GOP Senator Jon Kyl claims unemployment benefits make people not want to work

Is it me, or has the Republican Party followed Jim Bunning over a cliff? From The Huffington Post:

A debate on the Senate floor Monday over unemployment compensation crystallized, at least for a moment, the divide between the two parties in Washington.

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, argued that unemployment benefits dissuade people from job-hunting "because people are being paid even though they're not working."

Unemployment insurance "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work," Kyl said during debate over whether unemployment insurance and other benefits that expired amid GOP objections Sunday should be extended.

"I'm sure most of them would like work and probably have tried to seek it, but you can't argue that it's a job enhancer. If anything, as I said, it's a disincentive. And the same thing with the COBRA extension and the other extensions here," said Kyl.

Unemployment benefits are generally so small that much of it is often used to pay for COBRA health insurance, even when subsidized. The size of the benefits does not generally cover the cost of living and it would be hard to find a single person who would prefer unemployment to having a job so that they could get subsidized COBRA.

I think that Jim Bunning has just opened a huge can of night-crawlers here. Had Bunning kept quiet, and allowed Congress to pass the unemployment extension with overwhelming support from both political parties, this debate would have never come to the forefront. However, Bunning decided to engage in his one-man filibuster. Now we have another Republican Senator, Jon Kyl of Arizona, who is calling unemployment benefits as dissuading people from looking for jobs. Now the debate has crystallized to where the Republicans want to end unemployment compensation for jobless Americans at a time of high unemployment. The Democrats want to extend unemployment. I should also say that the current unemployment rate in the U.S. is at around 9.7 percent.

What are these guys drinking?

There is a new horror movie coming out called The Crazies. I'm actually starting to think that we have our own version of The Crazies in Washington DC, also known as the GOP.

Here's the preview for the horror movie The Crazies. What do you think?

GOP Senator Jim Bunning filibusters Senate vote to extend unemployment benefits

I've been watching this story over the weekend, and I'm just fascinated at this latest Senate "train wreak" that has been caused by a lone, Republican senator. From MSNBC News:

WASHINGTON - Two thousand federal transportation workers were furloughed without pay on Monday, and the Obama administration said they have a Kentucky senator to blame for it.

Federal reimbursements to states for highway programs will also be halted, the Transportation Department said in a statement late Sunday. The reimbursements amount to about $190 million a day, according to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

The furloughs and freeze on payments were the result of a decision last week by Republican Sen. Jim Bunning to block passage of legislation that would have extended federal highway and transit programs, the department said. Those programs expired at midnight Sunday.

The extension of transportation programs was part of a larger package of government programs that also expired Sunday, including unemployment benefits for about 400,000 Americans.

Bunning objected to the $10 billion measure, saying it would add to the budget deficit. He didn't respond to a request Monday for comment.

Countdown with Keith Olbermann has a decent back story on Bunning's 'bizarro' behavior:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Should I really feel sorry that Bunning has missed his college basketball game so that he could deny unemployment benefits to Americans who have lost their jobs?

Of course, when Democratic senators pleaded with Bunning to drop his filibuster, Bunning replied "Tough shit!" From the Politico.com:

Senate Democrats spent Thursday night hammering away at Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) for single-handedly holding up action in the upper chamber – but he blurted out a message to one of them on the Senate floor: “Tough s—t.”

In an unusual display in the normally sleepy chamber, Bunning – without the support of GOP leadership – has blocked efforts to quickly approve a series of extensions to measures that would otherwise expire Sunday, including unemployment insurance and the Cobra program that allows people who lose their health benefits to continue getting coverage.

And that has led to a furious exchange on the floor, with Democrats attacking the senator, who has refused to relent on his objection, in unusually harsh terms.

In a colloquy with Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Jeff Merkley, a freshman Democrat from Oregon, was pleading for Bunning to drop his objection, when the Kentucky Republican got fed up.

“Tough s—t,” Bunning said as he was seated in the back row, overheard by the floor staff and others in attendance.

A spokesman for Bunning did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Finally, an angry Bunning flipped the bird at reporters, questioning Bunning on his one-man filibuster. From ABC News:

Sen. Jim Bunning has left dozens of infrastructure projects on hold and put thousands of federal transportation workers temporarily out of work, but he is sticking to his guns, despite withering criticism from the White House and his Democratic opponents.

Bunning, the Kentucky Republican, decided last week to block a bill that would extend government funding of highway and transit programs and unemployment benefits for 400,000 Americans, among other programs. He has been critical of the bill's $10 billion price tag and its potential to add to the national debt.

Earlier today, Bunning refused to answer questions from ABC News, even flipping his middle finger at a producer trying to catch up with him from behind.

"Excuse me! This is a Senators-only elevator!" Bunning thundered as he boarded an elevator in the Hart Senate Office Building. "I'm not talking to anybody," he said.

I don't really know what else to say about this story, except that Republican Senator Jim Bunning decided to play the major asshole in this latest political drama. Of course, Bunning is in a perfect position to play this curmudgeon game, since he has decided to retire at the end of this year, and will not be facing re-election. But on another note, I can't help but wonder how embarrassing Bunning is to the Republican Party--Bunning is playing the same obstructionist game that the GOP has been playing with the Democrats, and the Obama administration, on every piece of legislative agenda for the past year. Could the difference here between GOP obstructionism against everything, and Bunning's obstructionism against the unemployment benefits simply be that Bunning is a stark, raving lunatic?

Huckabee calls economic stimulus bill, "anti-religious"

I saw this story yesterday in the Washington Monthly, and I've been meaning to comment on it. Apparently, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee believes that the economics stimulus package is "anti-religious." What the frack? From the Politico.com:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee warned supporters Tuesday that the $828 billion stimulus package is “anti-religious.”

In an e-mail that was also posted on his blog ahead of the Senate’s passage, Huckabee wrote: “The dust is settling on the ‘bipartisan’ stimulus bill and one thing is clear: It is anti-religious.”

The former Republican presidential candidate pointed to a provision in both the House and Senate versions banning higher education funds in the bill from being used on a “school or department of divinity.”

“You would think the ACLU drafted this bill,” Huckabee said. “For all of the talk about bipartisanship, this Congress is blatantly liberal.”

“Emily’s List, radical environmental groups, etc. all have a seat at the decision making table in Washington these days,” he continued. “Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are in charge and they are working with an equally ‘progressive’ President Obama (remember his voting record is more liberal than Ted Kennedy!).”

In the e-mail, Huckabee concedes that there is little that conservatives can do in the near term, but advocated mobilization to defeat those “masquerading as ‘conservative Democrats.’”

Steve Benen, at the Washington Monthly, sets the record straight:

Regular readers know the story by now, but if you're just joining us, this myth has been making the rounds in right-wing circles for about a week. Originally, the American Center for Law and Justice, a right-wing legal group formed by TV preacher Pat Robertson, said the stimulus bill includes a provision that would prohibit "religious groups and organizations from using" buildings on college campuses. Soon after, religious right groups and right-wing blogs were up in arms, demanding that lawmakers fix the "anti-Christian" language of the bill. Fox News and the Christian Broadcasting Network helped get the word out to the far-right base about the nefarious measure. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) actually tried to have the provision removed from the bill.

There was, however, one small problem: there was no such measure. The ACLJ doesn't know how to read legislation, and didn't realize that the standard language in the bill simply blocks spending for on-campus buildings that are used primarily for religion (like a chapel, for example). This same language has been part of education spending bills for 46 years. It's just the law, and it's never been controversial.

Huckabee is either deliberately deceiving people, or he's making reckless accusations without knowing the facts. Either way, this is ridiculous.

First, I have to wonder if Mike Huckabee has been eating too many of his popcorn-popper-fried squirrels. The second thing I have to wonder is have the Republicans descended into some form of delusional insanity with these incoherent rantings? Because that is what I'm hearing over the past couple of weeks. We've got House Minority Leader Eric Cantor sending a pro-union spoof of a commercial as a response to a union attack ad against Cantor for his opposition to the economic stimulus bill. Top GOP strategist Alex Castellanos called Republican senators, who were considering supporting the economic stimulus package, wussy Republicans. And then there is the story of the GOP congressmen congratulating themselves in their delusional "victory" in obstructing the Obama administration's economic stimulus plan. Republican Rep. Pete Sessions called for the GOP to engage in a Taliban-like insurgency against President Obama and the congressional Democratic leadership. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell wanted to kill the economic stimulus bill because it contained a disaster insurance program for livestock owners that could include "honeybee insurance." And finally, Mike Huckabee isn't alone in his ranting over the stimulus package being anti-religious. Republican South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint brought this same controversy up about a week ago:

Check out this video of Sen. Jim DeMint flat-out lying on the Senate floor as he discusses the need to pass his amendment to strip this provision from the legislation, as he proclaims that Christians would be locked out of opportunities for higher education and proclaims that it was inserted into the bill by some nefarious cabal of people who are intent on silencing "traditional, freedom-loving Americans" and who are "so hostile to religion that they are willing to stand in the schoolhouse door, like the infamous George Wallace":

It is like the Republican Party is self-destructing into bratty, insolent, little children, who will whine and complain about and how they are not taken seriously in the political process by the mean Democratic congressional leadership--not President Obama, who wants to extend bipartisanship to the Republicans. Never mind the previous eight years the GOP had control of the White House, or the six years they controlled Congress during the Bush administration's term. Never mind the hard-lined conservative agenda of tax cuts to the rich, domestic spying, fear-mongering, torture, crass cronyism, and endless war that the Bush administration, and the GOP, shoved down the American peoples' throats. The Republicans are trying to blame their previous eight years of their own failed leadership on the Democrats, and the Obama administration. So right after President Obama took the oath of office, the Republican obstructionism began in the hope that Obama would fail, and that such a failure could bring the control of Congress back to the Republicans in the next election. But a funny thing happened--President Obama got his economic stimulus package through Congress, and past the Republican obstructionism. President Obama's poll numbers are especially high, while a majority of Americans have disapproved of the congressional Republicans' obstructionism. This is obviously driving the Republicans batshit crazy here. And they are responding in such a crazed, lunatic manner.

Krugman claims stimulus cuts will eliminate 600,000 jobs

This is from Paul Krugman at The York Times:

I’m still working on the numbers, but I’ve gotten a fair number of requests for comment on the Senate version of the stimulus.

The short answer: to appease the centrists, a plan that was already too small and too focused on ineffective tax cuts has been made significantly smaller, and even more focused on tax cuts.

According to the CBO’s estimates, we’re facing an output shortfall of almost 14% of GDP over the next two years, or around $2 trillion. Others, such as Goldman Sachs, are even more pessimistic. So the original $800 billion plan was too small, especially because a substantial share consisted of tax cuts that probably would have added little to demand. The plan should have been at least 50% larger.

Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast — because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects — and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. But in the name of mighty centrism, $40 billion of that aid has been cut out.

My first cut says that the changes to the Senate bill will ensure that we have at least 600,000 fewer Americans employed over the next two years.

The real question now is whether Obama will be able to come back for more once it’s clear that the plan is way inadequate. My guess is no. This is really, really bad.

So the centrist congresscritters in the Senate have decided to cut just enough spending from the Obama stimulus bill to eliminate 600,000 jobs--creating a stimulus package that will not stimulate the economy. I'm wondering which is worst--the crazed Republicans demanding that the Obama stimulus plan be shelved for more of their tax cuts to the uber-rich and Big Business, or the centrist congressmen destroying the most effective part of the stimulus bill, while keeping the tax cuts. This U.S. economy is screwed either way by both classes of these congressional idiots.

Senators reach tentative deal on stimulus package

This is from The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Spurred by a dismal unemployment report for January, senators were close to reaching an accord on Friday evening on an economic stimulus program of some $800 billion sought by President Obama to pull the country out of the worst recession in years.

Democrats appeared to have succeeded, after a long day of private negotiations and intense public debate, to have won the support of enough Republicans to move the package toward a final vote. Assuming there is a final vote, passage would be assured.

Exact outlines of the accord were not immediately available, but the senators reportedly agreed to cut some spending and strip out some business tax cuts to gain enough Republican support.

Once the Senate votes on the package, differences between the Senate legislation and a considerably different version passed recently by the House would have to be reconciled. President Obama has said he hopes all that can be accomplished in time for him to sign the measure within 10 days.

Three centrist Republicans, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine, were said to be among the senators being wooed by Democrats, whose efforts were bolstered by Rahm Emanuel, the president’s chief of staff, who is a former Congressman from Illinois.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, and Mr. Emanuel reportedly met with Ms. Collins and Mr. Specter Friday evening to smooth out any remaining wrinkles. Soon afterward, Mr. Reid conferred with his fellow Democrats to gain their approval.

The Senate negotiations and day-long public debate were given new urgency by the announcement on Friday morning that 598,000 jobs were lost in January. Democratic lawmakers said it was time to stop quibbling about the exact parameters of the legislation, which mixes safety net spending, tax cuts and a huge infusion of dollars into federal programs.

Now if Harry Reid can get this deal through, and the stimulus bill voted on tonight, then we may at least have some legislation to help the U.S. out of this economic slide. And President Barack Obama is going to have a huge first victory under his belt. If President Obama failed to get this stimulus package through, we would have had another two months of partisan bickering over another economic stimulus bill, as both American consumers, workers, and businesses looked on at the deteriorating economic situation. I'm not saying that the U.S. economy will miraculously get better, now that the stimulus bill is close to passing. But the passage of this stimulus bill will help in restoring confidence to the U.S. economy, and restore confidence that Congress and the White House are working towards fixing this nation's economic problems. That is important.

Looking back at my previous post, where GOP strategist Alex Castellanos called Republican bipartisanship, over Obama's economic stimulus plan, as "wussy Republicans," I wonder if Castellanos is just angry at how Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins were certainly wooed into supporting the Obama stimulus bill (Depending if all three are supporting the bill under this tentative agreement). So now we've got some name-calling between Republicans here.

Top GOP strategist calls GOP senators supporting the stimulus "wussy Republicans"

I am not making this up. I found this YouTube video through Americablog. CNN's Wolf Blitzer talked with top GOP strategist Alex Castellanos on the possible Republican bipartisanship, taking place in the Senate, over President Obama's economic stimulus bill. Castellanos called those Republican senators, who are considering supporting the economic stimulus bill, as both "Democratic-lite," and "wussy Republicans." From YouTube:



I don't know what else to say, except is this guy another frickin' lunatic? Or is Castellanos trying to shame the moderate Republican senators from supporting this bill? Politics before policy?

Senator McCain opposes Obama's stimulus plan

This doesn't surprise me. From The Politico.com:

Sen. John McCain took his most direct shot at President Barack Obama since the presidential campaign on Friday morning, using a Senate floor speech to criticize the president for mocking the Republican concerns over the massive economic stimulus package.

In a fiery speech Thursday night before House Democrats, Obama rejected the GOP’s characterization that the stimulus package was merely another spending bill.

“What do you think a stimulus is? That’s the whole point. No, seriously, that’s the point,” Obama said at the retreat in Williamsburg, Va.

On Friday morning, McCain fought back.

“The whole point, Mr. President, is to enact tax cuts and spending measures that truly stimulate the economy,” McCain said. “There are billions and tens of billions of dollars in this bill which will have no effect within three, four, five or more years, or ever. Or ever.”

The back and forth is more reminiscent of the sharp attacks the two men exchanged on the campaign trail rather than Obama’s hope of moving past partisanship in Washington. And it comes as McCain has positioned himself to becoming a leading opponent of the Senate Democratic plan, which may cost more than $920 billion if major cuts are not made.

Why am I not surprised that John McCain has decided to reject any sense of bipartisanship--reject working with President Obama in order to solve the serious economic problems this country is facing? Then again, why should John McCain care--he still can't count how many houses his wife owns.

Or maybe John McCain still believes that the problems Americans are facing are still "psychological."

Senate Judiciary spying bill lacks immunity for telecoms

This is big news. I found this through Americablog, with the source story from Wired Network:

Civil liberties groups got a stunningly unexpected win Thursday as the Senate Judiciary panel passed their version of the new government spying bill out of committee without including a provision giving immunity to telecoms being sued for helping the government secretly spy on Americans.

The biggest winner from the development is the Electronic Frontier Foundation, whose suit against AT&T in federal court would almost certainly have been wiped out by the immunity provision.

The provision - which was part of the version passed by the Senate Intelligence committee in mid-October - was widely expected to make it into the bill, due to the administration's full court press on the issue, the telcos small army of lobbyists and the vocal support of California Democrat Dianne Feintstein. Feinstein's vote was expected to reverse the Dems 10-9 advantage in the committee.

But after a long day of complicated finagling over technical amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and proposed alternatives to total immunity for companies such as AT&T and Verizon, committeee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) decided to send the bill out of committee without an agreement on immunity.

UPDATE: Caroline Fredrickson, who heads the ACLU's D.C. legislative shop said via email "We appreciate the work of Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) to protect the civil liberties of all Americans. We still have reservations with both the House and Senate bills, and will continue to work to improve the legislation. It is heartening to know that people who feel their privacy was violated by the phone companies and by their own government are one step closer to having their day in court."

Without the immunity for the telecoms, the Bush administration cannot keep the details of their illegal domestic spying program secret from the American people. The Bush administration dangled lucrative contracts to the telecoms in exchange for creating this illegal spying program. And the telecoms' greed caused them to ignore the law, and privacy rights of American citizens. The Bush administration has been trying to legislate immunity for the telecoms in order to cover their own ass.

And the Senate Judiciary Committee said no.

Update: I did find some more interesting information on TPM Election Central regarding the inside story on how this bill went through the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Here's a bit more detail on what happened on the Judiciary Committee today. Sources say Senator Russ Feingold offered an amendment that would have stripped telecom immunity from the bill, but it was defeated. Then Senator Arlen Specter, the ranking GOPer on the committee, offered a "compromise" amendment saying that in these lawsuits the Federal government, and not the telecoms, would be the defendants.

But because of a procedural difficulty Specter's amendment wasn't voted on -- and Senator Patrick Leahy, the chair of the committee, essentially went around Specter's amendment and moved to have a vote to report the bill out of committee without any telecom immunity in it. That passed along strictly party lines. And that's where we are.

It seems that Feingold offered and amendment to strip the telecom immunity provision out the bill, but Specter didn't like that. Specter tried an end-run in offering a "compromise" amendment, where the Federal government would be the defendant in these lawsuits, and not the telecoms. With the Federal government as the defendant, the Bush administration could still dismiss the lawsuits, claiming that revealing the details on the domestic spying program will jeopardize the Great War on Terror. The good news is that Leahy saw through Specter's ploy, and voted the bill out of the committee without the telecom immunity provision. Of course, had the bill gotten out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with the telecom immunity intact, it would probably died on the Senate floor with Senator Chris Dodd's filibuster threat.

Is Arlen Specter finally growing a backbone?

I found this TPM story reporting that Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) is opposed to granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms over the illegal Bush spy program:

As the ACLU worries that Senate Democrats in the intelligence committee will give retroactive immunity to telephone companies for collaborating with the administration's warrantless surveillance program, the two senior members of the judiciary committee say they won't entertain that without knowing what the telecoms did.

Here is the YouTube video:



And here is Specter's quote:

I certainly would not give them immunity retroactively on programs that we don’t know what they are…. I think it’s unreasonable to ask us to give them immunity for things we don’t know what they did. If there was a need for it at the time, and if the telephone companies were good citizens and if they supplied information which was important, then I’d be prepared to look at it. But I’m not going to buy a pig in a poke, and commit to retroactive immunity when I don’t know what went on. They’ve kept that from us. That’s a big problem, Wolf.

While I'm happy that Specter has started growing a backbone against the Bush White House for their criminality, I wish he grew this backbone so much earlier. There is so much corruption and scandals in this administration, and Arlen Specter was a party to the scandals during the time he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and refused to even investigate these scandals. Now all of the sudden, he opposes immunity for the telecoms? I seriously wonder if Arlen Specter is performing a legacy CYA of his own ass here. Specter may know that his complacency in performing congressional oversight against the Bush administration on the domestic spying program will not look good for history. So instead of actively criticizing this Bush administration on the spying program, Specter may be trying to make an end-run around by joining the criticism of refusing to give immunity to the telecoms for their involvement in the domestic spying program, while conveniently ignoring the Bush administration's central role in creating the program in the first place.

McCain blames Congress for bridge collapse

This is just too much. Just when you think that Senator John McCain could not sink any lower, McCain shows just how much of a slimeball he really is. From MSNBC News:

ANKENY, Iowa - Republican John McCain said Saturday that Congress could share in the blame for the Minnesota bridge collapse because lawmakers diverted billions of dollars in transportation money from road work to pet projects.

"I think perhaps you can make the argument that part of the responsibility lies with the Congress of the United States," the Arizona senator said.

McCain said Congress spent roughly $20 billion on special-interest projects when it approved a new highway bill, signed into law by President Bush.

"We spent approximately $20 billion of that money on pork barrel, earmark projects," said McCain. "Maybe if we had done it right, maybe some of that money would have gone to inspect those bridges and other bridges around the country. Maybe the 200,000 people who cross that bridge every day would have been safer than spending $233 million of your tax dollars on a bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it."

McCain spoke during a town hall-style meeting with activists, saying he was angered not just by Congress wasting money on special projects, but also by it approving reform packages he labeled a sham.

"I'm angry today because we just had a chance to reform this process in Washington and we punted," said McCain. "We pushed off on the American people a joke and a sham in the name of earmark reform."

Congress wasted $20 billion on special projects? Excuse me Senator, but if you want to see a real waste of taxpayer dollars, why not look at the $550 billion wasted in the Bush administration's war in Iraq--a war which you enthusiastically support? Why not look at your own voting record in supporting all the emergency supplemental bills that this administration has been using to fund this war, rather than going through the normal budgetary process. What is worst is that the costs of the Iraq war could exceed $1 trillion dollars, taking into account the indirect costs of veteran's health care, replacing worn-out military equipment, paying interest on the national debt, and so forth. Senator, you have been one of the administration's most enthusiastic supporters of this disastrous war. You, and this Bush administration, are responsible for wasting what could be a trillion dollars in a war that we should have never gotten into, yet you want to blame Congress for spending $20 billion on special interest projects? Senator, you are not just a slimeball here.

You are a hypocritical slimeball.

By the way Senator, Keith Olbermann makes the same connection of how this administration has wasted $500 billion in its Iraq war, when it could have used the money to upgrade America's bridge infrastructure. You can watch Olbermann through YouTube here:

WaPost ogles over Clinton's boobies and not her brain

This story has always been in the back of my mind since I first saw it on Friday, but I've been wondering how to comment on it. I would like to start this with a little story of what happened in my own life.

It was around 1976. I was a fifth-grader walking to Mirassou Elementary School that morning with my friend Mark. It would have been another ho-hum school morning, but there was some excitement taking place in some bushes alongside of a house. There were around four or five sixth grade boys standing on the sidewalk of the house, talking and gesturing excitedly. One would sneak into the bushes for a moment, then come out exclaiming, "OH MY GOD! You can see her!" One of the sixth graders came over to us and asked, "Hey, you want to see something cool? Someone ripped up a Playboy magazine and threw it into the bushes! You can see a centrefold's pussy!" We were somewhat curious here--I mean, who would rip up a Playboy magazine? We had to investigate.

The sixth graders made that bush into a temple--The Church of the Holy Bush. It was small enough to where only one person could crawl in and view the sacred scraps of a centerfold. We had to wait in a makeshift line as the high priests limited the time a young boy could view the sacred objects. My turn came. I crawled into the bush, coming to a small clearing between the bush and the house. There were torn bits of paper everywhere--paper showing meaningless words, broken advertisements, and body parts. I could see parts of an unnamed woman's hand, legs, skin, and even her face. But the one torn scrap of paper which brought such excitement to the sixth graders--the Ark of the Covenant--was laying on a shrine of dirt, twigs, and the dead leaves before me. It was almost as if someone had carefully torn this centrefold's glory between her legs, and then placed it on the Alter of the Bush. It was there for all to see. I took one look, shook my head, and then left the temple for another apostle to worship. We continued on to school.

At the end of the school day, we walked by the house, but discovered that the temple was destroyed. A heretic had gone into the brush, and had removed the sacred relics of the centrefold's torn beauty. There were still a few tiny scraps of unintelligible words, but the holiest relic--the Ark which turned many a sixth-grader into a religious follower--was gone. Thus ended the Church of the Holy Bush.

I had just about forgotten that story, until I read this Washington Post's piece on Hillary Clinton's plunging neckline:

There was cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2. It belonged to Sen. Hillary Clinton.

She was talking on the Senate floor about the burdensome cost of higher education. She was wearing a rose-colored blazer over a black top. The neckline sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape. The cleavage registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn't an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.

It was startling to see that small acknowledgment of sexuality and femininity peeking out of the conservative -- aesthetically speaking -- environment of Congress. After all, it wasn't until the early '90s that women were even allowed to wear pants on the Senate floor. It was even more surprising to note that it was coming from Clinton, someone who has been so publicly ambivalent about style, image and the burdens of both.

I wonder if the Washington Post have been getting some pointers from these former sixth-grade high priests on this story? When I look at this picture of Senator Clinton in her supposedly provocative outfit, I see an attractive woman wearing a professional business attire. Is Senator Clinton's outfit sexy? Perhaps. Should Senator Clinton's choice of business attire be reported on the front page of the Washington Post? Not really. It is ridiculous. It is a non-story about a non-issue that the Post is trying to make into a political story of what this Democratic presidential candidate is currently wearing. Or even worst, that this female presidential candidate even has breasts! Forget about what Senator Clinton's views were on the costs of higher education, or what she said before the Senate floor that afternoon. Senator Clinton's views and opinions were not relevant at that time, just as whatever views and opinions that Playboy centrefold's views and opinions were not important within the torn pages, scattered in that bush. A level of sexism still exists within this country, where we judge women by her looks, her legs, and her breasts, rather than her mind. Even if this woman shows a level of intelligence and determination to run for the highest office in this country--be it a Democratic or Republican female candidate--she will still be measured by her appearance, by how sexy she is, rather than by the traits of her male counterparts. The Washington Post clearly showed this level of sexism in their fashion story on Clinton's neckline and the discovery that Senator Clinton actually has two breasts. Now if Senator Clinton decided to show up at work wearing this to the Senate, then I would say that the Washington Post would certainly have something to report here on Senator Clinton's sense of fashion. Of course, I would also expect the WaPost to report on the new fashion styles of Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain here.

But then again, what do you expect from a newspaper that seems more interested in ogling over a female presidential candidate's body than her mind?

Christian fundamentalists disrupt Senate's first Hindu prayer

There are times when the Religious Right and their Christian fundamentalist wackos really piss me off. Just watch this YouTube video here:



Don't you just love the Christian fundamentalist wackos here? According to this CBS News story:

A Hindu clergyman made history Thursday by offering the U.S. Senate's morning prayer, but only after police officers removed three shouting protesters from the visitors' gallery.

Rajan Zed, director of interfaith relations at a Hindu temple, gave the brief prayer that opens each day's Senate session. As he stood at the chamber's podium in a bright orange and burgundy robe, two women and a man began shouting "this is an abomination" and other complaints from the gallery.

Police officers quickly arrested them and charged them with disrupting Congress, a misdemeanor. The male protester told an Associated Press reporter, "we are Christians and patriots" before police handcuffed them and led them away.

For several days, the Mississippi-based American Family Association has urged its members to object to the prayer because Zed would be "seeking the invocation of a non-monotheistic god."

Zed, the first Hindu to offer the Senate prayer, began: "We meditate on the transcendental glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of the heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds."

As the Senate prepared for another day of debate over the Iraq war, Zed closed with, "Peace, peace, peace be unto all."

Zed, who was born in India, was invited by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat. Speaking in the chamber shortly after the prayer, Reid defended the choice and linked it to the war debate.

"If people have any misunderstanding about Indians and Hindus," Reid said, "all they have to do is think of Gandhi," a man "who gave his life for peace."

"I think it speaks well of our country that someone representing the faith of about a billion people comes here and can speak in communication with our heavenly Father regarding peace," said Reid, a Mormon and sharp critic of President Bush's Iraq policies.

Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the protest "shows the intolerance of many religious right activists. They say they want more religion in the public square, but it's clear they mean only their religion."

Police identified the protesters as Ante Nedlko Pavkovic, Katherine Lynn Pavkovic and Christan Renee Sugar. Their ages and hometowns were not available.

This is just completely stupid and outrageous on the fundi wackos part. This country was founded on the belief of religious freedom, where the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights asserts that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Now I'm not too thrilled that the U.S. Senate opens their sessions with a prayer, but the Senate has been engaging in this tradition since 1789. I'd rather the Senate did not engage in such a tradition, but I doubt there is anything I could do to stop U.S. senators from creating their own little quirky traditions. But still, I'm pleasantly surprised that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid invited a Hindu priest to open the Senate session with a morning prayer. This country is not simply a Christian nation, it is a nation of many different religions--Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, Judaism, Orthodox, and even non-religious. If the U.S. Senate is going to open their sessions with a morning prayer, then add a little variety with prayers from all the religions. Personally, I thought it was something special for Hindu clergyman Rajan Zed to open a U.S. Senate with a prayer--it is an honor and a memory that Zed will cherish.

But the Christian fundamentalist wackos don't believe it! America is a Christian nation, and this one Hindu prayer in the Senate is destroying our fundamental family values of the United States. It is like these wackos believe that one little Hindu prayer will destroy America as a Christian nation! Apparently these wackos do not read history. According to the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, signed by the United States and the Barbary States, under Article 11 the treaty states:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

I find it interesting that the leaders of the United States actually stated in this treaty that the government of the United States is specifically not a government founded on Christianity. According to Wikipedia on the Treaty of Tripoli:

Official records show that after President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in May of 1797, the entire treaty was read aloud on the Senate floor, including the famous words in Article 11, and copies were printed for every Senator. A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification, and the treaty was ratified by a unanimous vote of all 23 Senators. The treaty was reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City. There is no record of any public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

Even President John Adams, who certainly would have read the treaty, accepted Article 11. The entire Senate accepted Article 11, and the statement that the United States government was not founded on the Christian religion. The U.S. government is stating within this treaty that the U.S. government is not founded on Christianity.

Now I know that the United States is predominantly a Christian nation. Fine. But the First Amendment of the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." This amendment protects non-Christian religions from a tyranny of a Christian majority. It is a tyranny that can be seen within these Religious Right wackos protesting against a simple prayer performed by a non-Christian clergyman who does not abide by their own warped, Christian fundamentalist views. They refuse to accept any type of tolerance or compromise. Any views that do not conform to their own warped ideology is almost considered heresy, and should be extinguished. It is just incredible.

Senate voted to approve the war funding bill

This isn't really surprising. From MSNBC News:

WASHINGTON - Bowing to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate reluctantly approved fresh billions for the Iraq war on Thursday, minus the troop withdrawal timeline that drew his earlier veto.

The Senate vote to send the legislation to the president was 80-14. Less than two hours earlier, the House had cleared the measure, 280-142, with Republicans supplying the bulk of the support.

Five months in power on Capitol Hill, Democrats in both houses coupled their concession to the president with pledges to challenge his policies anew. “This debate will go on,” vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, announcing plans to hold votes by fall on four separate measures seeking a change in course.

From the White House to the Capitol, the day’s events closed out one chapter in an epic struggle pitting Congress against commander in chief over a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,400 U.S. troops.

[....]

The legislation includes nearly $95 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30. In addition to jettisoning their plan for a troop withdrawal timeline, Democrats abandoned attempts to require the Pentagon to adhere to troop training, readiness and rest requirements unless Bush waived them.

And House Minority Leader John Boehner really turns on the waterworks during the House debate on the war funding bill:

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio choked back tears as he stirred memories of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, when are we going to take them on? When are we going to defeat them,” he asked.

Crooks and Liars has the video here. I'll be honest here. I don't know if Boehner actually believed what he just said here. After 3,000 Americans died in the September 11th attacks, and another 3434 American casualties in the war in Iraq, we still haven't taken on the terrorists? Even after we've been involved in the Iraq war for four years? When are we going to take them on? When are we going to defeat them? There is a backwards logic with Boehner's statement and his crocodile tears. It is almost like Boehner actually believes that the past four years of the U.S. involvement in the war in Iraq never existed, and that we are at the start of funding this war. Boehner wants the media and the American people to ignore the last four years of this disaster of a war--we were never ready to take them on then, but now we are ready with this latest war funding. We must avenge the deaths on September 11th--never mind that the number of Americans soldiers killed in Iraq exceeds that of the number of Americans killed on September 11th. It is insane.

Of course, the other thought I had is that Boehner is simply playing the crybaby theatrics in order to get the sympathy vote, and to pass this war funding bill so that more young Americans can be killed or maimed in Iraq. So that the neocons can continue their PNAC fantasy of American hegemony, and Big Oil can control Iraq's oil reserves for their big profits. Either way, it show a callous hypocrisy within John Boehner in wasting young American lives for whatever selfish reasons he has to keep this war going.

Update: Here is the YouTube video of Boehner's crybaby speech.

McCain casts a vote!

If you recall, I wrote a post on Saturday, reporting Arizona Senator John McCain's profane shouting match with Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) over McCain's absence of his Senate duties, while spending all that time on the presidential campaign trail. Well, I went over to Talking Points Memo, and discovered this breaking news flash--McCain casts a vote in the Senate! TPM linked into a small story on TPM Cafe:

The pressure has apparently gotten to John McCain over his recent absenteeism from the Senate, which we first noticed last week. After missing every single floor vote held from April 16 to the present — a total of 46 consecutive missed votes — in order to focus on campaigning for President, McCain made it to the floor today to cast a vote.

And what crucial measure was it that merited his attention? It was an amendment to the immigration bill by Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI), "To exempt children of certain Filipino World War II veterans from the numerical limitations on immigrant visas."

A McCain aide has told the local press, "Although he has missed a few votes, he works really hard to ensure that he has not missed any votes in which his vote would have been the determining one." But here's the thing: This amendment wasn't controversial, and passed 87-9. This leads us to believe McCain simply had to show up for a vote in order to stop the talk about his absences.

A couple of things here. First, I didn't know about the WaPost vote database for the Congressmen. Now I do, so I'll be looking more closely into McCain's absences in voting, and comparing them to the rest of the presidential candidates--that would be a nice weekend post to explore. Second, I just love how the McCain campaign tries to dismiss this as nothing--Although he has missed a few votes, he works really hard to ensure that he has not missed any votes in which his vote would have been the determining one. How much more stupid can you get here? Senator McCain works really hard to ensure that he will not miss any votes in which his vote would have been the determining vote. And to prove it, McCain casts a Senate vote on an amendment to the immigration bill. It is true. McCain's vote was the determining vote to pass this amendment--along with the 86 other senators who cast their determining votes to pass the amendment. TPM Cafe is correct in saying that McCain simply showed up to cast a Senate vote in order to stop the talk of his absenteeism.

The big question to ask here is how long will it be before McCain bails out of his Senate duties again? Will he show up for the next senate vote?

Leahy Talks About RNC Emails

I found this through YouTube. Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy talks about the Bush administration's lack of accountability on the White House officials use of RNC email addresses. From YouTube:



Incredible.

Obama: Congress will fund Iraq war if Bush uses veto

I found an interesting post on the Democratic strategy regarding the Iraq war funding at Mahablog. Mahablog cites a USA Today story, regarding Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama's comment on Congress breaking down and passing a supplemental war funding bill:

From USA Today:

SIOUX CITY, Iowa (AP) — If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

"My expectation is that we will continue to try to ratchet up the pressure on the president to change course," the Democratic presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage."

Obama has made his opposition to the war a centerpiece of his campaign and has used it to differentiate himself from rival Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

[....]

Given that Bush is determined to veto a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Congress has little realistic choice but to approve money for the war, Obama said.

"I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground," said Obama. "I do think a majority of the Senate has now expressed the belief that we need to change course in Iraq.

"Obviously we're constrained by the fact that a commander in chief who also has veto power has the option of ignoring that position," Obama said.

The Senate last week approved a bill providing $123 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would order Bush to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage while setting a non-binding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008.

Obama, if you want the Democrats to lose the 2008 elections for both control of Congress, and the White House, then making such an asinine comment as to claiming that Congress has no choice but to fund the war is the perfect strategy for a Democratic defeat. What you have just said here is that the Democrats should just cave in to the Bush veto, and give the president the money he wants for continuing this war--without the timetable. This is unacceptable! What you are proposing is that the Democrats should continue playing rubber-stamp to this Bush White House here. That is a strategy for defeat.

Obama, why don't you look at the public opinion polls regarding Iraq. Here is a March 13, 2007 CNN Poll showing 60 percent of Americans wanting to see U.S. troops pulling out, either immediately or within a year. Here is a March 26, 2007 Pew Research poll showing 59 percent of the American public supporting a bill withdrawing American forces by August 2008. Here is a February 25, 2007 Washington Post/ABC News poll showing 56 percent of Americans favoring a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Here is a March 31, 2007 Newsweek poll showing 57 percent of Americans favoring a withdrawal from Iraq. And finally, you can go to The Polling Report and view a number of other poll results showing that the American public favors a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Obama, you do not break down and play chicken here against the Bush veto on Iraq--that is what the Republican Party, and the Bush White House want you to do! Consider this from The Washington Post:

Backed by a unified party and fresh from a slew of legislative victories, Democratic leaders appear to believe there is hardly any territory they cannot stray onto, a development that has Republican political operatives gleeful and some Democrats worried. Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, warned of a "political price" at the polls: "If they let their constituents and their ideology drive them past the point where the American people are comfortable, they will find how quickly the voters will react."

[....]

Most Republicans are convinced the president will win his veto standoff over House and Senate war spending bills that would impose mandatory troop withdrawals from Iraq.

"It's going to be like the government shutdowns" of 1995 and 1996, predicted Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). "The Democrats' honeymoon is fixing to end. It's going to explode like an IED."

What you have to remember here Obama, is that the Republicans are scared of what the polling data is currently showing--Americans want out of Iraq within a year. What you are seeing here is GOP spin, trying to force the Democrats to admit defeatism on Iraq--Cole's supposed warning that the Democrats will pay a political price with the public opinion polls, or Kingston's comparison of the Iraq showdown with the budget conflicts between House Speaker Newt Gingrich and President Bill Clinton in 1995 and 1006. Or even worst, President Bush's own remarks, saying that Congress will be to blame for his veto on the troop funding bill. The Republicans want the Democrats to think this way. That is the only way the Republicans can win in this debate. Obama, instead of saying that Congress should cave in to the president's demands, you should be demanding that the Bush White House be accountable for this Iraq war. We'll give you the money, but there had better be measurable benchmarks showing progress in the Iraq war within a year--otherwise we pull the troops out! If President Bush vetoes this current war funding bill, then you pass another war funding bill with another withdrawal timetable. Remember, the Democrats have got the support of the American people behind these troop withdrawal bills, as you can see by the polls. In this game of chicken, you don't blink--you force the Bush White House to blink.

That is how you can win in 2008.

According to Crooks and Liars, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), have introduced a bill requiring the President to redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, while also ending funding for the war after March 31, 2008. This is huge. The Democrats are basically saying to the Bush White House, if you veto the withdrawal timetable in the emergency funding bill, then we're going to cut the Iraq war funding all together. The days of blank checks are over.

The troops are coming home in late 2008, or early 2009.

Your Thursday Afternoon Smackdown--Arlen Specter verses Pat Leahy

I found this off Talking Points Memo, and it is incredibly wicked. It is a little exchange between Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) regarding the Senate Judiciary Committee's issuing of subpoenas in the attorney scandal. From YouTube:



Leahy smacks down Specter--What we're told we can get is nothing, nothing, nothing!

Senate Judiciary Committee approves White House subpoenas

Now the Senate Judiciary Committee has approved the issuing of subpoenas on the Bush White House aids. This is from MSNBC:

WASHINGTON - A Senate panel, following the House's lead, authorized subpoenas Thursday for White House political adviser Karl Rove and other top aides involved in the firing of federal prosecutors.

The Senate Judiciary Committee decided by voice vote to approve the subpoenas as Republicans and Democrats sparred over whether to press a showdown with President Bush over the ousters of eight U.S. attorneys.

Democrats angrily rejected Bush's offer to grant a limited number of lawmakers private interviews with the aides with no transcript and without swearing them in. Republicans counseled restraint, but at least one, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, backed the action.

WASHINGTON - A Senate panel, following the House's lead, authorized subpoenas Thursday for White House political adviser Karl Rove and other top aides involved in the firing of federal prosecutors.

The Senate Judiciary Committee decided by voice vote to approve the subpoenas as Republicans and Democrats sparred over whether to press a showdown with President Bush over the ousters of eight U.S. attorneys.

Democrats angrily rejected Bush's offer to grant a limited number of lawmakers private interviews with the aides with no transcript and without swearing them in. Republicans counseled restraint, but at least one, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, backed the action.

It is not surprising that the Senate approved the issuing of subpoenas against the top Bush aids. Both sides are gearing up for a major fight over this attorney scandal. As I've said in my previous post on the House issuing of subpoenas, the Bush administration was offering a crappy deal to the Democratic Congress in allowing Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to be interviewed behind closed doors, without being sworn in, and with no transcripts. It was the perfect Bush White House situation where both Rove and Miers could continue to get away with lying to the Congress on the attorney purge. The Bush administration thought that this was a fair and reasonable deal. In reality, it was pure crap. We've heard the House's response to this deal, and now we've got the Senate's response.

Ironically, the Bush White House continues to spin that their deal is still fair and reasonable. According to the MSNBC story:

Even as Democrats derided the White House's offer, Bush spokesman Tony Snow maintained that lawmakers will realize it is fair and reasonable once they reflect on it.

"We're not trying to hide things. We're not trying to run from things," he said. "We want them to know what happened."

Democrats, however, called Bush's position untenable.

"What we're told we can get is nothing, nothing, nothing," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary chairman. "I know he's the decider for the White House -- he's not the decider for the United States Senate."

[....]

The Senate panel voted to approve subpoenas for Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers and her former deputy, William Kelley. The House subcommittee Tuesday authorized subpoenas for Rove, Miers and their deputies.

More to come.

Senate begins Iraq war debate

From left, Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr., Harry Reid, John Kerry, Carl Levin and Jack Reed after the procedural vote on the Iraq resolution today. Doug Mills/The New York Times.

This is off The New York Times:

WASHINGTON, March 14 — The Senate began an all-out debate today on a Democratic resolution calling for the withdrawal of most American troops from Iraq in 2008, with both Democrats and Republicans invoking the Constitution and America’s place in history.

“The way to succeed in Iraq is not to do more of the same,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader. “It is to change the mission and change the course.”

But Senator John McCain, a Republican of Arizona who backs an increase in troop strength in Iraq, said sponsors of the resolution “would not declare war, nor end it, as the Constitution provides, but micromanage it.”

“I ask my colleagues: is such micromanagement of warfare the responsibility of this body?”

The path to a full debate was cleared this morning, when the Senate voted, 89 to 9, not to block it. But the vote, set up on Tuesday when Republicans announced that they would not exercise their rights to stall consideration of the measure, is by no means indicative of support for the actual resolution.

Several Republican leaders said, in fact, that they would relish the debate, which they said would highlight the flaws and dangers of what they asserted was Democratic “micromanagement” of the war. Mr. McCain reiterated that theme today as he complained that the Democrats would “legislate our troops’ mission in midstream.”

But Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said a momentous choice was at hand. “History will judge us,” he said. “We can either continue down the president’s perilous path, or embrace a new direction.” To continue on the same road, he said, means “more American casualties, more death, and more destruction.”

What has happened here is that both political parties have decided that a debate on the Iraq war would be beneficial to both sides. The Democrats want to get the U.S. out of the war in Iraq. That is pretty straight forward. The Republicans, on the other hand, are hoping to use this debate to paint the congressional Democrats as micromanaging the Iraq war. Senator John McCain outlined the Republican position perfectly, claiming that the Democratic sponsors of these resolutions "would not declare war, nor end it, as the Constitution provides, but micromanage it. I ask my colleagues: is such micromanagement of warfare the responsibility of this body?" Excuse me Senator, but the Democrats are not "micromanaging" this Iraq war by introducing these resolutions. What the Democrats are doing with these resolutions is expressing the will of the American people. Just look at this latest CNN poll:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly six in ten Americans want to see U.S. troops leave Iraq either immediately or within a year, and more would rather have Congress running U.S. policy in the conflict than President Bush, according to a CNN poll out Tuesday.

Though support for Bush's decision to dispatch additional troops to Iraq grew to 37 percent -- up from 32 percent in a mid-January poll -- a slim majority of 52 percent say Congress should block funding for the new deployment.

The CNN poll was conducted Friday through Sunday by Opinion Research Corp. Pollsters interviewed 1,027 adults for the survey, which had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

And I've got more polls showing a majority of Americans wanting to get out of Iraq here, here, and here. If anything, Senator, you and the Republicans are now in the minority regarding your unwavering support for the Bush war in Iraq. The Democrats are simply trying to enforce the will of the American people here. And so, Senator, it will certainly be interesting to see just how badly the Senate Republicans are going to spin their own destructive political position on this issue.

And as I've said before, this debate is all about the 2008 elections. The Republicans really don't have any viable, political position to run on--especially after the six years of Bush administration's scandals, corruption, and the Iraq war disaster. And with the Bush administration demanding that the Republican Party marches in line with the administration's pro-war policy, as a means to salvage Bush's legacy, the Republicans are forced into this no-win situation. Hence, the Republicans are trying to paint the Democrats as wanting to lose the war in Iraq, as wanting to support the terrorists, and this latest micromanaging the war. It is all lies. But then again, there is nothing left of this Bush-controlled Republican Party but lies.

Senate Democrats stepping up the pressure on Iraq

This is off The New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 22 — Senior Senate Democrats, stepping up their confrontation with President Bush over Iraq policy, are preparing legislation that would limit the role of United States troops there to counterterrorism efforts and prohibit them from interceding in sectarian violence.

Senate officials said Thursday that the proposal now being drafted would be a new turn in their attempts to force the White House to halt its troop buildup in Baghdad. They described it as more substantive than the nonbinding resolution of opposition to the increase that stalled in the Senate last Saturday.

The officials would speak only if not identified because the central proposal was still being drafted and needs to be presented to all Senate Democrats when they return from a weeklong recess next Tuesday.

They said the proposal was intended to essentially overturn the 2002 resolution granting Mr. Bush the authority to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and limit the military to combating Al Qaeda in Iraq, keeping Iraq from becoming a haven for terrorists and training Iraqi forces. The proposal’s goal, officials said, would be to allow combat forces not engaged in those duties to be removed from Iraq next year.

The chief authors are Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Carl Levin of Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. The plan is to try to attach the proposal to an antiterrorism bill the Senate expects to begin considering Tuesday.

Lawmakers and senior aides said that such a plan was unlikely to pass Congress, and even if it did, it would certainly be vetoed by President Bush. But Democrats say their intention is to keep pressure on both Mr. Bush and Congressional Republicans who are facing a public frustrated with the war. Democrats say that other Iraq proposals are likely to emerge as well.

A couple of comments here. First, there is no way for the Democrats to pass any resolution or bill to limit the Bush administration's troop surge, cap war funding, or initiate a troop withdrawal. The Senate is too closely divided between the Democrats and Republicans. Furthermore, any bill or resolution that even passes the Senate will certainly face a presidential veto. Bush will still get what he wants on Iraq for the next two years.

The key here is that the Senate Democrats are now defining the Republican position on Iraq. In drafting these resolutions and bills, they are forcing Senate Republicans to take a position of either supporting the Bush administration's policies on Iraq, or facing a possible voter wrath in November 2008. The Senate Democrats tried to push two non-binding resolutions through the Senate, but they were both blocked by Republican filibusters. This is not a failure of the Senate Democrats, but rather it is the result of Republican delaying tactics. Now the Democrats are going to start introducing legislation with some teeth in it. This new round of legislation is to overturn the 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force to depose Saddam Hussein. This resolution will not pass the Senate, but it will force Republicans to again choose sides between the president's war escalation--especially if Bush does decide to attack Iran--and the American publics desire to get out of Iraq. This is all about positioning for the 2008 elections.

The Washington Post has an interesting detail regarding this latest Democratic legislation:

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) began calling for a reauthorization of the war early last month and raised it again last week, during a gathering in the office of Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). Participants included Kerry, Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (Mich.), Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), Jack Reed (R.I.) and Russell Feingold (Wis.). Those Democratic senators have emerged as an unofficial war council representing the caucus's wide range of views.

"We gave the president that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein," Biden said of the 2002 resolution in a speech last week before the Brookings Institution. "The WMD was not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq."

Biden and Levin are drafting language to present to their colleagues when the Senate reconvenes on Tuesday, following a week-long recess.

The new framework would set a goal for withdrawing combat brigades by March 31, 2008, the same timetable established by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Once the combat phase ends, troops would be restricted to assisting Iraqis with training, border security and counterterrorism.

The Senate Democrats are now adopting the Iraq Study Group proposals for withdrawing troops from Iraq. The American public has already shown that they support the Iraq Study Group's recommendations over that of President Bush. By linking this latest legislation with the Iraq Study Group recommendations, the Senate Democrats are again forcing the Republicans into a bad choice of either supporting President Bush's war escalation--and Bush's own snubbing of the ISG report--or supporting the will of the American people. This will all go into record, which can then be used against the Republicans in 2008.

The Democrats are doing what they have to do--hold the Republicans feet to the fire on Iraq and increase the pressure.