Bringing this down to the local level, the Iraq supplemental also contains a one year extension of the county payments program.

It's not the 5 year deal Sen. Wyden originally secured (with no help from Gordo, by the way), and it is only funded at 80% of the current level, but it will keep sheriff's deputies and DA's employed and essential services running a while longer.

Something is better than nothing, perhaps?

SUPPORT THE TROOPS, END THE WAR

Eventually, Bush and the GOP will have to answer for the fact that they ended up getting what they wanted from Congress and yet Bush's plan still failed in Iraq.

Bush is not doing himself any favors by drawing attention to his big political victory - he's only driving home the point that he's taking responsiblity for the result (which will not be good).

Already called my Representative. I called Wyden's office as well.

I wouldn't want to be an Oregon Democrat that votes for this blank check.

Hopefully they'll have enough sense not to.

I get accused (here often) of thinking too simply. If there's no agreement on the Iraq War supplemental-war-without-end-amen Bill, then we win. The commanders in the field will have to adjust to the conditions on the ground (for which they are well known), meaning they must plan a safe trip home. If but one Senator with guts or moxy would filibuster this, we could declare [fill in the gap] and start to celebrate/heal.

my $0.02

I can't criticize the Dems for acknowledging reality, i. e. they don't have the power to dictate terms to the 'resident... not yet, anyway. I'm sure there are plenty of others here who will blythely dismiss it.

The truth is that the Dems are still building the majority block to have the power we desire. I think that to act like we can just run government in a completely partisan manner would give ammunition to those wanting to derail the Democratic majority-building, enabling them to once again shout about how the D's are no different than R's.

We need to isolate the Bush-appeasing "blue-dog" Democrats on this, so that they can have challengers the next primary. These bills will pass but with primarily Republican votes. There is a separate vote scheduled on the add-on appropriations, so the Ore. delegation can vote against the Iraq appropriation but then vote for the add-on. If the vast majority of Dems vote against this capitulation it will establish again whose war this belongs to. Any Ore. rep who votes for this miscreant legislation to continue the Iraq war deserves to lose their seat.

It is now well known that this war and occupation is based on lies and is a crime against humanity. Anyone who supports it or votes to fund it is a criminal and responsible for the continued deaths and maimings (physical and mental) of our boys and girls and countless Iraqis. To me this is a moral issue. Political considerations look shallow, blind and sick.

I've already called Blumenauer's office to tell them that I think Bush can't be compromised with. Any compromise on our part is giving him what he wants because he refuses to move positions. I told him that in no uncertain terms I do not want him voting on any bill that does not include timelines.

And yes this Congress does have the power to dictate terms to Bush. All they have to do is use it. They can completely defund the war. All military wages can continue just like normal under the normal budget of the Pentagon. These suplementals are strictly to fund jet fuel, munitions, armor, etc. Don't give any more money for the occupation, force this administration to bring our military home.

Thank you Faolan for proving me right by denying reality. Nicely blythe!

To me this is a moral issue. Political considerations look shallow, blind and sick. Karl Smiley

He who forgets the past...

"Every senator in this chamber is partly responsible for sending 50,000 young Americans to an early grave. This chamber reeks of blood. Every Senator here is partly responsible for that human wreckage at Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval and all across our land - young men without legs, or arms, or genitals, or faces or hopes." "There are not very many of these blasted and broken boys who think this war is a glorious adventure. Do not talk to them about bugging out, or national honor or courage. It does not take any courage at all for a congressman, or a senator, or a president to wrap himself in the flag and say we are staying in Vietnam, because it is not our blood that is being shed. But we are responsible for those young men and their lives and their hopes." "And if we do not end this damnable war those young men will some day curse us for our pitiful willingness to let the Executive carry the burden that the Constitution places on us." "So before we vote, let us ponder the admonition of Edmund Burke, the great parliamentarian of an earlier day: "A contentious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood." George McGovern Floor speech in 1970 in support of the Hatfield amendment

This bill is a joke and the Democratic leadership is a complete joke this morning. Democrats were elected with one simple mandate. End this thing. And end it now. Even Republicans and their mouthpieces were happy to tell us if we voted for the Democrats, it would mean withdrawal from Iraq. So here we are.

Olbermann was 100% right last night. The president spent six months holding his breath like a 6-year-old, and the Democrats, for some reason, gave in. This sets a terrible precedent because he's going to pull the same stunt again in six months, telling us "we can't give up now...victory is closer than ever." So what will we have accomplished?

Pelosi and Reid should both step down from leadership immediately.

Unfortunately for the Dems perception is reality in politics. Voters who supported them in the last election and wanted America out of Iraq will view this capitulation to a lame-duck president with historically low approval ratings as the ultimate betrayal, an incredible display of political weakness. Good luck spinning this any other way.

All that matters is that they caved on principal when they could have shown leadership, just as Cheney predicted they would, offering no alternatives to the deteriorating situation in Iraq.

So just how are the Dems any different than the Repubs?

I just added a code. did this stop the italics?

"Bill R. We need to isolate the Bush-appeasing "blue-dog" Democrats on this, so that they can have challengers the next primary. Posted by: Steven Maurer | May 24, 2007 9:30:30 AM So, I take it then, you're moving to Alabama? We'll miss you."

Great sarcasm, but thanks to the Iraq occupation Congressional elections are now nationalized on issues like this, and in large part so is funding of Congressional elections. Folks in Alabama are not happy about sending 323 tons of pallets of their tax money to Iraqi politicians and U.S. war profiteers. They are not happy about sending their kids to die for useless Republican wars of occupation. And any other Bush appeasers out there need to think more about losing their seat than any attacks by W, whether they are in Oregon or Alabama. Not only is this unprincipled but it is politically inept to humiliate yourself to a president and a policy held in such utter contempt. Supporting the troops means bringing them home alive.

It was not just the Occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan that motivated the electoral victories for the Democrats, but the wholly corrupt Administration which has been exposed. The D's are in full pursuit of Bush's cronies for that. But your tunnel vision blocks your view of that. Note that the R's are different here, BR.

The defeat of the Dem's push to force Bush to accept a schedule for withdrawal from Iraq is not the end of the fight. It is pitiful to wail about the total collapse of the Democratic Party's opposition, because that has not happened. This defeat happened because the Congress pushed as far as their power allowed without serious damage to the chance of building a solid majority in Congress and supplanting the evil bastards in the White House. Would you give that up and settle for slapping Bush Co. down once, and letting them retain power in 2009? McCain and his cohorts would just love to to buy out Bush Co. and take over.

Finnegan, your tunnel vision is complete. You see what you want to see. I don't trust your figures that show such overwhelming support for the Democratic Congresspersons taking a page from Bush's book and stonewalling the dispute. If it were true then the D's would know and act on it. You just want the D's to be uber-Republicans.

Do you wonder who the House is listening to? If Americans do not want us in Iraq, and Iraqis don't want us in Iraq, then who does, besides W.

The war/occupation was the main reason for the D majority in 2006. Why did the D Congress remove language that would have required Congressional approval before attacking Iran?

Many of our D candidates have been speaking before groups like AIPAC and competing to sound the most hawkish, and Obama backed down on any language equating Palestinians and Israelis. Did you know that both Rahm Emmanuel and Steny Hoyer hold dual citizenship?

Bush wants the privatization of the Iraqi oilfields, and we are continuing this occupation until the Iraqi parliament passes the legislation that will make this possible.

AIPAC wants us in Iraq because 175,000 soldiers between them and Iran seems like a good deal- and US intervention in the ME will radicalize the locals and keep funding regional war and provides justification for land grabs against the evil Arabs.

Speaking as a Jew that craves peace in the holy land, I feel that the Israeli government has been hijacked by the same dark forces that took over our government- people who profit from war and unrest- and are fueled by hatred and racism.

Now feel free to call me an anti-semite or a self hater, I'm getting used to it.

So TJ you think the D's are incapable of performing the most bedrock task in their job description? Or they have all been co-opted by the money? What is your point?

We owe Iraq reconstruction money for destroying their infrastructure. We don't owe them continued occupation, which they don't want.

US actions in Iraq are, have always been, and likely will always be all about our oil under their sand - or I should write - the multinational petro-corps' oil.

Dems are repeating the same cowardly, money-grubbing behavior that led to their last exile in the wilderness.

Edwards is right. As a chess player, I learned that if a stalemate is the best you can get, don't tip your king. Take the stalemate.

It's unfortunate that the Democratic leadership has betrayed those who elected them. While everyone has their own opinion for why the Democrats had such a stunning reversal of fortune when the Republicans were swept out of power in Congress, it is undeniable that opposition to the war against the Iraqis was one reason as well as corruption and cronyism and violation of the laws of the United States by Bush administration were also reasons. On all of these issues, the Democrats in congress have responded with ineffectiveness.

On the war, they have now sided with Bush and not the Democrats.

Most Republicans would never vote for a Democrat, and a large block of Democrats are absolutely livid with the way congress has betrayed them. At this point, the Democrats would have to be fools to think that 2008 is looking very good for them.

Steve Novick, do you think that stonewalling on the funding issue is unequivocally the best political move? I won't question your moral judgement, because I seek the best political resolution. I don't see a strategic retreat as a moral lapse, and I don't believe this is the end of our opposition to Bush Co's Iraq Plans.

TJ, just because in a popularity contest that the 'resident can't break 30% doesn't mean that no one is listening to what he has to say, and you know that! Even the R's who give him a fail in the poll are definitely listening, and many of them are still undecided as to who they want to be running the Administration come 1/20/09.

The numbers in the polls drop because he blew his chance to give them the permanent R majority he promised, being exposed as the king of corruption.

We still have the possibility of convincing a good number of Republican supporters to go Democratic in the next election if we can show them that we are the better governors for the country. I don't believe we demonstrate that by shoving beams into the gears of government. If I remember correctly Newt Gingrich learned that to his chagrin.

Ed -

You can doubt polls, and you can support the Democratic Party on principles; but you are doing the strawman thing, if you are saying that critics of the current capitulation want to destroy the Party. Maybe a few are that frustrated, but the main point is to cull the herd. Those who cannot fight this battle are not true to their electorate, nor to their promises.

As far as where to concentrate, I invite you all to look right at your neighbor, Brian Baird. You don't have to worry about Alabama - although feel free to do so - when Baird is saying how things are looking better "over there". I will wait for his vote - he's my rep - but I will rip him a new one, if he rolls over on this one.

Beyond this debacle, however, the Dem leadership is highly suspect right now. Their secret "free trade" negotiations with the Bushits need full disclosure. What happened to their lobbying restrictions pledge? Latest proposals seem to indicate that they've lost their way on that one, too.

<para><quote>Pelosi and Reid should both step down from leadership immediately.</quote></para>

I believe Nancy Pelosi is voting against this bill. I think it's pretty clear that the Senate is where the real blockade against ending this war is.

I think the bottom line is that Democrats made an appeal to voters in November, an appeal I think was a very moral one, to end this occupation and to bring our troops home.

Today they are voting to continue it and there is no amount of talking points that can change that fact. This is a political vote, not a moral one. And a bad political one at that. Democrats attacked Republicans for playing politics with this war, and now because Democrats don't want to hear Republican criticism over the Memorial Day recess they're going to write the blank check.

I case Democrats haven't been keeping up, Americans were ready to bring the troops home almost a year ago.

Way to follow through on your moral, and not poltiical, appeal.

Paul, if you want to "cull the herd" {nice metaphor :(}you go ahead. I never said that would "destroy the Party", but that it would relegate us to the minority. If you're good with demanding orthodox purity, you'll get there. I am familiar with Brian Baird, having worked with him while campaigning in Vancouver in 2003-04. He's a good public servant, and SW WA will be poorer for the loss of him, should you accomplish that.

Ed -

Glad you liked my metaphor. It is most apropos with steers like Baird. Just as a sample - we had a really good candidate last November vs. Doc Hastings (next district going east). A week before the election, there is Brian with his arm around Hastings announcing their bipartisan relationship on some kind of pork.

Apparently you do not "get" the significance - or the 'strategery' - going on here. This is about the war in Iraq. Did you miss the headline? Do you not get that the public wants a way out? That they want it soon?

As far as minority status, I will take my chances on a rational and moral - usually the same - approach to the war as a means to relegate the Bushits to that status.

I leave you all to the beating of breasts and gnashing of teeth. You may find comfort in being politically pure, and irrelevant.

Ed left out wailing, sackcloth and ashes, self-flagellation, and probably a few other symbols. Anybody here into such stuff? Well, if you are, keep it to yourself, because I have never gnashed my teeth, and I don't intend to start.

This is the clarion call, folks. I attended y'all's conference a week or two ago that discussed blog relevance. What I saw was a group of activists, I think. People who have contact with the community and have plans to build on that activity. Am I wrong?

I can tell you that that is what I'm about. People in my county know where I stand, and hardly anybody seems to object. I have cornered our Brian Baird before, and this time I'm going for his liver.

All that I am saying is that this is a defining issue, if there are any. Let's work and spend to get real progressives into all of the legislatures that affect our lives.

First, polls showing support for the Democratic position on withdrawal do not necessarily translate into support for a Democratic refusal to provide money to troops serving in Iraq. We have lost the argument over supporting the troops so many times before, why in the world would anyone think it would be different now?

Second, the Senate couldn't even pass timelines again. Hagel and Gordo will vote against them, as will Lieberman. But instead of redoubling our efforts to oust Gordo next year, we here at Blue Oregon are advocating that we kill our own! Astounding!

Third, any bill that includes timetables must be signed by the President. He will not sign it. So the options are to either a) continue sending him the same bill, over and over; or b) refuse to send him any bill; or c) send him the bill he wants. Steve Novick recommends option a, but I don't see how that accomplishes anything. Eventually the funding will run out, and Bush can stand up and blame the Democrats for failing to protect our troops in a war zone. Democrats lose in 2008. Option b speeds up that process and still ends up with Democrats losing in 2008. Option c gives Bush what he wants for four more months, but makes it clear that this is still 100% his war to win or lose.

Finally, TJ, there is a parallel between this and Gingrich in 1995, but it has nothing to do with poll numbers or presidential popularity or even subject matter (and in any case, I would dispute Clinton's popularity in '95, just one year after the Dems were trounced in mid-term elections). The executive will always win the battle of perception on issues like this. In 1995 the GOP was certain they had public support for a hard-line position against a free-spending president. They were wrong. I think your certainty here is just as wrong.

I also think that heads must roll.

Probably best to roll those heads that contained the eyeballs that blinked.

Harry

Miles, the block that believes that what our troops need is more bullets and more time in Iraq is shrinking. If that group isn't already in the minority, it soon will be. That is the trend, and it will continue to be the trend because the war against the Iraqis was wrong in the past and it is a disaster now. The current strategy is a failure. Exit is the right choice.

The best option was no more funding for fighting, and bringing the troops out. That was the good leadership option. Funding with timetables is a poor second. Your "Bush" option is how Republicans lost both houses of Congress.

As of tonight, Pelosi and Reid are now confirmed as irrelevant embarrassments. They must resign.

Steve Novick, thank you for not backing down. This Congress needs a good left hook.

Of course I'm taken aback (but, sadly, not particularly surprised) by the apologists here and in the media for those who have unceremoniously caved to an unpopular president who is pathologically attached to an immoral war.

The occupation of Iraq should not be opposed because we are losing. It ought not be ended because it has made the rest of the planet hate and fear us. We shouldn't leave because that leaving would be a step toward restoring Congress's constitutional responsibility to make war and peace, nor because this filthy, obscene occupation is enriching the already rich at a breathtaking rate, nor because it amounts to a naked subsidy to the oil industry, nor because it has already resulted in a crippling burden to our children's children. We shouldn't even leave because of the unending drip drip drip of lies that fuels it.

Oh no. Any of those reasons would be sufficient, but they would be (with apologies to T.S. Eliot) the right thing for the wrong reason.

The United States (that's us) must get out of Iraq because the occupation of Iraq is poisoning us. Whatever shreds of our best selves remain, they are withering in the inhuman random violence that is Iraq tonight.

<h2>To invoke the spirit of Hunter S. Thompson (I wish he and Molly Ivins were still with us): "This may be the year when we finally come face to face with ourselves; finally just lay back and say it - that we are really just a nation of [305] million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms at all about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable . . . . Jesus! Where will it end? How low do you have to stoop in this country to be President?"</h2>