I'm finishing up work, going home and I'm having a few stiff belts.

I have this feeling that on the one hand, the Democrats are making a great deal of hay out of saying we have to get out of Iraq, and indeed we do at some point or another. But the notion that the war will be over when we pull out of Iraq, and even when we pull out of Afghanistan, you heard what Gen. Abizaid had to say, it's not going to be over. It's going to be a different war, but the war continues

What kind of f*cking country and world am I training him to tolerate?  What kind of war will he be off fighting when I realize the consequences of my inaction?

WaPo editorial smackdown - "The Pelosi Plan for Iraq: It makes perfect sense, if the goal is winning votes in the United States."

Kucinich's bill, if passed, would end US military involvement in Iraq within 90 days of passage
...
Kucinich's plan would provide that "Not later than the end of the 3-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, all United States Armed Forces serving in Iraq shall be completely withdrawn from Iraq and returned to the United States or redeployed outside of the Middle East.".

His plan also would establish a "Prohibition on Use of Funds To Continue Deployment of Armed Forces in Iraq", except where needed to ensure the security of Iraq and to provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of the Armed Forces from Iraq.
...
Well Nancy, now you have a way. Or are you as bought, paid for, and owned, as the rethugs were and are by big oil and by those contractors and subcontractors mentioned in Sec. 2, Para. 3 of Kucinich's bill?
...
There is a funny thing about selling your soul, Nancy.

You usually get paid for it with something equally worthless.

Frederick Douglas was an abolitionist and he had some strong statements about ending slavery. He wanted the Slaves freed immediately. It was a moral issue. Lincoln also hated slavery, but he was not an activist or reformer. He was a pragmatist and a politician. He was concerned with what the people would allow him to do, but also with the longer view of changing the people's view of slavery over time. In the latest New York Review of Books a review by James Mcpherson of James Oak's book on the tension between Lincoln and Douglas offers this insight on democracy and the interdependent role of reformers and politicians.

James Oakes believes that Lincoln possessed as much "anti-slavery conviction" as Douglass himself. "I have always hated slavery," said Lincoln in 1858, "as much as any Abolitionist." The difference between the two men was one of position and tactics, not conviction. Douglass was a radical reformer whose mission was to proclaim principles and to demand that the people and their leaders live up to them. Lincoln was a politician, a practitioner of the art of the possible, a pragmatist who subscribed to the same principles but recognized that they could only be achieved in gradual, step-by-step fashion through compromise and negotiation, in pace with progressive changes in public opinion and political realities. Oakes describes a symbiosis between the radical Douglass and the Republican Lincoln: "It is important to democracy that reformers like Frederick Douglass could say what needed to be said, but it is indispensable to democracy that politicians like Abraham Lincoln could do only what the law and the people allowed them to do.

I am not so careless to compare Pelosi or Reid or any other Democratic leader with Lincoln, but it is fundamental to understand that politics is about gradual change. Bringing this back to the Iraq war, again I say, end it as soon as possible. But, we are talking about more than the Iraq war. Charging the democratic leadership with wanting perpetual war is pointless, because we already have perpetual war. This will be confirmed by my viewing of the NCAA tournament this upcoming weekend with constant stream of recruitment commercials from our military services. Its confirmed when I go to my community center and see the advertisements for the US army not only on the walls, but the "donated" equipment. Our society is immersed in war and getting ourselves out of this will take nothing short of a revolution, I hope short of another Civil War.

The War in Iraq doesn't end easily, because too many people's livelihood depends on it. There are government contracts to fulfill and corporate interests to look out for. We all know by now that this is not about democracy, its about resources and power. We are committed in the Middle East and once committed, we are caught. This was why many of us so strongly opposed the invasion in the first place. We ended Viet Nam, but the cold War continued. Our Military continued to grow and investments were made, until our economy depended upon the military industrial congressional complex. If and when we are able to end this War in Iraq, through defunding or whatever means, we must also dismantle this complex if we are to see any lasting Peace.

Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy....

The Iran-related proposal stemmed from a desire to make sure Bush did not launch an attack without going to Congress for approval, but drew opposition from numerous members of the rank and file in a series of closed-door sessions last week.

Rep. Shelley Berkley (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., said in an interview there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state.

"It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," she said of the now-abandoned provision.

The low point of these past few day's worth of back and forths I thought was that cluster of points that were demonstrating either a scant or undetectable awareness of the panoply of activities undertaken every yeas as  a part of the Congressional Budget and Appropriations process

That was then. This is now.
Not now -- this is now a whole new experience.  

Politely, "Pot, kettle.  Kettle, pot."

Don't get me wrong, I do lot find the compromise language to be what I want and what I believe should be done. Factions with in the caucus kept bringing this issue over language and unity and possible fractionating thereof to the table, not Leadership.

But we have known all along that this internal struggle was probable.  Fine.  And it seems that we were right again.

That the these Dem don't even have enough moral spine to keep him out of Iran, that they won't accept even a few scraps of their constitutionally mandated responsibility, holy shiite, what a bunch of cowardly and disgraceful political whores.    

If this is true, politics is dead and gone.  Cremated.  Buried.  Forgotten with the morning scores.

I do know & understand & comprehend that Pelosi & Reid want the rethuglicans on record, for a variety of political, legislative & publicity reasons.  But the delays are killing people, maiming & destroying lives----& they play politics with power struggles that can be ignored.  Just don't pass any budget bills.