TOMORROW: Dems to Announce Strategy to End War

As is being repoted this evening on Politico, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are to announce tomorrow that they will be unveiling a plan to force a series of votes, starting in July, to bring an end to the Iraq War.

Reid has already publicly declared that Senate Democrats will offer four Iraq-related amendments to the upcoming 2008 Defense authorization bill, including a proposal by Reid and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) to set a firm timetable to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by next spring.

Pelosi is planning to announce that the House will also vote on a bill setting a new withdrawal timetable of April 1, 2008, although the details of the proposal were still up in the air at press time, according to Democratic sources. The House will consider this proposal as a freestanding bill, said the sources.

The article continues:

Pelosi is also planning to force a vote on a proposal by Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, to repeal the 2002 use-of-force resolution for Iraq. This "deauthorization" proposal may be offered as an amendment to the 2008 Defense spending bill, which the House is scheduled to take up following the week-long July 4th recess.

Sen. Jim Webb will introduce a proposal to modify hte redeployments of soldiers to allowthem to bew stateside for at least as long as their next stay, and other proposals will bar the construction of permanent military bases.  Rep. Murtha will be offering new legislation, as well.

Well, it appears that the leadership has been listening to the people who gave them the chance to do something with majority status in both houses.  This plan appears to be very strategic, and wellprepared.  Apparently, Pelosi has already rum much of the package by the Blue Dogs, the approximate 42 representitives who, above most everything else do not want to be seen as not supporting the troops.

Both Pelosi and Reid have come to the conclusion that President Bush's plan for a "surge" in the number of U.S. troops inside Iraq, has failed and that Democrats, despite losing their showdown with Bush and the Republicans over the recent Iraq supplemental funding bill, must continue to force votes to end the war. Gen. David Petraeus is supposed to report back to Congress in September on the state of the "surge," but Democrats have decided not to wait for his report.

It would appear that this is going to be an all out assault, and the re-inroduction of Reid-Feingold shows that these folks just may have had enough with the endless calls to wait for the surge to work.  Hitting Bush with something on this order, directly after his loss of an immigration bill to call his own, also shows they can kick a bit when the president is down.

Let's get behind this, as it appears they just may be listening after all.

•  Step one

  Grow spines.

  by Persiflage on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:51:46 PM PDT

  •  Good to know we'll have your support. n/t

    by Pegasus on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:52:28 PM PDT

    •  Of course I support ending the war...

      that's why step one is for Reid and the rest of them to grow a spine and use it to stand and fight.
      So far....not so much.

      by Persiflage on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:55:48 PM PDT

      •  Doesn't matter to me if you piss and moan

        or not, as long as you're making your phone calls and writing your letters.

        by Pegasus on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:56:52 PM PDT

  •  I'm keeping my powder dry

    No money or support from me until they demonstrate that they are serious about ending the war and commencing an impeachment proceeding.  

    I was betrayed by my Senator, supposedly liberal Sherrod Brown.  So you'll excuse me if I am skeptical of Pelosi and Reid's tough talk.

    by klw1963 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:54:22 PM PDT

    •  it is all about you

      and your feelings, isn't it? the troops thank you for that.

      by SeanF on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:22:16 PM PDT

      •  Surely you can understand someone's ...

        ...reluctance to be gung-ho given what happened May 24?
        Maybe, klw1963 will be more excited when s/he sees some action.

        (For the record, I'll be working the phones to urge California's Blue Dogs to support this strategy. But I won't be holding my breath that any of this will clear the House or Senate.)

        by Meteor Blades on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:29:18 PM PDT

        •  eh...

          i take it as a given that we are all feeling burnt and taken advantage of. why is their sense of betrayal more important than mine?

          by SeanF on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 09:27:08 AM PDT

  •  Step Two:

    Grow balls.

    by phrogge prince on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:27:31 PM PDT

•  Thanks for the diary.

  I've been expecting this for a while, and it sounds like they've got a solid plan.  Now if they can just follow through...

  And that's where we come in.  Time to suck up our former disappointments and crank the pressure up to 11, again.  Sigh.

  by Pegasus on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:52:11 PM PDT

  •  Precisely,

    They are making a move here, and it's important to stand behind them.  If we don't, how can we expect them to do their jobs?  

    by GOTV on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:59:19 PM PDT

    •  Standing behind them is part of it.

      The other part is viciously cranking up pressure on GOP congresspeople.  Petition their offices, get a good protest or two up, and start helping their '08 challengers to raise money and generally make noise.  They won't buck Bush until they fear for their jobs.

      by Pegasus on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:02:12 PM PDT

      •  Well, I meant stan behind the Dems

        because some will need a strong push in the back to support this.  This is not going to be easy, and they are going to have to be kept focused.  The best way to do that is to show support.  That means letters, money, whatever it takes.  What it does not mean is a bunch of pissing and moaning about what disappontments they've been.

        by GOTV on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:05:51 PM PDT

        •  Agreed

          They need to stand together behind the plan. April 1, 2008.  They need to all agree on that date.

          by maryb2004 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:06:50 PM PDT

          •  I gave at the office.

            Plenty in 2006. Thousands of dollars for Democrats.

            I'll write letters and call.  But until they demonstrate their good faith, I think I've done my part.  So far, they have  been a spectacular disappointment.

            by klw1963 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:10:54 PM PDT

            •  Thank you for your support

              by GOTV on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:15:05 PM PDT

        •  I fully agree we should back them on these ...

          ...resolutions and bills and perhaps whatever Murtha puts up. I'll do my part on the phone and e-mails.

          However, I think there is a good chance that, except for Webb's proposal, none of these will get enough Democratic votes to pass. It's not just Blue Dogs we have to worry about. Howard Berman, whose liberal credentials are about as good as can be had in the House, voted against the McGovern bill. Will he vote to deauthorize?

          by Meteor Blades on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:26:01 PM PDT

•  Your link to Politico

  doesn't work.

  by maryb2004 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:52:27 PM PDT

  •  Fixed it, thanks.

    by GOTV on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:55:22 PM PDT

•  here it is guys

  right after their strategy comes out.

  The blog has to come up with all Bush counter spin scenarios. They are bound to trot out their foxnews crews.

  by fugue on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:54:13 PM PDT

  •  "Stay the Course" George - Veto, veto, veto, veto

    by PatsBard on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:56:35 PM PDT

  •  however they spin it, our counters are easy.

    They're called "facts."  Keep piling them on, and we may have a fighting chance to get some scared goops to help us override.  Color me optimistic, I guess.

    by Pegasus on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:58:11 PM PDT

    •  Before the scared goops, we have to get ...

      ...enough Democrats to help us override.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:35:24 PM PDT

  •  Same old Same old

    The spin will be nothing new:
    Support the troops
    Defeatocrats
    Setting a surrender date
    "This is a new kind of war" followed by using language to describe the old kind of war.
    O'Reilly's Head explodes
    Terrorists
    9/11

    by maddogg on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:23:37 PM PDT

•  That's nice.

  But you have to be careful about using Politico, given that they incorrectly reported that Edwards was going to drop out and that they have incorrectly reported some other stuff as well.

  by Eternal Hope on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:59:07 PM PDT

  •  I thought of that, too.

    But, this looks solid.  Think Progress picked it up as well.

    by GOTV on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:01:09 PM PDT

•  Damn Blue Dogs

  Why doesn't the fact that 70% of the country wants us out of Iraq clue them in that they don't need to worry about "not supporting the troops"?  I don't believe that even in most conservative districts a Democrat would lose their seat over a vote to get the troops home.

  Don't just support the troops, save the troops.  Bring them home.

  by Dallasdoc on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:01:55 PM PDT

  •  11 Blue Dogs - including the five ...

    ...from California voted for the McGovern bill, the best the House has had up for floor action. So that's a start. I always thought Murtha Plan #2, rested-trained-equipped was a kind of backdoor withdrawal plan that any Blue Dog could have used to his/her advantage in the reddest of districts. Does any rank-and-file American want to send soldiers who AREN'T ready, rested and properly armored and armed? Who could possibly lose a vote over sticking to such a proposal?

    by Meteor Blades on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:21:27 PM PDT

•  I've been expecting this

  There have been hits for a little while now.

  It's obviously very late, but it's a good strategy. At this point there's very little to lose.

  I don't meen to sound calculating. But as an observer of congress and not an insider, I see how this seems to be playing out.

  Let's hope it works.

  I'm going to guess it doesn't work very well in terms of tangible, short-term results. But it may have some long-term results that we appreciate, sort-of.

  Let this be a lesson to Americans. If you make a serious decision with little information motivated by lies it takes a long time to fix the problem.

  Deliberation should occur before a decision, not after.

  phat

  by phatass on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:01:58 PM PDT

  •  I know what you mean about sounding calculated.

    I always feel guilty, like a total jackass, when I think about how nice the electoral consequences will probably be if the GOP stays intransigent.  But I'd gladly trade zero gains in '08 (other than WH, of course) for a withdrawal that happens 10 months earlier.

    by Pegasus on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:06:02 PM PDT

•  Politico's got the GOP talking points out already

  Pelosi and Reid will "force votes." Sounds radical and political doesn't it? Why not Pelosi and Reid will try again to end the Iraq war?

  And Pelosi and Reid "have come to the conclusion" that the surge has failed. That's White House nonsense all the way, given that the White House has already been saying that the surge needs time.

  Sucks to have this right-wing crap site (Politico) offer a framed "scoop" that will be parroted by all the other media as they play catchup.

  by overlander on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:06:24 PM PDT

  •  "force votes" sounds like

    they have a spine. "come to the conclusion" sounds like a measured decision. come on!

    by SeanF on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:24:32 PM PDT

    •  "Conclusion" = 1% About Iraq, 99% About Congress

      They've got to turn around a ship that was meticulously and very, very consciously designed to hold course against a change in the peoples' will in situations just like this.

      If the framers wanted a responsive government they would have built the option for early elections into it.

      Personally, I'm with the parliamentary systems on that, given the enormous second-to-second influence the economy has with the reps. Early elections are the only way I can think of to keep the people barely in the influence game.

      by Gooserock on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:52:05 PM PDT

•   It's that magic number 8

  Democrats will offer four Iraq-related amendments to the upcoming 2008 Defense authorization bill,

  What else happens in 08?
  It seems that Congress only listens to voters once every other year but listen to cash from lobbyists every day.

  by crystal eyes on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:09:16 PM PDT

•  Not give an inch

  Keep sending the same bills over and over, with the Republicans voting against them and let them be vetoed.  There is no compromising with the decider, so let's define the Republicans just like they did with the Iraq resolution in the run-up to the 2002 elections.

  by dugjxn on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:12:28 PM PDT

  •  Correction: Cheney's The Decider

    Bush is just The Announcer.

    by GOTV on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:14:10 PM PDT

•  Some hardness being infused into the Dem leaders

  Spine

  Its time

  by wuod kwatch on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:18:35 PM PDT

  •  Let's hope so

    In the meantime, we must keep the pressure up on Congress, just like the conservative base did on the immigration bill.

    by echatwa on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:46:29 PM PDT

•  TOMORROW: Free Beer

  I see this sign at a bar everyday, but when I go there the next day....

  by Zwoof on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:24:21 PM PDT

•  Ok so what happens

  when Bush vetoes these or Republicans filibuster?

  Are we gonna continue to bash Democrats for shit they can't control?

  It's all fine and dandy that they propose these bills, but let's be realistic, they are not going anywhere. When they are not enacted can we please spare the site of the trillion diaries expressing disgust with the Democratic leadership? I am getting really sick and tired of the Democrat bashing, after initially being angry myself, but reality is one thing quite different from emotion and the reality is that these bills will not go anywhere, and we simply should celebrate the symbolic value of them and use them politically in the next election because they will not be enacted.

  by michael1104 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:27:50 PM PDT

  •  Excuse me?

    Are you saying I bash Democrats in this diary?

    by GOTV on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:39:02 PM PDT

    •  no...

      talking about Daily Kos in general...not your diary in particular.

      by michael1104 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:12:00 PM PDT

  •  I hav no problem in forcing Bush

    to veto any bill to withdraw the troops.  Make him veto 37 of 'em.  

    by GOTV on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:57:35 PM PDT

    •  indeed

      over and over and over again, until the pressure becomes unbearable for anyone still voting to keep the troops there.

      that's how we find the votes to actually do it.

      by wu ming on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:53:18 PM PDT

    •  Step One is getting enough Dems on board ...

      ...to pass such a bill in the first place. So far, we've had exactly a single instance of that.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:33:07 PM PDT

      •  I know, but

        sooner or later this party is goin to have to coelesce around a plan that they can all live with.  There should have to be a 60-seat margin in the House and 30 seat margin in the Senate just so we can find enough Democrats to pass something in spite of all the defectors.  GOoPers nevr seem to lack the ability to hang together on leadership votes, and neither should we.

        This party cannot get out of its own way sometimes so this is where Reid and Pelosi (or someone) has to step forward and put their collective foot down and let them know how much this one counts.  

        by GOTV on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 03:45:15 AM PDT

  •  If They're Amendments Not Bills,

    there is a theoretically real chance of them being enacted.

    And short of that a theoretically real chance of them being used to create serious electoral stress on the right side of the politicalsphere.

    Theoretical--but at least leadership is trending slowly in the right direction.

    I sort of think the Dems and the Pentagon are waging the same kind of war on us.

    The Pentagon is playing mind games to keep punting the ball past 2008 when they hope to gain freedom from Democrats. The Dems might be making the minimal plausible progress increasing pressure on Repubs to keep voters and most activists onside without incurring the penalties of significantly solving the Iraq problem and thereby enraging the empire.

    by Gooserock on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:57:44 PM PDT

•  theatre

  Levin has already announced that we will fund the troops no matter what. Bush will veto any strings attached, so we'll be right back where we started. I hate poorly written plays.

  by YetiMonk on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:30:29 PM PDT

  •  Well,

    then there's only one thing to do: sit around with our thumbs up our asses until we win monopoly control of goverment in 2008, 2012, 2016, 2002 . . .

    Talk about poorly written plays.

    by GOTV on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:36:31 PM PDT

    •  oh, so you recognize the futility

      of the situation? why the cheerleading then?

      We announce a date certain and fund only the withdrawal. Nothing else works. Use the power of the purse.

      To quote Madison in The Federalist No. 58:

      The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse -- that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.

      by YetiMonk on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:45:07 PM PDT

      •  funding for withdrawal

        We announce a date certain and fund only the withdrawal. Nothing else works. Use the power of the purse.

        In fact, that is exactly what Pelosi intends to do based on what she said on Hardball. In May, that plan got 3/4 of the Democratic caucus, 47 votes short of a majority. By the end of the summer, given the country's relentless shift in the anti-war direction, it should have majority support in Congress.

        by echatwa on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:49:32 PM PDT

        •  Levin

          already announced there there was no chance for that to happen. I sincerely doubt that is what Pelosi intends to do. Got a link?

          by YetiMonk on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:52:45 PM PDT

          •  so everything levin says

            is gospel? sounds like u r just mr. glass half empty. i dont want to get all giddy, but let's not sabotage ourselves, now.

            by SeanF on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:26:10 PM PDT

            •  this is

              exactly the same pattern they followed last time, including the Levin's announcement. They have no intention of announcing a date certain. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but I see nothing here so far.

              Fool me once...

              by YetiMonk on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:30:58 PM PDT

              •  whatever it is, it's going to be incremental

                if you are unable to discern the change in the political landscape and the potential for progress in our midst, I guess you'll just have to be proven wrong. I fully understand dems may find a way to fuck it all up again, but given our choices, why would you focus on that? What does that accomplish?

                by SeanF on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:34:14 PM PDT

                •  show me

                  the change in the political landscape. Where is congress willing to use the power of the purse? Where are they announcing a date certain?

                  If they are not willing to do that, then there is no way at all around a bush veto and they fully intend to send him another blank check after another failed attempt.

                  What part of "bush will veto anything with strings attached" do you not understand? There is no bill we can "pass". There is only usinging the power of the purse.

                  Anything else is clearly theatre. I get pissed off when I'm lied to like this.

                  by YetiMonk on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:37:58 PM PDT

                  •  no you're right

                    let's quit. bush won. fuck us.

                    by SeanF on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:38:58 PM PDT

                    •  heh

                      how about holding our congressional leaders accountable? It's only lost if they lose it. So far they've done a bang up job for the GOP.

                      Rather than be sarcastic, how about looking squarely at this situation without the rose colored glasses. Maybe we are fucked. If so, then it is Pelosi's fault for being at best a mediocre leader.

                      by YetiMonk on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:46:54 PM PDT

                      •  ok

                        it's my temperament to not drown in pessimism cuz it's been a tough 7 years. maybe it's more for me than anything else.

                        but if something could be the start of real change, i won't deride it. If congress bumbles along and is only a bunch of talk until '09, i'll be displeased. but much less so than if they don't even try. i suppose my expectations are so low, even clear talk gets points with me. you can attack that sentiment and part of me won't even disagree with you.

                        by SeanF on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:57:34 PM PDT

      •  I recognize the futility

        of doing nothing and failing to support what is attempted.  The blut force of a defunding bill is not going to pass any more likely than will impeachment,  It won't even have the votes in the Democratic caucus.

        What is the problem of forcing votes on what has the best shot at moving through congress with the support of the people?  And, what is the problem with supporting at least that effort?

        Man, with all this cynicism, is it any wonder we can't get anything through our own caucus?

        by GOTV on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:52:09 PM PDT

        •  this has been discussed ad nauseum

          Why is it that people think that we have to pass a defunding bill? Go read my Madison quote again. The house holds the purse strings and is the only body that can even propose funding. If we give the president a bill and he vetoes it, he defunds the troops. We are under no obligation to give him anything at all. Congress does not have to give any money to the executive for the war and if he refuses what is given, he is responsible for abandoning the troops. That is an extremely impeachable offence btw.

          What is the problem of forcing votes on what has the best shot at moving through congress with the support of the people?  And, what is the problem with supporting at least that effort?

          capitulating the way the dem leadership did after a show fight, making it clear they always intended to give the president a blank check if he vetoed...was the worst possible way to handle it. It did huge damage. That is called "theatre". We are simply going to repeat that farce. That is what is wrong with it.

          Man, with all this cynicism, is it any wonder we can't get anything through our own caucus?

          Wow. What color are your glasses anyway?

          by YetiMonk on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:03:30 PM PDT

          •  except there is no popular support for that

            people don't want defunding and that's the only option available, so we're screwed

            by VelvetElvis on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:30:33 PM PDT

            •  because

              we immediately accepted the gop frame on the issue at the beginning of the debate. There has been no leadership on this at all. Educate the people. Explain to them the contitutional role of the congress to fund or not fund the executive. Don't accept right wing memes and frames of "abandoning the troops".

              There is plenty of popular support to end the war and the congress needs to take its constitutional role seriously, and then explain it clearly and compellingly to the people.

              by YetiMonk on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:34:00 PM PDT

            •  then give the people a choice

              perpetual war, or defunding and withdrawal, and see which one they choose.

              my guess is that people wouldn't choose perpetual war, at this point. but it's hard to tell, because there hasn't been any real effort to explain to the electorate, politically, why this is the only way to get the troops home.

              if we keep the status quo up, we are indeed screwed. the way out is to stop playing the same game on rove's terms.

              by wu ming on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:56:49 PM PDT

            •  Why is there no popular support for that?

              Glenn Greenwald has an article just about that problem.

              So Alter is correct that Americans became convinced that de-funding constitutes troop abandonment. But that does not excuse what the Democrats did here, because the principal reason that Americans became convinced of that myth is because Democrats themselves embraced and propagated it. And now that myth lies cemented at the center of our political debate, and as a result, the most effective Congressional weapon for ending the war -- the one the Founders designed for that purpose -- has become politically radioactive, all based on a ludicrous notion that literally has no basis in reality.

              This has long been the principal flaw of Democrats and it has not changed. They are both fearful and incapable of defending any position unless, from the outset, they are assured, by their conniving and principle-free consultants, that most Americans already agree with it. The idea of forcefully articulating a view in order to change public opinion -- such as explaining why de-funding is a perfectly valid option like all the others for ending the war -- never occurs to them.

              Read the whole article.  I've always found Glenn Greenwald a very insightful commenter.  His description of why the Power of the Purse became abandoning the troops is worth reading.

              by Rebecca on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:17:25 AM PDT

        •  i think you have that reversed

          it's the inability to get critical bills (or at bare minimum effective resistance mounted) through our caucus over the past decade or so that has led to the cynicism. given the pattern, it's hard to keep faith.

          by wu ming on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:58:50 PM PDT

          •  Umm...

            We've only been in the majority for the past six months...

            by foonk on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:38:54 PM PDT

            •  true

              but as the republicans are showing, one does not have to have a majority to effectively oppose bills in congress. i understand being outvoted, but not even trying, or making a token effort, is rather disheartening.

              by wu ming on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:56:13 PM PDT

              •  gotta keep that powder dry

                at all costs, which is why we have alito and roberts who just overturned brown vs. board. But by gum, we have dry powder!

                by YetiMonk on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:06:16 AM PDT

•  I hope they are listening

  I've been hoping all along that maybe they had something up their sleeves.  Since Bushco was standing by with his veto pen to do the dirty deed, I was hoping that maybe they had some kind of strategy to come at him from some other direction.  It has also crossed my mind that they made a secret deal with him that he would work with them if they wouldn't force the issue so that he could save face.  Not that he deserves to save face, but if he was going to veto everything anyway, it would make sense to figure out another way to go about it.  Okay, I'm just wildly speculating here, but I haven't given up hope.

  by super simian on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:28:33 PM PDT

•  I'm curious

  How did they bring the Blue Dogs into the fold?

  by BlueDogD on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:31:38 PM PDT

  •  Just for the record, the middle of the road ...

    ...is unusable without the gutters.

    by Meteor Blades on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:30:33 PM PDT

    •  Indeed.

      Well I'm afraid you can't go forward go either hard left or hard right.

      by BlueDogD on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:01:57 AM PDT

•  "April 1, 2008"

  Well, it sure isn't premature withdrawal.

  Iraq will be thoroughly fucked by then.

  by unclejohn on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 01:59:28 AM PDT