Mood:
chattyTopic: Lib Loser Stories
Democrats Back Away From Iraq Plan
WASHINGTON -- Democratic leaders backed away from aggressive plans to limit President Bush's war authority, the latest sign of divisions within their ranks over how to proceed.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday he wanted to delay votes on a measure that would repeal the 2002 war authorization and narrow the mission in Iraq.
Senior Democrats who drafted the proposal, including Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Carl Levin of Michigan, had sought swift action on it as early as this week, when the Senate takes up a measure to enact the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.
Reid, who will huddle with Democrats Tuesday to discuss whether to postpone the Iraq debate, cited pressure from victims' families for quick action on the Sept. 11 bill as the reason for doing so.
"Iraq is going to be there - it's just a question of when we get back to it," Reid said, predicting it would be "days, not weeks" before the Senate returned to the issue. The war reauthorization legislation also appears to lack the 60 votes it would need to pass the Senate.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., meanwhile, said she doesn't support tying war funding to strict training and readiness targets for U.S. troops.
The comments distanced her from Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who has said he wants to use Congress' spending power to force a change in policy in Iraq, by setting strict conditions on war funding.
Pelosi said she supports holding the administration to training and readiness targets, but added: "I don't see them as conditions to our funding. Let me be very clear: Congress will fund our troops."
Asked whether the standards should be tied to a $100 billion supplemental war spending measure - as Murtha has proposed - Pelosi demurred, saying it was up to the panel that drafts funding bills.
The developments on both sides of the Capitol reflected a new level of disarray in Democratic ranks on Iraq. Swept into power by voters clamoring for an end to the war, Democrats have seen their efforts falter under a reality more complicated than they found on the campaign trail.
While the public is fed up with Iraq, there is little consensus over what to do.
Internal divisions, Republican opposition and a president who - while weakened - still appears to have the dominant voice on the war have all left Democrats flailing for a way to change the war's course.
The Democrats' symbolic measure disapproving of Bush's troop buildup passed the House only to stall in the Senate. The House plan to place strict restrictions on war funding appears to lack enough support within Democratic ranks to succeed, and looks likely to be scaled back, considering Pelosi's latest comments. The Senate bid to narrow the 2002 resolution authorizing the war appears to lack enough votes to be approved, and action on it now is likely to be put off - at least for the week.
The first signs of impatience among Democrats' allies are sprouting.
"The public is saying, 'We hired you to get out of Iraq - now figure it out,'" said Tom Matzzie, Washington director of the anti-war group MoveOn.org. "There is a risk that without action, frustration boils over into anger."
Democrats argue that their failed efforts to thwart Bush's war plans will ultimately pay off by ratcheting up pressure for a change.
"The administration is increasingly isolated and they are increasingly at odds with where the American people are," said Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman. "We're going to keep on going at it until the administration changes course."
But Democrats also are worried about being at odds with public opinion as House and Senate leaders push divergent measures.
House Democrats, who enjoy a 32-seat majority, will try this week to determine if there is enough support among themselves to pass the Murtha plan. Senate Democrats will discuss whether to postpone action on the war reauthorization, as Reid suggested.
Bush told governors Monday that he looked forward to a "healthy debate" on Iraq, but warned Congress against limiting funding for the war or commanders' flexibility in waging it.
"I do not believe that someone is unpatriotic if they don't agree with my point of view. On the other hand, I think it's important for people to understand the consequences of not giving our troops the resources necessary to do the job," Bush said.
Democrats' troubles finding a strategy on the war reflect a wider lack of consensus among the public about what course to take in Iraq. AP-Ipsos polls show that while a clear majority are pessimistic about the war and oppose a buildup, most people do not support cutting funding for the troops.
Zbigniew Brzesinski, Jimmy Carter's former national security adviser, said Democrats "run the risk of losing momentum."
They would be better off pushing some simple policy statements that could garner Republican support - such as opposition to establishing permanent bases in Iraq or to further expansion of the war - than trying to find a way to tie Bush's hands, he said.
"One has to be very careful not to get involved in micromanaging a military engagement," Brzesinski added.
Bush still enjoys substantial advantage when it comes to trumpeting his message on the war, even though his image and clout suffered major blows in last fall's elections.
Democrats, by contrast, have a cacophony of voices - including several presidential candidates - weighing in on what to do next in Iraq.
"The party's not unified. Until you control the executive branch, you really don't have a party - you have all these independent actors," Lawrence Korb, a Reagan administration Defense Department official, said of the Democrats' plight.
The Examiner ~ Assoc. Press - Julie Hirschfeld Davis ** Democrats Back Away From Iraq Plan
Looks like someone tipped 'em off to the fact that if they continued on the path they were going... political death is what they would get. Okay, who blabbed?!
Maybe it was Lieberman... he threw the ball in their court. I mean, playing with the lives for our soldiers (whom they wholeheartedly support) for political reasons? Nah, not the libtards.
d'oh
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to list on annual Senate financial disclosure forms the family charity she operates with former president Bill Clinton, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.
The newspaper said Clinton's office immediately amended her Senate ethics reports to add that information late Monday after receiving inquiries from The Washington Post.
surprised
ACROSS THE POND
By Nick Cohen
She wanted to know: Does Ken Livingstone's idea of multiculturalism acknowledge and condone segregation? It clearly does, but what made this vignette of ethnic politics in a European city worth noting is that commentators for the BBC and nearly every newspaper here describe Mr. Livingstone as one of the most left-wing politicians in British public life. Hardly any of them notice the weirdness of an apparent socialist pandering to a reactionary strain of Islam, pushing its arguments and accepting its dictates.
I could go on with specific examples, but the crucial point is the pervasive European attitude to the Iraq catastrophe. As al Qaeda, the Baathists and Shiite Islamists slaughter thousands, there is virtually no sense that their successes are our defeats. Iraqi socialists and trade unionists I know are close to despair. They turn for support to Europe, the home of liberalism, feminism and socialism, and find that rich democrats, liberals and feminists won't help them or even acknowledge their existence.
Why is the world upside down? In part, it is a measure of President Bush's failure that anti-Americanism has swept out of the intelligentsia and become mainstream in Britain. A country that was once the most pro-American in Western Europe now derides Tony Blair for sticking with the Atlantic alliance. But if Iraq has pummeled Mr. Blair's reputation, it has also shone a very harsh light on the British and European left. No one noticed it when the Berlin Wall came down, but the death of socialism gave people who called themselves "left wing" a paradoxical advantage. They no longer had a practical program they needed to defend and could go along with ultra-right movements that would once have been taboo. In moments of crisis, otherwise sane liberals will turn to these movements and be reassured by the professed leftism of the protest organizers that they are not making a nonsense of their beliefs.
If, that is, they have strong beliefs to abandon. In Europe and North America extreme versions of multiculturalism and identity politics have left a poisonous legacy. Far too many liberal-minded people think that is somehow culturally imperialist to criticize reactionary movements and ideas--as long as they aren't European or American reactionary movements. This delusion is everywhere. Until very recently our Labour government was allowing its dealings with Britain's Muslim minority to be controlled by an unelected group, the Muslim Council of Britain, which stood for everything social democrats were against. In their desperate attempts to ingratiate themselves, ministers gave its leader a knighthood--even though he had said that "death was too good" for Salman Rushdie, who happens to be a British citizen as well as a great novelist.
Beyond the contortions and betrayals of liberal and leftish thinking lies a simple emotion that I don't believe Americans take account of: an insidious fear that has produced the ideal conditions for appeasement. Radical Islam does worry Europeans but we are trying to prevent an explosion by going along with Islamist victimhood. We blame ourselves for the Islamist rage, in the hope that our admission of guilt will pacify our enemies. We are scared, but not scared enough to take a stand.
energetic
The 
Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
silly
I just caught the new blog show on Fox News, 'It's Out There'... and I thought it was super sweet to see Michelle Malkin actually had material, like the "tolerant, compassionate, free speech champ" libtard that hunted down a Republican, broke into his house, and assaulted him for his "crime" of supporting the Iraq War. While Dem strategist Kirsten Powers had NO material, rehashing the story of the guy who spray-painted his face red to aquire a driver's license.
The over-a-week old story is located at:
MURRAY, Ky. -- A middle school teacher trying to buy pot was arrested after she sent text messages to state trooper instead of a dealer, police said.
Meadows said.
substances within 1,000 feet of a school, possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia, Meadows said.
CHEECHA WATNI, Pakistan -- Three Islamic militants died in eastern Pakistan when a powerful bomb they were transporting by bicycle accidentally exploded Saturday near a bustling cattle market, police said.
The severed head of one of the militants was found in a nearby field, Shakil said. Police collected the suspects' remains for DNA testing.
A suicide bomber killed 15 people -- including a judge -- when he blew himself up inside a courtroom in a southwestern city of Quetta on February 17.
Her father Kevin, 43, blamed the rise in underage pregnancies on growing "gang culture" where teenagers hang around drinking, taking drugs and having sex.
Norman Wells, from the pressure group Family and Youth Concern, said the sex education in schools had cheapened it and reduced it to a "casual recreational activity."
The bleak figures mean the Government is less than a quarter of the way to meeting its promise to halve pregnancy rates among under-18s in England by 2010.
loud
Hunted and Assaulted
I don't understand, therefore, in one sense, although I do in many others, I don't understand Mrs. Clinton giving Obama the time of day on this David Geffen thing. I don't understand it. Ignore it. Who's David Geffen? But that's not the Clinton way. You don't diss Hillary Clinton. You don't disrespect Hillary Clinton. You do not criticize Hillary Clinton. You don't do it. You don't criticize her. If you're a Democrat, you don't criticize her husband. If you do, you are going to pay the price. It's a mistake for her to do this. Now, my theory about this, and I'm not wedded to it, but it's a possibility. Mrs. Clinton is the front-runner, she's come out of the gate the front-runner, she's entitled, she's presumptive as the nominee and all of this. You know what happens to front-runners. They generally fade because somebody comes out of the pack, big surprise, and knocks 'em off. Bill Clinton was not the front-runner in the Democratic battles in 1992. He came from behind, had the Whitewater stuff show up in the New York Times, and Clinton showed he could defeat those SOBs, however he did it. He showed that he can overcome this.
Hillary has to do the same thing. Obama is out there, and now Hollywood… (Gasping) … some parts of Hollywood out there as an obstacle for Mrs. Clinton to overcome. She's 23 points ahead of them! I'm not saying Obama is part of this, but the way the Clintons are reacting to this, it is as though Obama is a serious opponent and she's gotta knock him down to show she can do it; show other Democrats that she can do it. What's actually happened is that you have people out there saying, “Gosh, I like this Obama guy because he's not backing down to Clinton, Incorporated. He's not intimidated. He's firing right back at them.” And that's one thing he's gotta do. He's gotta show he's a tough guy. He's only been around, what, two years in the Senate? Besides that, nobody knows what he did. Well, we do in the Illinois Senate. Wait 'til you hear some of things this guy voted for. All of that is coming up later when it's important. I got e-mails from friends of mine last night, “I like this Obama guy.” Oh, no, no, no! Why?
You tell me the American people don't want to win? The American people are sick and tired of Clinton, Inc., the American people, some Democrats, too. I read some Democrat websites last night and they are sick and tired of the Clintons. They're tired of dynasties -- Bush, Inc., Clinton, Inc., whatever it is, and they like this guy Obama slapping back and not taking this. Mrs. Clinton was asked about this. This is Stephanopoulos. “Your campaign's gotten into a bit of a press release scuffle with the Obama campaign today. It began with comments by David Geffen,” blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, “but do you personally believe that Senator Obama should denounce David Geffen's remarks?”
RUSH: Come on, what a --
RUSH: What Geffen said was not personal. What he said was not slash-and-burn. What he said was true politics: Clinton lies. Hillary Clinton lies. They find it easy. And, frankly, they're reckless, and I'm tired of them. There's no slash-and-burn -- you don't criticize the Clintons. No, no, no, no, no. You don't diss the Clintons. So Matthews said, “Well, Senator Clinton was on that panel today out in Nevada. She was asked by Stephanopoulos if she wanted the Obama campaign to denounce the words of Geffen. She said I'll leave it up to them. But you're not leaving it up to them. Are you saying what Hillary is thinking?”
MATTHEWS: Is that different than her?
WOLFSON: Because she's in front of a group of people who have come to hear her and the other Democrats.
RICHARDSON: Yes. Because I think that if we're going to win, we have to be positive. If there's anything about Democrats in the last few years, being a governor I felt this, we just can't criticize the president. There's plenty to criticize. We should advance our own policies, our own solutions.
CARVILLE: A Hollywood guy like that, you try to get him to open his wallet and shut his mouth, because, inevitably, he gets around Maureen Dowd, he's going to make a fool of himself. Geffen is a guy that he -- he -- as much as he knows about politics, he knows that little -- about Hollywood, he knows that little about politics. Somebody needs to say, hey, Bill Clinton has a 95 percent favorable among Democrats. This -- this -- this Geffen-led strategy of attacking Bill Clinton to win a nomination is -- is -- is indicative of -- of Mr. Geffen's political stupidity.
BRAZILE: He might be jealous, James. He's jealous.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: All right, what's the message? We're not supposed to attack Bill Clinton. We're not supposed to attack Bill Clinton. We're not supposed to call Clinton reckless. We're not supposed to say he and Hillary are good liars. We're not supposed to do that. No, no, no, no, not permitted in the Democrat Party. Here's the second Carville bite.
RUSH: What are we to conclude from this? Here's what we're to conclude. It's real simple. We can undermine the troops. We can undermine the commander-in-chief. We can demoralize the troops. We can threaten and promise a slow bleed of the troops. We can deny them reinforcements. We can deny them troop rotations. We can deny them upgrades in equipment and armor. We can lose the war, we should lose the war! America should lose because Democrats own defeat, and we can unleash a genocide in Iraq by pulling out. But whatever the hell you do, don't call Bill Clinton a liar. You can say whatever you want about Bush. You can say whatever you want about Limbaugh. You can say whatever you want about the troops. You can own defeat. You can rip your own country to shreds day in and day out. Don't you dare criticize Bill or Hillary Clinton. That, my friends, is what you conclude from that.
There is a real war going on in the Democrat Party, and the media is trying to underplay this as, you know, like a cat fight and a skirmish, but I'm going to tell you what's really going on here. The Clintons are ticked off because Obama may in fact be the real first black president replacing the phony first black president, Bill Clinton. The whitest first black president from the scene. Make no mistake, this is about the black vote. This is all about the black vote. The Clintons, Hillary, not going to get anywhere without it. That's why all these stories, "Is Obama black enough?" You think these aren't coming from the Clinton War Room? Ha-ha. Guarantee you they are. Is Obama black enough? This is coming from the Drive-By Media! It's about the black vote, in the primaries.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Why do you think there are stories in the Drive-By Media about Obama not being black enough, as though Bill Clinton is but Obama isn't? You think that just happens? It doesn't just happen in Clinton, Inc. Also notice this. Who instigated this? Who really brought this to light? None other than MoDo, Maureen Dowd. Of what? The New York Times. Now, Maureen Dowd is a reliable whacked out liberal. It's a shame how unhappy she is. I am tempted to think I could change that with just one dinner. You know me. I'm an eternal optimist. Just one. It would never happen, but we can fantasize. Nevertheless, she's a reliable, whacked out lib. She was the voice for Geffen. She gave Geffen's words amplification in the New York Times. Now, where's the New York Times going to come down on this? The New York Times is now in the middle of a rift between the Clintons and Hollywood. They’re not going to get rid of her, don't misunderstand, but I'm just telling you this is far more serious, even though it's entertaining to us, it's far more serious than anybody really knows.
This was supposed to be Hillary's coronation. This whole thing, this whole campaign, this whole primary season, this was supposed to be her coronation. She wasn't supposed to have to answer tough questions. She's on the listening tour. She has the chat room there on her website. She's not supposed to be dealing with any of this. This is not what was intended. This is a coronation. She's angry that anyone would seriously contend her nomination. And so is Bill. This is every bit as much about him getting back to the White House as her. Don't doubt that for a second. Now, Los Angeles Times today, "Gentle Jabs Turned to Punches for Clinton-Obama." And get this, “Her campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, recently warned donors that Clinton would remember those who did not back her. ‘You are either with us, or you're against us,’ McAuliffe told potential donors during a dinner at Haim Saban's house,” who is a big Hollywood producer and big honcho of the Clintons.