Barney Frank is, like me, a pragmatist. The Democratic Party and liberals in general need to listen to what he has to say. Holding out for perfect bills is self-defeating. Attacking our Democratic leadership right now over Iraq really enables the Republicans to keep us there even longer. We need to use the power gained in 2006 election to chip away at the evil done by the Republicans, when we get a real majority we can erase it completely. Until then it is ridiculous to keep pretending that we command a majority in both houses when in reality we have a slim majority in one and really only a one vote plurality in the other which can be easily stymied by the obstructionism of the Republicans who threaten to fillibuster every piece of legislation.
The focus should not be on perfect legislation but on progress towards long term goals.

make it impossible for us to govern.

Barney, you guys kow tow to Bush and keep on supporting the war and you won't have to bother about governing in 2009. But that Armenian thing was absolutely vital to get done ASAP.

Say it with me Danni...

1. Make a funding bill with timetables.
2. Pass it.
3. Bush vetoes bill.
4. Send the exact same bill so he has to sign it or veto
5. If he signs it...great. You have your timetable.
6. If he doesn't sign it, plans begin for a draw down of forces within 90 days.

That is, if your "long term goal" is ending the war. If it isn't...well then they can continue shrugging their shoulders like they can't do anything...while we stack the bodies.

Barney Frank is the definition of using the troops as a political football.

north....they arent kowtowing to bush near as much as the others are bending over for soros and other groups..

I believe a lot of it is just what I mentioned after the last election.....in order to get control the dems ran a whole lot of conservative dems.....and they seem to be the ones who, in large part anyway, seem to be holding up the US surrender in iraq..........

BLT: May well be, but with 70 % of the voters wanting downsizing, if the Dems won't give it to them, in spite of campaigning on it, the Dems are going to lose their left wing support and a lot of independents. I'm still predicting that if the Dems don't make substantial movement in bringing Bush's Excellent Iraqi Adventure to an end, they may face anti-war third party candidates running to split the vote. Given the tightness of many races in 2006, it wouldn't be hard to imagine Nancy and Harry both back in the cheap seats.

"Attacking our Democratic leadership right now over Iraq really enables the Republicans to keep us there even longer."

This is pretty much the same thing as Cheney calling anyone who criticizes him a "traitor".

"If you criticize me, you're helping the bad guys."

Riiiiight.

They're all making too much money to do anything about Iraq.

anti-war third party candidates

Where's todays Eugene McCarthy?

Candidates today don't have the balls, in Clinton's case literally, or they have a vested interest in keeping the war going.

""That is, if your "long term goal" is ending the war. If it isn't...well then they can continue shrugging their shoulders like they can't do anything...while we stack the bodies.""

If we didn't have a sociopath for a president this tactic would work fine. However the Dem. leadership is aware of two facts:
1. Bush would continue to fund the war from other funds within the Defense Dept. which would result in lessened readiness in other areas.
2. Bush would willingly play politics with the safety of the troops and keep them there even if he had no funds with which to supply them.

It is only responsible to fund the troops as long as they are in a war zone. Pretending the Democrats have the power to force Bush to bring them home is an illusion that the right loves to pretend is real for partisan political reasons.
Barney Frank is a realist and values the lives of the troops more than a quick political grand stand play which wouldn't bring them home but could jeopardize their safety.

"If you criticize me, you're helping the bad guys."

That's not what he is saying. He is just doing the same thing Bill Clinton did, he's playing hardball politics and getting things done while other Dems are making promises they can't fulfill.

OOhrah, actually I was thinking about the same thing. I almost posted that we should finally learn something from the Republicans who know how to win. Us Democrats are great at making speeches and promises but haven't been very effective in accomplishing our goals because we haven't been willing to think incrementally with a long term goal. This is why I have been supporting Hillary lately. Bill Clinton, after the health care debacle, learned the hard way that it is the only way of really accomplishing anything in a divided Congress.

""Same old, same old, except for a plethora of investigations."'

Which are very important and a big part of what Congress is supposed to be doing. The exit of Gonzo is proof enough of the importance of such investigations. The Blackwater hearings the other day were also pretty dramatic.

If we didn't have a sociopath for a president this tactic would work fine. However the Dem. leadership is aware of two facts:
1. Bush would continue to fund the war from other funds within the Defense Dept. which would result in lessened readiness in other areas.

The excuse for not doing anything that "Bush will do it anyway" is a perfect copout. You can't say that you are doing something when you aren't doing something. You can't say that you're opposed to wiretapping when you vote to extend it. You can't say that you don't support this war when you annually extend funding for it.

2. Bush would willingly play politics with the safety of the troops and keep them there even if he had no funds with which to supply them.

What does that have to do with making an effort to end the war? Why do they even bother showing up for work then if Bush is going to do what he wants anyway?

We have this thing called checks and balances...Either stand up for justice with the Constitution as your shield or get the fuck out.

It is only responsible to fund the troops as long as they are in a war zone. Pretending the Democrats have the power to force Bush to bring them home is an illusion that the right loves to pretend is real for partisan political reasons.
Barney Frank is a realist and values the lives of the troops more than a quick political grand stand play which wouldn't bring them home but could jeopardize their safety.

Funding the troops is not like setting up direct deposit with your bank. War funding is not a week to week proposition. This war is funded for months in advance...more than enough time to responsibly leave Iraq. The Democrats have the power to pull the funding. They refuse for whatever reason. Some are war profiteers. Some are beholden to AIPAC. If Barney Frank valued the troops as much as he says he does, he would pull the funding....and they'd be home by March.

"1. Bush would continue to fund the war from other funds within the Defense Dept. which would result in lessened readiness in other areas."

BINGO !!! 100% CORRECT !!!!

Those Funds Would Impact Military Personnel And There Families. The Money Would Come Anywhere And By Any Means Miscarry. It Is Totally Insane That No One Understands That, A Good reason for The Draft So People Would Know About This Countries Defense System And How It Works.

That Goes For Chicken-Hawk NEOCONS and Barefoot Anti-Military Vegetarian Libs !

-Sarge

Bravo, Barney!

How nice to see someone else preaching against making the "perfect" the enemy of the good.

""Were you also gung ho for investigations once the Reps took over Congress in 1994?""

In all honesty I can't say I was really paying that much attention during that time. I hope I would have welcomed investigations if they were warranted, today they surely are with billions missing in Iraq, DOJ turning into an arm of the Republican party, mercenary soldiers, etc.

I have to ask though, do you honestly believe that in 1994 there was as much corruption to investigate as there has been during the past six years???

"1. Bush would continue to fund the war from other funds within the Defense Dept. which would result in lessened readiness in other areas."

BINGO !!! 100% CORRECT !!!!

Those Funds Would Impact Military Personnel And There Families. The Money Would Come Anywhere And By Any Means Miscarry. It Is Totally Insane That No One Understands That, A Good reason for The Draft So People Would Know About This Countries Defense System And How It Works.

That Goes For Chicken-Hawk NEOCONS and Barefoot Anti-Military Vegetarian Libs !

-Sarge

If you defund the war, and he gets the money from somewhere else, at least you can say that you are trying to stop the war. Otherwise, you're not...it's that simple. You can you want to end this war, but when you extend funding, you are full of shit.

Defunding the war today will not put troops in jeopardy tomorrow.

As far as a draft goes...feel free to throw your children in the meat grinder to make the elites more money. I'll stay right here, thanks. Though you may feel free to call me when a real threat arises.

Barney Frank is, like me, a pragmatist.

Danni, that must be a relatively recent conversion, but I hope you stick with it.

I personally agree with Barney, but what he says applies to everyone, not just the Democrats: effective government requires consensus, not partisan polarity.

You are wrong, the Iraq funding is "Supplemental" it has been from the start and is not in the Standard budget.

It is still supplemented in advance...I don't understand how this invalidates anything I said.

"You can you want to end this war, but when you extend funding, you are full of shit."

I and from what you state, I'm assuming here mind you, Passing a Symbolic Bill is Bullshit, it would just Political and Do Nothing to Actually Stop the War. De-Funding the War would not stop the War it would Harmfully Impact Troops, their Families,wounded vets, and the Training Troops headed for Iraq,and America, "Innocent Americans" now and in the Future.

The Draft would stop the War in an Instant Trust me, it would and it would also stop the BS War prep for Iran also. Politicians Miraculously find Diplomacy when Their Own Family and Friends have to be but in a Grinder.

-Sarge

"It is still supplemented in advance...I don't understand how this invalidates anything I said."

It is Money "On Top" of the Standard Budget, "Extra", Not Part Of The "$440 Billion"

If you do not get the "Supplemental Funds" it is "Taken Out Of" of the $440 Billion. So the War would still be Funded With the "Standard Budget" It "Would Not Stop The War" The Money would come from other Defense Funds.

-Sarge

""The Plame non case... Gonzales was a real crime? Not those. What about Gitmo and the whole 'due process'? They aren't covered by the Geneva Convention. Now you can make the emotional case that we ought to go above the letter of the law. Fine. But it's not criminal and that seems to be the aim of the Dems: to criminalize Rep policies.""

Sorry OOHRAH we disagree on virtually every single one of those topics. The Dems aren't trying to criminalize what the Republicans have done they are though trying to reveal the criminality involved in many of these topics. Valerie Plame for instance, for crying out loud, she as a covert CIA agent outed for partisan political reasons....that was a crime, no doubt about it.
I think this country has been taken over by a small cabal of neocon lunatics, investigations really are the only way to reveal their subterfuge and crimes. It isn't hardly the same thing as investigating for two years to discover a BJ.

I have to ask though, do you honestly believe that in 1994 there was as much corruption to investigate as there has been during the past six years???

Here is a list of the corruption investigations during the 1994-1996 Congress:

Dan Rostenkowski and other Democratic Members of Congress in the Congressional Post Office Scandal (1991 - 1995)

The evident suicide (1993) of White House lawyer Vince Foster, together with accusations that documents from Foster's office relating to an investigation had disappeared mysteriously, fueled scandalous speculations, including the widely publicized suggestion (dismissed by investigators) that Foster's death had not been suicide.

White House Coffees and Lincoln Bedroom sales -- political donations linked to access to President Clinton, including the apparent sale of "coffees" with him, and what amounted to the renting out of the Lincoln Bedroom.

Commerce Secretary Ron Brown investigated (1995)

The 1996 United States campaign finance controversy, also known as Chinagate, refers to alleged efforts by the People's Republic of China (PRC) to influence domestic United States politics prior to and during the Clinton Administration as well as the fundraising practices of the administration itself.

Americorps head Eli Segal investigated (1996)

Wes Cooley (1996)

Filegate -- Misuse of FBI resources by White House Security Chief under President Bill Clinton, allegedly to compile an enemies list (1996); investigation found insufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing

Walter R. Tucker III of California resigned before bribery conviction (1996)

""Same shit, different day.""

Uh-huh, riiiight.

Oh, in Bill's personal life it wasn't minor but as far as the importance to the nation and to Congress it wasn't very important compared to mercenary soldiers subject to no law in Iraq, 8 billion missing from Iraq reconstruction fund, etc.
We are presently stuck in a war costing as much as 2 trillion dollars and we don't really even know why we are in it. That is important to the nation far more than any BJ or even any accusations from other women.

"By the way, it's easy to say it was just a BJ, but if your spouse was in the midst of a sexual harassment lawsuit and the defendant (an attorney, no less) lied under oath and enlisted his minions to smear you, how would you feel? Perjury is a serious offense."

Yes, perjury is a serious offense.

But most people understand (read: understand, not condone) lying about an extramarital affair (in this case about oral sex).

After all, we're a country where 50% of the marriages end in divorce.

"and enlisted his minions to smear you"

You mean like the smear job on Graeme Frost and his family?

Hans

I almost posted that we should finally learn something from the Republicans who know how to win.

Then we can figure that whole porkbarrel and lobbyist money thing.Maybe some pandering to the anti-gay and anti-choice groups too, Danni.
Finally, there are the Congressional pages and the public washrooms of the world to explore.

btw, how long did the Dems have the House before 1994? Seems they know how to win, just have forgotten how to lead once they get there.

A little bit at a time. Until the DEMs get 60% in both houses, that's all they can hope for.

OMG, I can't believe that I agree with Barney "Freakin'" Frank. He is 100% correct. The left-wing kook fringe like Moveon.org and DailyKos will absolutely destroy the Dems in the '08. They are now attacking Democrats more than Republicans. It is just too funny.

The funny thing is that the kook fringe SHOULD attack the Dems. Why? The Dems USED these lib whack jobs to win elections and lied to them. There was no intention to win the war that is why they keep voting to fund it. What about stopping high oil prices? We are at all time highs. Stopping Don't Ask Don't Tell? Yeah, right! The Dems lied and now they are paying the price. Ethics? Talk to Democrat Congressmen Jefferson. What a joke.

A Man Getting A Blow Job And Starting A War ?

Come on and get fucking Real, If it had nothing to do with The Economy,Energry, Corruption or National Security I could give a flying Fuck who Sucked his Dick.

You State he lied, but depending on where the Case would be tried Oral Sex would not be Considered "Sex" Sex in many Cities,Counties and States Is Penal Vaginal Penetration. That is why some Pedophile Cases they are charged with Molestation opposed to Rape, so Bill being a Lawyer Chose his words careful. Though I truly do not give a Fuck one way or another, I would never answered the Damn Question. I would have said "Ask Newt and The Hammer have they had "Sex" with some Woman other than their Wives then get back to me !"

-Sarge

I and from what you state, I'm assuming here mind you, Passing a Symbolic Bill is Bullshit, it would just Political and Do Nothing to Actually Stop the War. De-Funding the War would not stop the War it would Harmfully Impact Troops, their Families,wounded vets, and the Training Troops headed for Iraq,and America, "Innocent Americans" now and in the Future.

I can assure you...pulling the funding will do more than not doing anything. Non-binding resolutions coming from my great Senator Carl Levin is "doing nothing". Thank god he voted to declare the Iranian Guard a terrorist organization though...whew. I actually thought he might think about doing something after his non-binding resolution, but thankfully he restored my lack of faith in him.

In fact, these fucking losers can go ahead and take time off until 2009...it's not like they can do anything. So we might as well allow Dictator Bush to do what he is good at.

If you do not get the "Supplemental Funds" it is "Taken Out Of" of the $440 Billion. So the War would still be Funded With the "Standard Budget" It "Would Not Stop The War" The Money would come from other Defense Funds.

I get it just fine.

Oh well...never mind then. I guess Democrats can carry on with the policy of shrugging our shoulders and frowning while we rubber stamp every funding request that comes our way...that's what Democrats call getting tough.

Iraq,

Trust me I wish it was some other way, but utastaff is correct, when you do not have VETO Proof Control over Congress you are Impotent so getting mad at the Dems over the War makes no Sense. It is the President and the GOP fault not the ones you elected, when a President will VETO a Children's Health Care Bill he will fund the War by Any Means Necessary.

-Sarge

IRAQIBUKKAKE I think if you had a kid in Iraq you might not want the funds cut. I used to feel the same way you do, Kucinich recommended it and I was a big Kucinich supporter. I have changed though, now I realize that the Dems have got to get in control before they can make changes and to do that we will need a "big tent" which means we will have to moderate and go along for a while. I am still just as vehemently against the war as you are but I just disagree on how to end it. If somehow a Rethug were to get elected again it would be a disaster and even though I hate the war I think we should endure it a little longer so that we can then end it with the least loss of life possible. I really do believe Bush is evil enough to leave the troops over there and then blame the Democrats when they run out of supplies. He'd love it. The Republican Party would love it. It would give them a victory in '08 and we can't let that happen.

Danni,

You are once again 100% correct, what do you think of Hillary Voting for the Iranian Guard Bill ?

-Sarge

Perjury is a serious offense."

Unless of course your name is Scooter Libby, then according to the law and order Rightys its a "process crime", sort of like illegal parking, only not so serious.

For some things you need 60 percent, for other things 67 percent. There you're pragmatic.

For other things 50 percent will do. Fifty percent (plus one) saying no to more war funds stops the war. Honest. The Good Guys HAVE 50 percent. For them not to use it is ... well ... not treason but a refusal to do what they were elected to do.

If this civics lesson sounds a little simplistic, make the most of it. We have some fairly simple souls participating here. herm

I find the idea of liberal "pants pissers" a completely off base term, given that at least for the last 6 or so years, its been the republicans trying to get us to piss our pants.

That being said... if any one wanted to say the dems had no balls, you'd have no argument from me.

I mean fuckin A, these people hardly even appear to be trying to fight this administration.

Personally I'm translating alot of what they're saying into "were are too pussy to get that bloody". Maverick just won't fucking engage... They worry too much about the consequences which tend to evolve around they're own perception of what is keeping them in office.

Republicans might have been off they're rocker, but at least they were willing to die for the idea. Kucinich and those that think like him, may not have the right idea, BUT.. at least hes bold enough to start the fight today, not just hold office until the time is right. And his seat isn't exactly in stone. Quite frankly waiting for some future utopia of democratic blitzkrieging sounds more like a scam for staying in office than a real plan of attack. For that matter, thats an oddly republican ideal, almost like a matter of faith...

When Petraus and friends tell us we'll be in iraq another 10 years, the dems just ought to applaud they're own good work, instead of boo'ing because whether they wanted it or not they are making this reality.