. . . "Last November, the American people made a clear call for a new direction, and Democrats are committed to bringing stability to Iraq and bringing our troops home from a civil war."

tattooed on their eyelids. More importantly, they need to show action like this.

It doesn't matter if the repubs block it (bring it on, clueless lapdogs of your tanking dictator wannabe) it just matters that the public sees the Dems are trying. It's a start.

It would be nice if our representatives were forced to take a public stand on the issue -- with the troops, or with the president. I think it's vital the voters have that info.

This fact is war can't be won (it never could - Bush 1 was smart enough to realize that).

Honestly, I'd love to know what exactly it is we're supposed to be winning at this point. With the exception of the guidelines of the AUMF (WMD,Saddam - oh hey, we've won!) I've never been given a clear picture from the repubs of just what the point of this war is anymore. I know it's oil, but they can't say that. Preventing terrorists from gaining ground in Iraq? Well, that would've required not invading it in the first freaking place. And they've done such a bang up job finding the one terrorist who actually attacked this country.

I suppose solid reasons would be viewed as benchmarks and those are obviously not conducive to forever wars.

Huh, coming from the Senate too. Who would have thought it?

Like you said. It's a start. They just have to keep putting one foot...er...resolution after the other until they either wear down the repubs or cause them  to seriously question why the hell they are still supporting an unpopular lame duck president when their own political careers (the health of their entire party for that matter) will be on the line soon.

And, yes, language counts over here. You probably wouldn't like it much, as you've already gathered.

Nothing personal, every blog has its own style and unique community.  

Your "unique vernacular" would require me to do too much editing and deleting.  Since moving to Scoop, I can no longer edit comments with objectionable content, I can only delete.

Sorry. I know, I know, Get my own blog.

I have. I just came over to see BDT. But it's just intolerable, the aesthetic over here. Bleargh.

See you at MLW.

The main purpose of this political exercise, however, is to unite the party behind supplemental funding legislation that will provide at least $100 billion more to pay for the escalation of the illegal war and occupation that has been waged by Washington for the past four years.

The stated aim of the Democratic leadership is to "unify" the party's congressional caucus behind a "consensus" position. The instrument for doing this has been crafted to allow the Democrats to posture as opponents of the Iraq war, while providing the Bush White House with both the money and the unrestricted power to continue it. ...

Given that Bush claims progress is being made, the Democratic plan would call for US combat troops to begin "redeploying" by March 1, 2008 and complete withdrawal by September 1 of next year. Given present casualty rates--which are expected to rise significantly with the new counterinsurgency operation in Baghdad--this would mean approximately 1,500 more American soldiers killed, and many times more Iraqis.

THIS is what passes for rating around here, Jeralyn? Or are you just pissed because I pointed out some spelling, typo and accuracy errors in your defense of Markos post?

Nice place you got here, BTD.

Wow.

Make that two troll ratings. Gabriella must not like my critique of the drapes, either.

Well, ladies, never fera -- I won't be stopping by much.

Patriot -- I'll see you at my place -- this li'l outpost is wayyy too rigid for the likes of me.

Can't imagine what they'd do if I busted out with my usual vernacular.