she said, she did not intend on sending him another war spending bill for the rest of the year.

god, i almost miss nixon. geez, he was actually smarter than the bozo in there now, just radically paranoid.

i don't agree with the "we won't send him another bill for the rest of the year" approach. frankly, that's nearly as good as a cave-in. send it back, again and again and again. make him veto it again and again and again. make him explain to the troops why he hates them so much, he wants to make them stay in iraq.

yep, while jenna and barb are bopping around town, hitting the bars, their contemporaries, volunteers all, are stuck in the republican horrorshow that is iraq. make him explain to those families why dad/mom/sis/bro/son/daughter won't be coming home anytime soon, from mr. bush's broken war.

I know for some of us rather than, you know, looking at roll call and seeing where the problem congressmen are, its fun to just pretend that speaker Pelosi has some magic powers to make bad democrat vote correctly.

Go buy and read Bush on the Couch, by Justin Frank, MD; the second edition has just come out. Do it, and don't laugh at 'psychobabble'. We have a dangerously ill person in the White House who should be instead in a psychiatric hospital--and it's not just Justin Frank saying that--lots of psychiatric professionals are saying it.

If lighting strikes and this thing gets the light of day (which Bush can certainly veto, with impeachment Bush & Cheney can't) their work is still not over. Accountability must be followed through. That's what many Americans are calling for and as Ed Schultz told Debbie Wasserman Schultz on his radio program today:

...that she was completely out of touch with the American people on this, that the politicians inside the beltway don't have a clue on what the people want. He told her "to hell with the newspapers, it's about the constitution, the rule of law, and justice!"

The language in the proposal, including the call for a phased and partial withdrawal of US troops, closely tracks similar provisions attached to war-funding legislation that either died in the Senate or was vetoed by Bush last May.

Asked at the press conference whether tacking this language onto the war funding was merely an attempt to placate antiwar sentiment among Democratic voters, or if she saw a change in Congress that would allow its passage, Pelosi launched into a rhetorical attack on Bush's war policy, dodging the question.

"We are restating the differentiation between us and the president of the United States," said Pelosi. "This gives voice to the desires of the American people."

In other words, the supposed challenge is nothing but hot air. Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership refuse to exercise the one power in the hands of Congress to actually force an end to the war--rejection of any further funding. Such a complete cutoff of money to wage the war requires a simple majority vote against funding measures and would be immune from presidential veto power.

While the Democratic leadership routinely justifies its refusal to take such a course of action in the name of "supporting the troops," the reality is that this party continues to support the aims of colonial conquest for which the war was launched in the first place, whatever its tactical differences with how it has been waged by the Bush administration.