They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a (British) republican guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.

I think all of us understand pragmatism in politics, which is why this is so irritating.  It's not like this was a hard vote to take.  Iraq is extremely unpopular.  People hate this war, and they hate Bush.  Many conservatives hate Bush. ...

And I'm going to wait until someone confirms the AP story before buying the Dem capitulation line.  We've been spoonfed false assertions like that from anonymous sources far too many times to refuse prudence.

Ending the war walks.

Period.

Even if it not enough people understand that to get behind it and make the idea reality.

It could never become reality if no one pushed for it.

How else could you ever look someone in the eye next year whose son or daughter will die in Iraq this year, when they ask you: "What did you do to try and end it?"

but for those who have been in a position of leadership,

it is, nonetheless, disappointing to have some of your passionate troops waste their time and energy claiming you did not do "the right thing" or "enough" for the cause,

when, in fact, you worked hard and did the best circumstances would allow.

the order of events playing out at the moment for democrats is well set in human nature:

1. the troops say,

"who will lead us?"

2. after leaders are selected, the troops say

"let the leaders, e.g., pelosi and reid, do it. it's their job".

3. when failure is apparent, some of the troops complain

that their leaders, e.g.,pelosi and reid, "did not do what we hoped, expected, or understood for sure would be done."

news bulletin:

it's not just pelosi's and reid's job, folks;

it's our job, too.

george bush only responds to superior power.

at this moment, pelosi and reid do not have, and know they  do not have, superior power.

their decision to punt is very sensible. the congress has lots of other work to focus on.

want to help pelosi and reid get ready for another siege of the white house re the iraq war, by the time september rolls around?

get out in the streets of washington.

you'll be amazed at what a difference it will make to the president -

i have read you.

and i have also frequently read your not-infrequently ill-tempered response to your questioners :

"have you read me?" (along with your not-infrequent "morning after" apologies).

the answer?

sometimes, yes; sometimes, no.

but neither i, nor any commenter here, is required to "read" your posts in the special sarcastic way you demand, in order to comment on them.

put differently,

you do not define the limits of my understanding and

i will comment on your posts whether i have "read" you in your sense, or in my sense, of that word.

nor am i required to focus my response strictly on what you have said.

finally, btd,

to cut thru all the rhetoric,

my comment above could be re-phrased thusly:

get your butt out of your chair, away from your computer, and out into the streets of washington.

i notice that neither you,

nor any one of those who followed you down this little country lane of reasoning,

had a word to say about  

If you could secretly tell a magic genie "Yes" and suffer horribly and die but save the lives of a million people you've never met, would you say No? This one they don't even ask in philosophy school, much less Congress. But let's think about it for a minute. What's the worst fate a Congress Member could face as a result of voting against funding the war? For most it must be the loss of their seat. How horrible is that? Some of these congress members are freshmen, first elected last November campaigning on promises to end the war. Now they're prepared to vote $100 billion for the war in hopes of getting elected again in 2008. What in the hell did they want to get elected for in the first place? What district is going to receive less money if we end the war and redirect our spending to useful projects than if we continue the war but fund special pieces of pork here and there?

NBC reported how falwell had registerd 6? or 12 million nutters from '76 to '80

so that RayGun could win with 50.7 of those who voted, which was 54 or 56% of eligible voters,

which the thugs declared as a 'mandate' and then the Dems turned around

I mean rolled over

for all kinds of RayGun's crap.

too bad all those pragmatic excuses aren't online, it would be fun to rub into the appeaser's faces how today's appeasement doesn't sound much different than 25 years ago appeasement.

of course, judging from the go around I just had with the genius censor carnacki at dkos, the root of all evil isn't crappy leadership and troops with no morale,

the root of all evil is troops who won't STFU and do what the big people tell them to do.

I can't wait to listen to the latest incarnations of 'keeping our powder dry'

HA HA HA

you are right to point out that they are now betraying things they set out to do a long time ago.

but that's because, from your perspective, they were right about how to handle the bush admin, and now they are wrong.

from my perspective, they are finally having to jive their rhetoric with the kinds of candidates they've recruited and will need to recruit in the future.  they are finally being confronted with decisions that all revolutions face.

for you this is about ending the war.  while i disagree with you about the best way to go about doing that, i respect that you are most sincere regarding that goal.

for them it is about a movement.  it's worth considering now that ending the war was a way to attract people to the movement.  and perhaps not much more than that.

now they are essentially drifting.  they are not idiots.  they are confused, and simply don't know how to proceed now that the so called rear guard democratic party elite has backed reid/feingold and the avant-guard populists have not.

You are correct, but this takes a moral courage that does not seem to be present in most of the Beltway set.

I was floored to see Tester and Webb vote no, but without knowing the logic behind the vote, it's premature to call names.