Excuse me, but we elected Democratic Senators and Representatives to be our spokespersons.  And they spoke and gave Bush what he wanted while our fellow Americans die over there.

We don't have the veto majority in Congress. So what would it have hurt, politically (if the people are overwhelmingly behind timetables and benchmarks) to include timetables and benchmarks (not waivable)in the funding bill.  I just wanted our elected Democrats to stand up and fight for the people's voice.

I think if you put pressure on the Congress to do what the people want, knowing that they'll lose their next election if they do otherwise, I'd logically assume that they'd vote the peoples' wants.  I think it's political suicide to do otherwise.  And the hell with Karl Rove and Frank Luntz...

But thank you for writing the diary.  It's given us all a chance to express our views and opinions which is what Democrats are all about.  In the meantime, life and limbs are lost.

The Republicans will lie on a dime. 

We can't forever run scared of what we fear the Republicans will do and say. 

On the subject of what the Democrats did last week regarding the Iraq war supplemental -- I totally disagree with them on that.  There is no way to defend or justify handing Bush another blank check, and that is exactly what was done.  If I were a member of Congress I would have vote "NO" just as Rep. Jim Moran did along with my good friend Rep. Patrick Murphy - the only Iraq vet in Congress.  As a Democrat I am very disappointed because I felt that we had the upper hand and the leverage to prevail.  We should not have worried about Bush accusing us of defunding the troops.  Bush, with this veto defunded the troops being that the Dems in Congress provided more funding for the troops than Bush asked for.

Oh well -- that is in the past.  I am a strong Democrat.  I will get over this and continue to drive on with my cause and help Democrats whenever they need me.  I will never relent on that.

Hopefully in 2008 we will win more seats in Congress and take back the White House -- we will.

I also am a moderate who believes in compromise and the two-party system when it works right.  Hopefully we can get back to that bipartisanship and build again as one America once George W. Bush is gone from the White House.

Lowell , you are doing a great job here on RK -- giving us all a forum to express our views.  Keep up the good work.

Your Friend,
John Bruhns

My disappointment with the the Iraq funding bill is not what resulted (removal of any benchmarks with teeth) because the Democrats do not have a veto-proof majority and must compromise with republicans to accomplish anything---- but with the complete public relations failure on the part of the Democrats. It was a wonderful opportunity to pillory the Bush administration in every way, speak up about the American people's desire to end the war, and they supinely bought into the republican frameing that equated de-funding the war with not supporting the troops. The Democratic leadership seems not to respect itself; so how can the voters respect them?

The Republicans got away with publicly disrespecting the Democrats, and this will only encourage them to be even nastier and more obstructive because, like all bullies they gleefully go for the jugular when weaklings refuse to defend themselves.

I do have to say that I'm a little disappointed that the Dem leadership isn't defending itself and this vote more aggressively, and that they aren't all over the airwaves pounding the same points home, which is that Bush had made it clear that he would rather not fund the troops at all than have a timetable, that this is only a four-month funding provision, and that the ball is in the Republicans' court to show us this progress and victory their fearless leader keeps talking about.  I don't know why they aren't pounding home the things accomplished by the legislation - assistance for Katrina victims, funding of the VA, etc.  The anti-war ideologues are like one-note orchestras. 

I'm afraid the Democrats have lost face with this chicken move.

This is not silly game people. I am sick and tired of the left going on and on about caring for the troops ect. when they are all too willing to let Bush leave those troops over in Iraq without proper equipment.

The reality is that we have to pick the battles that get us out of this situation with the least amount of damage to our guys. At least this way they have some equipment and support while we work on getting them out.

In a few months there will be a LOT more impetus behind the efforts to extract our troops from this mess. We need to be smart about what we are doing. Keep the pressure up on the elected officials and keep the fight in the news. But do not alienate those individuals who we elected to get this done in the first place.

"They should be on every talk show pounding this point, pounding the point that Bush has ignored the will of the American people, and pounding the point that someone's playing games with the morgue figures in Iraq to try to make the surge look more effective than it actually is."

Duh......

And no I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, Rove, and their ilk.  And I don't spend my time trying to figure out what lies they will ALWAYS come up with. It's a waste of time.  You've answered your own statement.  They should be on every talk show, etc...  But where are they?

The Dems should let Webb take the lead with his proposal that periods of rest for troops be at least equal to the length of their deployments.  They should let him hammer away at the lack of proper equipment, the emptying of our National Guard armories, the need of our troops to rest, re-train, and re-equip.  What possible argument can the most ardent Faux News listener make against these proposals?  Let's stop making this issue about the funding alone and make it about the strain on the troops and on their equipment.  Let's make it about domestic readiness for another Katrina or other major disaster. 

This is a democracy get better organized.  If i was a democrat I'd get that Schumer guy involved.

Cheers

I have said this earlier. The Dems did what they could with the tools and circumstances they have. Sheehan is someone who has went through more loss than myself,or most people here, but does not take away from the fact that she has gone batshit crazy. Refuses to see reality.

Webb and the other Dems may have had to regroup with this fight but they aren't done yet. They are fighting an almost impossible battle against 200 years of traditionally deferring to the Commander in Chief on military questions. This is unprecedented that we have someone who has fucked that job up so badly.

So on this Memorial Day lets thank they guys who do one thing... What their country has asked them to. The soldiers today serve their country. They fight for the guy next to them and not for the political goals of Bush.

I for one, will call my Grandmother and get her to tell me a story about how she was married to my Grandfather for 5 days before he went to serve in the Pacific theater of WWII for 19 months. Coming home a different person. Loaded down with medals such as a Silver Star, two Bronze stars and 2 purple hearts and multiple citations for bravery. Medals he never wore and kept hidden in a little box in the top of his closet. When I asked him about them he would tell me, not of the medals, but of his fellow soldiers who didn't make it...who died  so he and others could survive.

I will call my uncle who served in Vietnam as a Marine sniper. Who still carries the scars, physical and mental, of a war much like the one now.

I will call my friend Will. Who served in Iraq and came home with a look in his eyes I didn't like to see there.

I will call to say one thing. Thank you.

The Dems did what they could with the tools and circumstances they have. Sheehan is someone who has went through more loss than myself,or most people here, but does not take away from the fact that she has gone batshit crazy. Refuses to see reality.

Webb and the other Dems may have had to regroup with this fight but they aren't done yet. They are fighting an almost impossible battle against 200 years of traditionally deferring to the Commander in Chief on military questions. This is unprecedented that we have someone who has fucked that job up so badly.

Well said, thank you.

Anyone who has lost someone deserves a right to speak out, but they should ask themselves when there speech become counter-productive. If it at all helps the cause they fight for.

I have already seen/heard some of it, blaming those who have served in Iraq and are serving in Iraq.

Today and all day's in my opinion we need to honor our troops.
If we want to change bad policy we lobby our Congress.

If that fails, we beat those who do not listen at the polls. But the constant badgering of OUR Democratic Representatives and Leadership is just unproductive.

If the Democratic Party could bring an end to the war in Iraq today, they would.

Jim Webb and so many others should be given credit for being consistent in his opposition to this failure we call Iraq from the start.

To Senator Webb, his son Jimmy, and all those in his family who have given service to this country.

Thank you.

As for Cindy Sheehan, that diary had nothing new to say in it. I've always known she wasn't really a Democrat. I stopped listening to her a long time ago. Certain Democrats have definetly done some things that make me shake my head from time to time, but when you spend more of your time criticizing them than you do Republicans, you lost me.

I think this is the "last time" a compromise like this happens.  Bush won't be so lucky come September.

  RK is probably the best left-leaning blog in the country and I only wish you would take it nationwide.

By the way, I think there are a lot of great progressive blogs in the country, and definitely don't think this is the best one by any stretch of the imagination.  Heck, there are other Democratic bloggers in Virginia who I think write better than I do.  Still, I appreciate your support.

Goodbye Cindy.  Goodbye Daily Kos.

That type of thinking and running candidates too far from the progressive left-center is why there are Republicans like Susan Collins in otherwise blue states, who still, when all is said and done, vote with the Republican leadership on most of the big issues.  Collins is only a moderate maverick around the edges, where she is given permission by her leadership to do that.  When they need the party discipline, they reel her in, in a way that would be unimaginable among Democrats, who are more independent minded and really do represent their own constitutents more than their leadership.

Even when I disagree with them, as I often do with Ben Nelson, I resepct them for answering to those who elected them, not to Nancy Pelosi (and believe me, I agree with her more than I do with Nelson).

As for Cindy Sheehan, I feel so much for her for her loss and I can understand her frustration with the political system.  But, yes, she's being terribly naive.

As Lowell, and others, already pointed out, ultra left purists taking out their anger at the democratic political process on the Democratic Party have already given us two of the worst presidents in our history, Richard Nixon in 1968, and George Bush in 2000.  And both drove our nation further right than anybody would have ever imagined. 

It was, after all, Nixon's attorney general, John Mitchell, who once famously said that the Nixon administration would take this country so far to the right, we wouldn't recognize it.  And so they did.

So, if you want to vent your frustration at the Democrats, who do not have the 67% in Congress needed to override a veto, and also don't have the support of the American people to defund the war (Americans hate the war, disapprove of Bush's conduct of it but are still deeply conflicted over how to end it), fine, go ahead.  Please do vote for Ralph Nader again. 

After all, America really, really needs another 8 years of Republican mismanagement.  Oh yeah, we especially don't want to stop the rightward drift of the Supreme Court because who needs abortion rights, workers rights, or civil rights? 

We need more Scalias and Robertses, right?

2.  Just because we wanted real (NOT OPTIONAL) benchmarks does not equate with voting for Ralph Nader.  How come the Democrats agreed to that one?

2. Wanting benchmarks isn't voting for Nader, but how would Sheehan and her followers bolting the Democratic Party and forming a third party not hand the election to the Republicans?

1.  Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia....

Humphrey lost the 1968 election to Richard M. Nixon. His campaign was hurt in part because Humphrey had secured the presidential nomination without entering a single primary. (In later years, changes in party rules made such an outcome virtually impossible.) During his underfunded campaign, Humphrey grew on voters, who saw a kind of transparent decency as well as a mind that quickly grasped complicated issues. Starting out substantially behind Richard Nixon in the polls, he had almost closed the gap by election day. He lost the election by 0.7 % of the vote: 43.4% (31,783,783 votes) for Nixon to 42.7% (31,271,839 votes) for Humphrey, with 13.5% (9,901,118 votes) for George Wallace of Alabama. Humphrey's later resurgence in the polls may be attributed to a half-hour documentary film that was aired repeatedly in the weeks leading up to election eve, titled What Manner of Man; The film was designed to sell Humphrey as both a man of the people and a leader. It was instrumental in the election and has been called "one of the two or three best political films ever made."[2] A documentary producer named Robert Richter today claims that he produced and directed the film, though evidence exists that the film was actually written, produced, and directed by Shelby Storck with his company out of St. Louis.[2][3]

...

Immensely admired by associates and members of his staff, Humphrey could not break loose from the domination of Lyndon Johnson. The combination of the unpopularity of Johnson, the Chicago riots, and the discouragement of liberals and African-Americans when both Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. were assassinated during the election year caused him to lose to a candidate many thought less qualified to be president. Humphrey may also have been hurt by the presence of former Alabama Governor George Wallace as an independent candidate. He won many traditionally Democratic southern states and attracted northern whites who had previously been loyal Democratic voters. But some believe Wallace's third party candidacy hurt Nixon more than Humphrey, especially in the south. Thus, it is unknown whether Wallace cost Humphrey the election or not. The war that Humphrey was saddled with in the Johnson administration continued until the mid-1970s.

2.  As to a 3rd party, well there is not much you or I can do about that other than try to bring them into the Democratic fold.  This is a democracy and there will always be the threat of third parties.  But we as Democrats have to try a damn-bit harder to get our message out clearly, loudly, and often.  Several have said that on this diary.

Since I've answered your questions (and hopefully respectfully), what do you think of the optional benchmarks? I can somewhat understand the timeline absence, but for there to be no mandatory benchmarks... I fear, as others do, that this can go on and on and on.

I am so angry at Bush for getting us into this horrendous mess.  I don't know if we'll ever get out.

The quarrel I have with the Democratic leadership is that they permitted, nay, enabled, a big public relations problem for their Party when the White House and the Congressional Republicans and their lapdog pundits repeatedly smeared the Democrats' efforts at establishing a time line imposing requirements on Bush (as well as Iraqis) to force a withdrawal: "Democratic date for surrender," "Democrats blink." The repubs hung the label of "Surrender" on the Democrats, thereby setting a trap to be sprung in upcoming elections--- sports-minded Americans hate to Lose, don't vote for losers. 

The Democrats never once responded, never once met the republican challenge by re-framing the debate on their terms. They accepted republican framing and equated supporting the troops with funding Bush's war on his own terms. They absolutely MUST stop this acceptance of republican fantasy-land.  The Democrats have the realistic, honorable viewpoint. Why keep pretending there is something sacred and untouchable about the distorted, actually psycho, Bush-narrative?  It deserves no credence, and if Democrats want to be respected, if they want to defeat the republicans in future elections, they need to stand up for their viewpoint and make their case at every opportunity...  Especially when the republicans have no compunction about smearing them over and over.

We need a "ragtag army" of trained, energized activists all over this country, fighting for Democratic beliefs.  We need candidates in EVERY SINGLE DISTRICT (yeah, yeah, I know some will say that's impossible or counterproductive...well, I believe in spreading the playing field as much as possible).  We need to systematically deconstruct conservatism. And we need our Presidential candidates to give Americans a powerful, Progressive vision that contrasts completely with the Republicans' "I've got mine so f*** you" philosophy.

Howard Dean was appointed almost over the dead bodies of the DLC-linked Dem establishment, but was told to keep his mouth shut on policy matters--- not that I blame them, as he can be a loose cannon. But who else is there to call a weekly meeting of progressive Democrats to decide on the Democratic position and framing of key issues, or even decide on catch phrases and how to attack or respond to Republican attacks, the way Grover Norquist and Karl Rove convene the republican minions?

Lowell: Do you want to arrange such a weekly convocation of "ragtag activists" to accomplish Democratic re-framing? How do you plan on getting the elected Democrats to listen to them? Eh?

Universal Opportunity.
Responsible Government.
Energy Security.
Fair Markets.
Sustainable Growth.
Healthy Families.
Strong Communities.
The Right to Privacy.

With a nod to Lowell's team of rivals thread, I think we "love" Reid, because as Lincoln said "he fights."
But that's just me...I'm not a woman but if I were,Reid's too old, not my fantasy of what I would want in a man, and I'm not that crazy to be a true fan of the man to stalk him.

I love him because he fights, is that a crime? And I'm not a geeky kid either-look at the actual mag current issue lead from Byron York.

This year we especially remember our troops in Iraq sent by civilian leaders into the wrong war, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons, and without an exit strategy.

This Memorial Day everyone should know that The Democratic Party is working to end our occupation of Iraq, improve homeland security, and make sure every Veteran is treated by our grateful Nation with the dignity and honor they all deserve.

With all of my flaws and our leaders flaws and some of the give-away programs; to even think of leaving the only political party that follows the teachings of Christ and has the core value of love of mankind and the bettermit of mankind; frustation YES; insanity NO.

One thing I will never do is to follow our leaders blindly. I will speak out and call them stupid and cowards and just plain jerks, but I will never follow a leader down a blind path which is against my better judgement.

I just cannnot believe, the Republican leaders in Congress believe Bush is right and for them to follow him so blindly is complete stupidity and no Political leader is worth that kind of respect. I totally believe in the Democratic Parties endless talking and bickering and endless ideals for solutions.

BUT Reid was wrong to say he will never send a bill with out a time line and then fold so soon. Pelosi was wrong to speak so soon about funding the troops no matter what. Bush just used their words and jammed them down their throats. Pelosi's words told Bush in January that he could veto any bill he did not like, because Democrats said in Jan. they will fund the troops. It was stupid Politics on there part.

2. While I vehemently disagree with many, e.g., the Whistling-past-dixie group, those debates don't go ad hominem out of the chute, that is, batshit crazy is not part of round one.  That leads to the side-thread:  some of the responses to Sheehan contain less than nuanced sexism.

3. The real beneficiaries of constructing something like a Sheehan-Webb dichotomy are not Democrats. A substantial component of far left identify as independent rather than Democrat if they are involved in the political process. it's a strategic error to distance the party from more liberal Democrats as a whole.  Let me push this through a pragmatic meme as the buzzword de jour. 

In 2006 Virginia Republicans left far more votes on the table than did Democrats.  So a naive view is to conclude that new opportunity for Democrats lies only toward the middle.  If Democrats take a collective shift rightward in an effort to pick up more of the middle, the far left of the spectrum is abandoned and along with that Dems lose a substantial segment of self-identified independents. And most centrist independents know wishy-washy when they see it.  That's the classical viewpoint, but reaching for redefinition in the face of internal disagreement is not addressing the problems - unless that redefinition involves a new way of addressing internal disagreement. Or something like that.

4. Lowell mentioned that we need a trained ragtag crew. In my experience the best trained, hardest working and most ragtag members of the Democratic Party *are* from the left.  While they tend to be focused on a few special issues, e.g., environmental, and their participation in party type politics may be a bit of a compromise for them, they step up to the plate in a pinch.

As a matter of fact, now that I think about it, when it has come to foot soldiering in my district, in several instances liberal Democrats have volunteered from outside of our area to help out with some tasks.  Never has anyone of a more centrist bent done that.  But my experience is limited so that's anecdotal.

5. I don't know what sort of value folks expect from a mega-blog like dailykos. It's been a good while, but I posted a diary there yesterday on a topic completely unrelated to all of this.  DK was a good venue for my goal: to push some information to the right folks in a different state. That's a little different than pushing a belief system or ideology so the emotional investment is not an issue. 

I also don't know what people expect from Cindy Sheehan.

But I do hope you're noticing that folks are being troll-rated and down-rated inappropriately.

The politics of this situation - real, idealistic or otherwise - are difficult enough.  But the ugly context being constructed is unnecessary and disturbingly shortsighted.  I'm not up on the timeline on all of her activities, but Sheehan appeared with Chavez well over a year ago.  That incident at the very latest placed her outside of the mainstream of political dialog.  So that's not news; it's history.

So she's NOT a mainstream Democratic leader, but she is resurrected as such to be knocked down.  Over the last couple of days I'm just grossed out by the sheer quantity of stuff that's been written in response to her recent diaries that could be subtitled "Little Hans Overcompensates" or "Who's the Big Boy Now?" 

I have a hard time getting past that to the real issues. 

As I read this diary, I was wondering why the comparison of Sheehan wrong; Webb right?  To force a comparison of a woman who is so wrought with grief over the loss of her son in this egregious war against Senator Webb seems a bit autocratic and imperious.  Why bring Webb into her dissent? Either the argument against her position stands in your own mind or it doesn't....

Kathy, I agree with all you've written.  And I'm sure (and I know) so many who think like you and agree. I was at a Memorial Day party this weekend, composed of mixed ethnicity, income levels, and locations, but all Democrats.  They all kept saying the same thing... the Democrats & their leaders had nothing to lose by voting "no".....nothing. Bush, by the stroke of a pen, could pay the Iraq war bill...and the Democrats knew it. 

As to #4, I too am a lefty, liberal Democrat.  I was one of the scant "foot soldiers" who worked endlessly for a moderate Democratic candidate for Va Delegate (not in my delegate's district, but running in my county), while the leadership of my Democratic committee lterally said "our committee will do nothing to support the candidate".  And that's what they did....nothing. And the fact that the leaders refused to help support a Democrat was literally ignored by the DPVA.  And he lost.  But he could have won, if only the Democrats would have helped one of their own.

You can talk about ragtag teams, etc. but until you let the candidates (Democrats included) know that they risk losing your help and support, we will continue to be in this war.  And mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, daughters and sons will continue to lose their loved ones knowing that the Democratic senators and congressmen voted to continue funding this war without timelines and optional benchmarks!!  The country has overwhelmingly said they want timelines and with benchmarks for this war.  Shame on the Democrats for putting their political career ahead of what the country wants.

But, considering that soldiers' lives are being lost...they will die....will be dead....while we wait for a more opportune moment in September, frankly, doesn't show me a strong Democrat Party willing to "support the troops". 

Also, please explain how it helps the Democrats in 2008 to go against the overwhelming sentiment of the American people, even if it's perception and not reality, that we not "defund" the troops?

The vast majority of voters in this country want funding with benchmarks, which Democrats supported. So when the Democrats presented a bill to Bush to fund the war with benchmarks, and Bush vetoed it, then it's Bush that has cut off the funding not the Democrats !!!!  Therefore, Bush does not support the troops nor does he support the will of the people!  We have the will of the people behind us and we shouldn't allow Democrats to be cast as "defunders".  The oweness for the troops' safety (inappropriate body armour) and for getting us out of Iraq is on Bush; now slap it on him!!! 

And that's what every Congress person, candidate, and blog should be saying. 

LAY IT ON BUSH!!!! 

Webb is irrelevant. The title of this particular blog tells it all about RK-black and white Sheehan wrong, Webb right. It appears there is no room for other opinions or other reasoning here. I was under the misconception that blogs are to discuss all aspects of a subject, just not go along with the crowd. Webb should have voted against this bill. MY opinion. With all his posturing during his campaign it appears he couldn't walk the walk when it counted. MY opinion. But he's only a freshman senator. I can't wait for the magical month of September, after hundreds more have been killed, when Dumya asks for another blank check. When will it be the right time to say no? When will both the rethugs and the dems get the political will to end this? 5,000 killed, 10,000? When will it stop?

Your title WAS black and white-your opinion. No room for compromise just Webb is right, we who may disagree with Webb are wrong. But it's your blog. And this subject has gotten traffic moving on your blog so that's a good thing for you.

But in my opinion when YES votes were cast by any Democrat, they folded, became part of the Washington culture and turned their backs on the TROOPS.

I doubt if any of the troops were following this vote in congress but many of them privately want out of Iraq and their civil war, just check the polls. And for all who did follow this vote and were looking to come home soon.

"We at home are on your side and will fight to the best of our ability to end this war".

Most of us at home know this is not about funding the troops. We with any common sense know a funding bill to protect you, could be passed in 1 hour of negotiations.

Also, the American people voted in huge numbers to show how they disapprove with Bush by, voting out the Republican Senate and House. Now that they've done so, why should they do it again?  In otherwards making lightning strike twice for the Senate is going to be extrememly hard. That's why we still have Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch. Old warhorses. Think about what you're trying to do?

You have put it so eloquently:

I can't wait for the magical month of September, after hundreds more have been killed, when Dumya asks for another blank check. When will it be the right time to say no? When will both the rethugs and the dems get the political will to end this? 5,000 killed, 10,000? When will it stop?

One question I do have for you.  Who will take the place of the United States in the region.

When we leave the fighting will continue.  Noone knows what will happen after that

The current argument is are we better off staying or leaving.  I respectuflly believe as McCain does that staying in as much as it sucks is the preferred alternative to leaving.  This is a clear difference.  Democrats want to leave and Republicans want to stay. 

It is true that politics is a PR game.  We are preparing on our side to get the message out of what are the consequences for leaving.  You can propably name them (chaos in Iraq, Al Qaeda devleopnig a base of operations)  The dems are preparing to showcase what are the consequences for staying  (basically american lives and funds). 

As long as we remain there we are the greatest recruitment tool Al Qaeda ever had.  We keep hearing the President's "lost puppy" theory of fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here.  Well, if you actually buy into that theory, what you are really saying is that we are using Iraq, a country which had little or no Al Qaeda presence when we invaded, as a third party site for us to wage our war against Al Qaeda - what it means is that we're inviting them to come to Iraq and "bring it on" as Dubya said.  That's a callous attitude toward the Iraqis and their national interests.  So it's not about saving them or bringing them democracy, but rather about having our fight on someone else's territory so we don't get ourselves all dirty instead.  And the worst thing about all this is the incredible stupidity of such an invitation, as if the world has a finite number of Al Qaeda operatives and all we have to do is entice them all to Iraq and that'll take care of the problem.  What a moronic idea. 

First of all, I doubt there are many Republicans who WANT to stay in Iraq.  Even Bush has said he wants to get out of there, or at least not to have US forces there one day longer necessary.  In other words, pretty much ALL Americans want to get out of Iraq.  The only question is HOW to get out of Iraq - how quickly, what we leave behind, etc.  The details are extremely messy and complex, which is why it is neither accurate nor helpful to oversimplify the situation into cheap political slogans like "Democrats want to leave, Republicans want to stay." 

The problem is when you are a senator and you vote yes or no thats all the people see.  On that vote that was the basic choice.... leave or stay and like it or not that is whats going to go on the fundraising letters too  (but you already know this)

So.... we wait until September

last thing  Obama Clinton and Edwards(said he would) all voted no on that bill.  Do you think that was a good idea for democrats in the long term?  (talking about the general election) 

FYI I have already gotten some fundraising hit pieces on this vote

As far as the leading Dem. contenders are concerned, on the Friday news roundup over at the Diane Rehm Show, they were talking about how this might be a good move politically in the SHORT TERM, with strongly anti-war primary voters.  But in the LONG TERM, the panel concluded that it's a bad, or at least risky, move with general election voters.  I think that's probably about right...

So let's say that Webb had done as you and all the dewy-eyed idealistic left had asked of him and voted against the bill.  Then what?  Would Bush have signed it?  Would the veto have been overridden?  No and no.  It would have been an empty gesture.  The history of war is rife with empty gestures, full of legions of men hurling themselves in futile frontal assaults against heavily defended fortifications, mostly so their leaders could make a point and stand on principle.  So their point was made, their futile heroism lauded, and their men were still dead.  Webb knows that a good soldier does not expend his energies in empty gestures.  He does not hurl himself against an impregnable fortress just so you can admire his ultimately useless action.  A good soldier fights strategically and thoughtfully and without making himself irrelevant to the fight.  If Webb had done as you wanted he would have been irrelevant, but now he most definitely is not. 

But, more to the point.  The one thing the republicans have all over the democrats is their ability to stand united.  I support the fact that the democrats are open to debate issues to find common ground, but as much as I appreciate that I also realize it gives the republicans more talking points and material for negative ads.  For the time being, I wish the democrats could just suck it up and talk with one voice.  Pissin and moaning about how we've been let down isn't going to help, nor is taking your ball and going home.

Few men or women elected in our history-whether executive or legislative, state or national-have been sent into office with a mandate more obvious, nor instructions more clear:

Get us out of Iraq.

Yet after six months of preparation and execution-half a year gathering the strands of public support; translating into action, the collective will of the nearly 70 percent of Americans who reject this War of Lies, the Democrats have managed only this:

  The Democratic leadership has surrendered to a president-if not the worst president, then easily the most selfish, in our history-who happily blackmails his own people, and uses his own military personnel as hostages to his asinine demand, that the Democrats "give the troops their money";

  The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans;

  The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted, with the only caveat being, not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but optional meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

  The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised, are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq.

...

You instead, {Bush} used our troops as political pawns, then blamed the Democrats when you did so.

Not that these Democrats, who had this country's support and sympathy up until 48 hours ago, have not since earned all the blame they can carry home.

...

For, ultimately, at this hour, the entire government has failed us.

Mr. Reid, Mr. Hoyer, and the other Democrats... have failed us.
  They negotiated away that which they did not own, but had only been entrusted by us to protect: our collective will as the citizens of this country, that this brazen War of Lies be ended as rapidly and safely as possible.

Mr. Bush and his government... have failed us.

They have behaved venomously and without dignity-of course.

That is all at which Mr. Bush is gifted.

...

Who among us will stop this war-this War of Lies?

To he or she, fall the figurative keys to the nation.

To all the others-presidents and majority leaders and candidates and rank-and-file Congressmen and Senators of either party-there is only blame? for this shameful, and bi-partisan, betrayal.

I don't we should expect Keith Olberman to continue carrying our water anymore.

Anyway, there's an interesting letter on this subject at WaPo here from a father of another dead soldier:
http://www.washingto...

Not for a second did I expect my own efforts [speaking out against the war] to make a difference. But I did nurse the hope that my voice might combine with those of others -- teachers, writers, activists and ordinary folks -- to educate the public about the folly of the course on which the nation has embarked. I hoped that those efforts might produce a political climate conducive to change. I genuinely believed that if the people spoke, our leaders in Washington would listen and respond.

This, I can now see, was an illusion.

The people have spoken, and nothing of substance has changed. The November 2006 midterm elections signified an unambiguous repudiation of the policies that landed us in our present predicament. But half a year later, the war continues, with no end in sight. Indeed, by sending more troops to Iraq (and by extending the tours of those, like my son, who were already there), Bush has signaled his complete disregard for what was once quaintly referred to as "the will of the people."

Ms. Sheehan took the brave steps and raised the collective consciousness of us all on the wrongness of this war.  So if she flubbed up sometimes, misspoke at other times, and didn't manage to wear the right clothes at the right times, I say to her critics...she was a volunteer....no one elected her and no one paid her.  Thank you, Ms. Sheehan for your courage and for starting the movement against this lie of a war. 

I wrote a diary about this gentleman's feelings a week ago when I'd heard him being interviewed on NPR's Morning Edition and was really moved by what he said.  http://raisingkaine....

Thank you Andrea.

It took years to get out of Vietnam and there was a active anti-war movement through all those years. If Cindy thinks she'll call attention to the war by quitting then her bulb is dimmer than I thought.  Talk about cutting and running. Cindy just cut and run.  The rest of us will pick up and continue trying to push until the end of the war. 

I'm getting really sick of these so-called progressives who have decided the Democratic Party is the enemy.  They make my ass hurt.  Nothing progressive about giving up. Nothing progressive about abandoning the Democratic Party.  They know nothing of party building or how Congress works and they want it all now. 

These same people elected George Bush the very day they started talking about Ralph Nader.  And don't ever forget we would not be in this war if it Nader hadn't taken so many votes in Florida.

There are those of us, including Keith Olberman, who expected our representatives to negotiate and craft a funding bill that at least had mandatory benchmarks for the Iraqi government. Without them, as we are, we've effectively made no progress and remain in the same place we've been since day one of the war. 

Can someone give me a good reason why benchmarks are optional?

Instead, of giving in when threatened a veto, we should have made "hay of it" and turned lemons (his veto) into lemonade (a compromise).  You make him compromise.

The question becomes whether the public believes that the Dems, by repeatedly sending the bill to Bush for another veto, are being obstructionist or principled.  Or that Bush, by repeatedly vetoing, without offering a compromise, is being stubborn or dictatorial.  With Bush's 28% approval rating and the 81% of the country believing the country's going in the wrong direction, I would say, the odds were with the Democrats!!!  Caving in looks weak.

As I said above, we, as Democrats, are no farther along than day one!  Once again, the Republicans look strong and decisive.  And the only way we are going to win, is if we look strong against this "President". 

If I were a General I would not want the enemy to know when we're getting out.  Strategically, I wonder if everyone having a schedule is a good think.  I worry such a firm schedule would make our troops more vulnerable during a withdrawal.  There are a lot of tactical reasons to keep that information to ourselves and the only good it does is to keep the Cindy Sheehans from swawking.  So for my money, it really is a feel-good concept set up to please the toughest critics of the war. 

I don't want to be in this war.  My best friend is over there right now and I'm angry he's there.  So's he, by the way.  But I believe we must proceed carefully when we leave and try to make sure there's not a complete massacre of innocent civilians.

Here's the part I don't understand--there's not a damned thing progressive about jumping out of there tommorrow leaving that country in chaos.  People compare this war to Vietnam all the time and we all brag about how the antiwar movement stopped the war.  We might have stopped Americans being present at the Vietnam War, but after we left, there were thousands of innocents purged or if they weren't killed, they were put into re-education camps and to this day live on the poorest edge of Vietanmese society.  Nothing liberal about that--that's a damned shame.  We should move cautiously when we leave Iraq and we should keep some troops in the area while we continue to try to rebuild the area though diplomatic efforts.