally because a Republican is President and the Dems don't have a veto proof majority. Blaming Dems for saving their seats is asinine."

I can blame them all I want. They maintained they have all the freaking answers and then dont produce crap. If you stand up for what you believe in, and proceed to get voted out, are you standing up for the right thing? Either cut the purse strings and take your lumps or shut up. If you are right, it will all work out the best for all of us. Your problem is that EVERYONE knows it really is not right to defund the troops and that that whole thought process is fundamentally flawed.

"I want them all to keep their seats. I want a veto proof majority and its political reality that 40% of the country doesn't agree with us at all."

I want my taxes to be less, my marriage to be better, and my kids to graduate from college, your point?

"you are a bunch of morons who stood behind a complete idiot" Do you agree that the USA even has enemies? And your last picked genius was Gore? You speak as though a troop withdrawal will solve all our problems. Perhaps you could give us all a snapshot of the future, your future. Assume Bush pulls the troops now, total cut and run seems like what you want. What happens then in the middle east. Do tell.

Jeff has a point, and I have a historical question for those of you here.

Jeff's point, "Defunding the troops is a serious loser."

Question: who sponsored the bill to defund the Vietnam War?

Bipartisan sponsorship by WWII veterans. One got raked over the coals for decades, the other one barely ever mentioned in commentary by those who thought the Democrats had to pay a political price for a generation because they weren't gungho on the Vietnam War.

Who can name those sponsors?

Does this mean that Senator Smith and Rep. Walden were the only members of the Oregon delegation that voted for the one year extension of the county payments? I thought the extension was in this bill.

Don't mind Garrett. He's just our local concern troll.

He's just so concerned. He's just trying to help. Really he is.

I've been trying to find a reference without having to read the bill -- does anybody know if this bill includes the money for timber counties?

Truthdig has an interesting article by E. J. Dionne that essentially agrees with Jeff's position with which I disagree. Hopefully, they will be proved right in the long term, but in the short term I believe it is valid to reinforce in Congressional minds that there remains a high level of anti-war sentiment. Charge it up to the good-cop-bad-cop routine.

The highly respected Juan Cole made a related comment today in his blog: "Although everyone is syaing that September is now the potential turning point in congressional support for the Iraq War, I don't see how things will change much then. Supporters of the "surge" will be able to find some evidence of "progress" even if it is "slow." Unless there are mass defections to the anti-war side among the Republicans, there is no prospect of the Dems overturning a Bush veto. Thursday night's vote did not put a resolution of the Iraq quagmire off for only a few months. It put it off until a new president is inaugurated in January of 2009. Bush seems unlikely to significantly withdraw while still president, and the Dems can't make him if the Republicans won't turn on their own party's leader." My emphasis.

Re the "surge" see this thread at Think Progress.

Those of you who continue to believe that morality and ethics should play some part in decisions regarding foreign policy should grow up. We Democrats are not interested in morality, and you can confirm that by glancing at the history of triangulation by our about-to-be-coronated Bush-lite candidate. Winning elections by collecting the most money is the adult choice. Who will remember the guy who said this childish thing:

“Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it Popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?’ And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one’s conscience tells one that it is right.”

We have no conscience, and we should use that lack to sweep us to victory in '08.

Those of you who continue to believe that morality and ethics should play some part in decisions regarding foreign policy should grow up.

This is one of the best arguments I have read recently that could justify the Bush/Cheney/neocon war on Iraq. John Bolton couldn't have said it better.

Moralist: But, Mr. President, if we invade Iraq we will slaughter and maim hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. That would be immoral. And, if we are just doing it to help the oil and war industries make lots of money, that would be unethical.

Chorus from the West Wing,the Pentagon and Faux News: Aw, shuddup. Get outta here with that morality and ethics crap.