How The Right Is Constructing Their Version of Dolchstosslegende

As we reach the conventional wisdom that says that it is time to get our troops out of Iraq, the "dolchstosslegende" or the "stab in the back" lies are going to build. They will be constructed by people who, for whatever reason, just don't want to be on the wrong side of history when the history is written. They want to sit there and say, "ah ha! I was right about the war!" (But they never got anything right, of course). It's going to be ugly. And it's going to look a lot like this:

I don't blame Pat Dollard one bit. But, who is Pat Dollard anyway? Well, go here and find out.

Some time ago I penned a few posts and within those posts I expressed the thought and opinion that the Democrat Party leadership (the CONgress Critters) and their cohorts and fellow conspirators within the Republican Party leadership were directly responsible for the deaths and wounding of American and Coalition Forces fighting both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I have performed a lengthy study on my own volition and although I am not ready to publish the entire chronologically correct tome, I did in fact find a correlation. And, I have confirmed that the political leaders in the very dishonorable halls of CONgress, in their quest of and for power and control of all things in this nation, have contributed directly to the losses of life in a combat zone. Not all but more than half. I also found that the war, at least in Iraq, would have been over and that which we are witnessing in Iraq today, could have been realized in early 2007 or late to mid-2006. But, there was an election to be won and that is all that mattered to the Leftinistra - damn them all.

In a previous post: From an Army Rangers' Mouth About Iraq

[...] ... know this. I despise the likes of Nancy Pelosi. Taking it a few steps further, I actually hate her and would not bemoan her demise - from natural causes, naturally.

In more recent posts, I have called for the investigation in regards to the deaths of American Troops both in Iraq and Afghanistan which can be directly attributed to the defaming and blind hatred of President Bush and our Troops by the likes of Nancy Pelosi. She is the ring leader in the Lower House, after all and it is within her power to stop the nonsense. I have conducted a specific investigation of my own and there is a direct correlation to the spikes in attacks on American and Coalition forces fighting in this war. One of those spikes resulted in Spain removing their forces from Iraq which was repaid by yet another terrorist attack in Spain as a heart-felt thank you to Spain from Al Qaida.

Anyone within the construct of government service which conducts themselves such as Nancy Pelosi and her similar ilk in regards to this war, that, by the way, they all signed onto, are a disgrace to this nation and by the very definitions of treason, subversion and sedition, an investigation is in order and charges are required to be levied.

The Army Ranger that has originally called into a radio broadcast show was killed in action fighting a war Pelosi approved of in the first place. Thank you Nancy et al for prolonging this war and contributing to the deaths of the men and women that protect you and thank you Nancy et all for contributing to the deaths of my Brothers In Arms. May you rot in hell. The blood on your hands will never wash away. [...]

Uh huh. If only we had listened, right? The only persons prolonging the war are the ones who want us to be there a hundred years.

Look for a thousand variations on this, and have a good laugh at the pseudo-profound dialogue and the wannabe hard-ass language. This is how someone who has never served talks after they've watched the Special Edition of "300" and had a few Red Bulls with their Meat Lovers Pizza. The Democrats didn't stab anyone in the back--the Republicans started a war that turned out to be a massive strategic blunder. That's what you get to hang around your neck forever, Republicans. Your President started a war in Iraq that was so ill-conceived and so error-prone and so badly mismanaged that it sort of becomes its own historical precedent. No American President has ever fucked up so bad, for so long, and in such a spectacular way.

I don't believe a word of this stuff--it comes from a third-rate mind full of repeated lies. You can just see your garden variety wingnut out there, all "correlating" stuff to get the correlation sorted out and shit, can't you? Wow, dude. You correlate! That's how you fight the Jihadis! You correlated data! That's badass!

Speaker Pelosi voted against the war, and we all, as Americans, have the right to criticize the President during a time of war. The things said about Harry Truman during the Korean War would pale in comparison to anything being said about President Bush. Go look it up--go look up what the likes of the Republican Party had to say back then.

See, I have a life. I'm too busy to be all correlating that stuff and whatnot.

--WS

Liveblogging "Ask the Speaker"

In the interest of finish my trip without having any unpleasant chats or encounters with security personnel, I have decided to take a seat in the back half of the room and observe and listen, and keep my damned mouth shut.

Whoa - Speaker Pelosi has agreed to accept an extended question session - but any disruptions and the program stops and the jackboots take our credentials and throw us out. Since Harold Ford got heckled, I can understand, but Harold Ford needs heckled - and there is a case to be made for heckling Pelosi, too, even though I won't engage in such activity.


9:05 Lloyd Doggett, local favorite and Democratic Congressman from Austin is kicking things off. I maybe shouldn't say this, but we could let him talk till 11:00 and I wouldn't be disappointed...

9:18 - She is taking the stage. I am neither standing nor clapping. But she does look fabulous. She is lauding Lloyd Doggett for his dedication to the Constitution - I think she could use a lesson or two from him in that regard.

9:25 - she knows everyone is tired of war - so why doesn't she do something about it? Oy - now she is quoting Hannah Arendt. I could hurl.

9:27 - it's all the 'publicans fault. Who knew they had the majority?

9:28 - First question is about Inherent Contempt and why is impeachment off the table still? "Given that the constitution calls for impeachment if high crimes or misdemeanors have been committed, and the current president has flouted constitutionally mandated checks and balances, why is impeachment off the table? How do you intend to not give him free reign if you remove one of the only constitutionally given ways of limiting a president's abuse of his authority?"

Um, I didn't hear much of an answer....

9:32 - Telecom Immunity - why did you fuckers cave??? She says she went to the House to protect civil liberties? She blames the Senate and the blue dogs, like that miserable PoS and bitter disappointment, Claire "Bond Girl" McCaskill. I see a trend emerging in her answers...it's the Senate's fault. It is always the Senate's fault. We passed a bill that wasn't as bad as theirs. Pathetic.

9:40 - She keeps repeating that it's only 107 days 'til the election (Impeachment could happen tomorrow, however, and we every one damned well know it.)

9:49 - Is a GM bailout coming? She doesn't think so, and instead of addressing the question she is yammering about how she got CAFE standards raised.

9:53 - A question on healthcare. Abstinence only wastes money, will you take steps to correct this misguided idiocy? "Yes." Abstinence only is not just bad policy, it is dangerous. Mindful of the health of young women. "So why are abstinence only earmarks holding their own?" We need more pro-choice congressmembers.

9:56 - back to telecoms...Article I Section 8...founders had in mind keeping us in touch with one another...can congress step in and put broadband access on a par with the post office? Communication and transportation used to be the same thing. Universal Broadband is a Democratic goal. Everyone needs to be connected.

10:01 - Why are soldiers forced to beg for care packages that contain toothpaste, protein bars and tampons - things that our government isn't providing for the troops in the field? "It isn't right but it is emblematic of other needs that aren't being met." WTF??? "Debt of gratitude" blah, blah blah. Just DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. What is so hard to understand about that???

10:06 - Now I will stand and clap and stop snarling - Al Gore is on the stage.

10:14 - Okay, I am listening with rapt attention. More later...

10:20 - you can play along at home...stream it here.

10:30 - Questions: Would you accept a position in an Obama administration? Meat causes more emissions than cars. What should we do? West VA and mountaintop removal? Telecom immunity?

He is honored by the idea that we want him in th Obama administration, but he doesn't think that is how his talents will be best utilized. He is concerned with the climate. (He better hurry up with the answers, I am almost out of battery power...) Meat intensity is a problem for the environment. Mountaintop mining is an attrocity and an outrage. It is part and parcel of the same dysfunctional energy policies of this country. The idea of coal fueling our cars is insane...stream it, he explains why...

Out of battery. More later...

Had Enough Fear Mongering?

We have conflicting pieces of information.

Here's Mike McConnell:

Some have claimed that expiration of the Protect America Act would not significantly affect our operations. Such claims are not supported by the facts. We are already losing capability due to the failure to address liability protection. Without the act in place, vital programs would be plunged into uncertainty and delay, and capabilities would continue to decline. Under the Protect America Act, we obtained valuable insight and understanding, leading to the disruption of planned terrorist attacks. Expiration would lead to the loss of important tools our workforce relies on to discover the locations, intentions and capabilities of terrorists and other foreign intelligence targets abroad. Some critical operations, including our ability to adjust to dynamic terrorist threats that exploit new methods of communication, which sometimes requires assistance from private parties, would probably become impossible. And the difficulties we face in obtaining this essential help from private parties would worsen significantly if the act expires or is merely extended without addressing this issue. Without long-term legislation that includes liability protection, we will be delayed in gathering -- or may simply miss -- intelligence needed to protect the nation.

Now, here's Richard Clarke:

Let me be clear: Our ability to track and monitor terrorists overseas would not cease should the Protect America Act expire. If this were true, the president would not threaten to terminate any temporary extension with his veto pen. All surveillance currently occurring would continue even after legislative provisions lapsed because authorizations issued under the act are in effect up to a full year.

Simply put, it was wrong for the president to suggest that warrants issued in compliance with FISA would suddenly evaporate with congressional inaction. Instead - even though Congress extended the Protect America Act by two weeks - he is using the existence of the sunset provision to cast his political opponents in a negative light.

For this president, fear is an easier political tactic than compromise. With FISA, he is attempting to rattle Congress into hastily expanding his own executive powers at the expense of civil liberties and constitutional protections.

Finally, here's the oft-maligned Nancy Pelosi, showing some spirit:

The President is misrepresenting the facts on our nation’s electronic surveillance capabilities. Last August, he insisted that Congress pass the Protect America Act; but this week, he refused to support an extension, which can only mean he knows our intelligence agencies will be able to do all the wiretapping they need to do to protect the nation. That surveillance can be undertaken under broad orders authorized under the PAA or under orders that can be obtained through the FISA court.

The President knows the facts; if he did not want the PAA to expire this weekend, he should have supported an extension of it, as the overwhelming majority of House Democrats did on Wednesday. Having guaranteed the lapse of the August law, the President should now work in a cooperative way with Congress to pass a strong FISA modernization bill that protects our nation’s security and the Constitution.

Now, who are you going to believe?

I told a friend last night that we now live in a banana republic, and even the bananas are indignant about having to put up with this shit.

UPDATE I -PALE RIDER

You can sense that Andy isn't ashamed to let the pee run down his leg...

FISA: High Noon at Midnight Friday [Andy McCarthy]


In today's article, I catalogue some of the problems with the Senate bill which would overhaul FISA — while explaining that the bill absolutely must be passed by the House or our foreign intelligence collection is going to collapse. It would be unconscionable for Democrats to allow that to happen while our nation confronts an enemy hell-bent on reprising 9/11 and while we have 200,000 men and women in uniform relying on the continuing flow of information from our intelligence services.

Well it looks like the unconscionable is about to occur. I am hearing from several sources that the House is planning to recess on Friday without taking up the Senate bill. That would mean the lapse of our surveillance authority at midnight.

This is a game of roulette with our national security, spearheaded by the Democratic leadership in the House, which is following the lead of the party's two presidential contenders, Sens. Obama and Clinton. Both of them voted against the emergency authorization last summer, and Obama voted against the Senate bill on Tuesday (Clinton did not bother to vote). Make no mistake. The MoveOn.org crowd is calling the shots on that side of the aisle.

President Bush has to keep pounding this, as does Sen. McCain. This is not politics, folks. For grown-ups, this is life and death.

Uh huh, uh huh. So, Ummmm....why the veto Andy? Huh? Why, if this was so goddamned important, did he veto it? Telecom immunity isn't going to mean a hell of a lot if the terrorists do their dirty work, is it?

The leak-wars have begun

Let the bloodletting commence.

Last week, some of the wind went out of the sails of the neocon chickenhawks who have been chomping at the bit for a war with Iran. By weeks end, we learned that the CIA had destroyed tapes that probably showed CIA agents committing war crimes.

So you know what that means...time to leak something damning about Democrats. Whadya got? Anything?

Today, on page A01 of the Washington Post, the headline screams Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002 and we learn that in September of 2002, four members of Congress met clandestinely to receive a "virtual tour" of the program being developed by the CIA to extract information from terrorism suspects captured by the U.S., including the "harsh techniques" that had been devised to punish all captives, be they guilty or innocent make prisoners talk. The Post article makes it clear in the first few words that Nancy Pelosi was included in that group. You have to read on a bit (okay, five paragraphs) to find the names of thethen-majority Republicans who were briefed (Porter Goss, Pat Roberts).

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said. (Wanna bet that Roberts and Goss were the ones asking that question? The article quite conveniently doesn't say.)

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

[Snip]

"Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

That front-page article is the Wurlitzer at it's smarmy best - without saying it outright, it paints Democrats as hypocrites for protesting about waterboarding now. "Why wasn't a mighty howl set up then?" is the implication.

Well, being in possession of critical thinking skills, I do believe that I can take a stab at sorting through this unholy mess, without giving anyone any passes.

First off, anyone in a position to see that information is bound by stringent secrecy rules. They sign an additional oath beyond their oath of office. Just because someone has a security clearance does not mean that anyone who has one can know anything. It is always based on "need to know." Anyone poking around and asking questions that they have no demonstrable "need to know" will find themselves neck-deep in a pile of trouble in short order. When only four people in the congress are briefed on something, and two have expressed enthusiasm for the program, it is not difficult to determine who is leaking, and bring some heavy-duty charges against them. And rightly so.

And now - lets look at this pragmatically. Do you remember September 2002? I do. For a solid year, the administration had whipped up the frenzy and fear and hatred, and kept picking at the scab of grief over the loss of life in the largest, most heinous act of mass murder ever perpetrated.

What, exactly would you have had the Democrats do?

Acquiesce just enough to keep their seats?

Or stand on principle?

Utilitarianism, or Deontology?

Mill, or Kant?

Again, I'm not giving any passes, I'm just trying on their shoes.

Would you like to let your imagination off the leash and think about where we might (probably would) have gone in 2002 / 2004 if the Congressional Democrats in congress hadn't all triangulated and acquiesced at least a little bit and hung on to their seats so we could take a majority in 2006?

Sometimes, what gets referred to as triangulation, might be better described as "giving the fucker enough rope to hang himself."

I'm pissed off at Pelosi and hope her tenure as Speaker comes to a quick end. She has been a bitter disappointment, and the job does not suit her. But if the choice is Pelosi or Hastert, hell gimme Nancy. In fact, I'll take two, they're small.

That said - I still think we should at least think about stepping back, closing our eyes and taking a deep breath then looking at the big picture.

And when I do that, I see a year of "he said/she said" fingerpointing as everyone tries to cover their political asses.

Stock up on Maalox now.

Congressional Dems...have you been paying the least bit of attention?

Apparently not.

After weeks of posturing and tough talk, the Congressional Dems are set to bravely cave in to the bloodthirsty jackals of the Republican party.

But cave they will, because if we learned anything from FISA, it is that congressional vacations are sacred and can't be fucked with. Congress getting their sixty-ninth vacation break of the year will take precedence over the will of the people on this, just like it did in August when they simply had to get to the beach, and the hell with the Fourth Amendment.

Here is a sneak-peek at the plot-line for Pelosi's little scene-chewing operetta that will open this week:

• First, the House will pass a version of the omnibus spending bill that will not include any war funding.
• Next, it's to the Senate, where Majority Leader Milquetoast Reid will allow those craven fucks on the repugnant side of the aisle to attach a spending amendment to fund the war. It will have no timelines.
• After the amendment is attached, the bill will go to conference where compromise language for the legislation will be hammered out.
• Finally, Pelosi will allow it to pass quietly - without timelines - probably late on the last day before the Christmas break.

All this disgustingly transparent little ploy will be missing is a balcony and an overwrought anthem bleated out by Madonna.

Victor Davis Hanson - Let's Take a Look, Shall We?

Why not take a column from last month and refute some wingnuttery for fun on a rainy Tuesday morning?

VDH is in the italics and the red is my commentary plus a whole slew of factoids and whatnot culled from the Internets. Throw your best bits into the comments and see if you can come up with better stuff that refutes VDH.

October 18, 2007
Congress's New Role: Undermining U.S. Foreign Policy (by Victor Davis Hanson)

The president establishes American foreign policy and is commander in chief. At least that's what the Constitution states. Then Congress oversees the president's policies by either granting or withholding money to carry them out - in addition to approving treaties and authorizing war.
Apparently, the founding fathers were worried about dozens of renegade congressional leaders and committees speaking on behalf of the United States and opportunistically freelancing with foreign leaders.

[Actually, the Founding Fathers were far more concerned about a renegade Executive, and created the Congress in Article 1 of the Constitution to give that institution the power to hold in check any effort to steer this country towards ruin. ]

In our past, self-appointed moralists - from Charles Lindbergh and Joe Kennedy to Jimmy Carter and Jesse Jackson - have, from time to time, tried to engage in diplomacy directly contrary to the president's.
But usually Americans agree to let one elected president and his secretary of state speak for the United States abroad. Then if they're displeased with the results, they can show it at the ballot box every two years in national or midterm elections.

[No, they don't. "My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops and to try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)]

But recently hundreds in Congress have decided that they're better suited to handle international affairs than the State Department.

[Yeah, we've heard that before. "I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)]

The U.S. Senate late last month passed a resolution urging the de facto breakup of wartime Iraq into federal enclaves along sectarian lines - even though this is not the official policy of the Bush administration, much less the wish of a sovereign elected government in Baghdad.
That Senate vote only makes it tougher for 160,000 American soldiers to stabilize a unitary Iraq. And Iraqis I spoke with during my recent trip to Iraq are confused over why the U.S. Congress would preach to them how to split apart their own country.

[Anything that puts an end to the ethnic cleansing in Iraq would have to be an improvement over what is going on right now. In fact, it's probably too late to stop the ethnic cleansing. But wait a minute--what do the Iraqis think?
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani endorsed a plan gaining support in the U.S. Congress to divide Iraq along ethnic lines into three separate regions under a limited central government. [snip] “I think the resolution passed by the Senate is a very good one,” Talabani said today on CNN’s “Late Edition” program. “It is insisting on the unity of Iraq, of the security of Iraq, of the prosperity of Iraq, of national reconciliation and asking our neighbors not to interfere in the internal affairs of Iraq.”]

Then, last week, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution condemning Turkey for genocide against the Armenian people, atrocities committed nearly a century ago during the waning years of the Ottoman Empire.
If the entire House approves the resolution, the enraged Ankara government could do everything from invade Iraqi Kurdistan - in hot pursuit of suspected Kurdish guerrillas - to curtail U.S. over-flight privileges and restrict use of American military bases in Turkey.

[This has been going on for quite a while and has nothing to do with current policies. Long before the US invaded Iraq, Turkey was sending troops into Northern Iraq. "In recent weeks, the Turkish military has deployed thousands more troops and 100 tanks along the border with Iraq, ostensibly for exercises that have been billed as a routine reinforcement for an expected spring PKK offensive. But this buildup is causing speculation that Turkey could repeat past incursions, such as a 1995 operation that lasted for months and a 1997 attack that brought 50,000 Turkish troops deep into Iraqi territory. ]

This new falling-out could interfere with supplying our soldiers in Iraq. And it complicates a myriad of issues, from the NATO alliance to Turkey's bid to join the European Union.
The speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, earlier this year took another hot-button foreign-policy matter into her own hands when she made a special trip to reach out to Syria's strongman, Bashar Assad.

[The AP reports, “Earlier this month, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbrey held talks with a senior Syrian diplomat on how Damascus was coping with a flood of Iraqi refugees, the first such talks in the Syrian capital for more than two years.”]

That visit to Damascus was played up in the government-run Syrian press as proof that ordinary Americans don't feel that Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism. Never mind that the Assad dictatorship helps terrorists get into Iraq to kill American soldiers, is suspected of involvement with the assassinations of journalists and democratic leaders in Lebanon, and recently had bombed by the Israelis a facility reported to contain a partially built nuclear reactor.

[Late 2006: Sen. Arlen Specter, a 26-year Senate Republican, said he will visit Syria despite loud objections by the Bush administration, contending the situation in Iraq is so dire that it is time Congress step up to the plate and see what it can do. Specter, R-Pa., said in an interview late Friday that he is planning a trip to the Middle East that will include Israel and Syria. The senator said he and other Republicans are concerned that the administration's policies in the Middle East are not working and that other GOP members may follow in his footsteps.
"I've talked to my Republican colleagues, and there is a disquiet here," Specter said.]

What are we to make of a Congress that now wants to establish rather than just oversee U.S. foreign policy? Can it act as a foil to the president and so give our diplomats leverage abroad with wayward nations: "We suggest you do x, before our volatile Congress demands we do y?"
Maybe - but any good is vastly outweighed by the bad. Partisan politics often drive these anti-administration foreign policies, aimed at making the president look weak abroad and embarrassed at home.

[The Republican House, guided by then Majority Whip Tom DeLay, actually voted 213-213 against paying the cost for U.S. military involvement while our troops were on the ground. Forty Republican Senators also voted against that funding bill.]

House representatives too often preach their own district politics, less so the American people's interest as a whole. What might ensure their re-election or win local campaign funds isn't necessarily good for the United States and its allies.
And too often we see frustrated senators posture in debate during televised hearings, trying out for the role of chief executive or commander in chief. Most could never get elected president - many have tried - but they seem to enjoy the notion that their own under-appreciated brilliance and insight should supersede the collective efforts of the State Department.

[What State Department? The one run by Condoleeza Rice couldn't get two people to talk to each other at a blabbermouths anonymous meeting. The Republicans have ruined the State Department, and left America with a crippled foreign policy establishment. From the Carnegie Endowment: "The gutting of the State Department dates back to the 1990s, when a Republican Congress, looking at a post-cold war world, slashed its personnel numbers by roughly one third. Several blue-ribbon studies revealed that the U.S. government cut funding for foreign affairs programs from over $5 billion in 1996 to $3.64 billion in 2000 (in 1996 dollars). According to one report, these cuts also resulted in "decrepit facilities" at U.S. embassies that put American diplomacy "near a state of crisis."]

So they travel abroad, pass resolutions and pontificate a lot, but rarely have to clean up the ensuing mess of their own freelancing of American foreign policy.

[In 1999, this was the position of Rep. John Kasich: Kasich opposes all U.S. intervention in Kosovo under current circumstances, a spokesman for the Ohio Republican told CNN. Most recently, Kasich has urged the Clinton Administration to pursue mediation with Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic rather than escalate the conflict. Though Kasich has been labelled an isolationist, he has in the past supported Clinton's bombing of terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Iraq. But in this case he told TIME magazine: "A great power has to have the discipline not only to go when necessary but to know when not to go ... Getting involved in ethnic, religious civil wars is a recipe for disaster." ]

Congress should stick to its constitutional mandate and quit the publicity gestures. If it is unhappy with the ongoing effort to stabilize a unified Iraq, then it should act seriously and vote to cut off all funds and bring the troops home.

["You can support the troops but not the president" -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX).]

If the House wants to punish Turkey for denying that its Ottoman forefathers engaged in a horrific genocide, then let congressional members likewise deny funds for our military to stay among such a genocide-denying amoral host.

[Depending on who you talk to, Republicans have never really been consistent when it comes to the slaughter of people. Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma said [in 1999] last week that he would oppose a NATO bombing campaign "unless and until the Serbs really begin a very significant massacre against the people in Kosovo."]

If Speaker Pelosi believes that Syria is not a terrorist entity but a country worth re-engaging diplomatically, then let her in mature fashion introduce legislation that would resume full American financial relations with our new partner Damascus.
Otherwise, it's all talk - and dangerous talk at that.

[A U.S. Republican congressman met President Bashar Assad on Thursday, a day after a visit by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, spurning the White House policy of isolating the Syrian leadership. Congressman Darrell Issa of California said U.S. President George W. Bush had failed to promote the dialogue that is necessary to resolve disagreements between the United States and Syria. "That's an important message to realize: We have tensions, but we have two functioning embassies," Issa told reporters after separate meetings with Assad and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem.]

Will they stand firm this time, or cave yet again?

The feckless fool occupying the oval office will succeed in running out the clock on his failed Iraq fiasco, and dump it in the lap of the next president. That’s a given. The casualties mean nothing to him, he has no skin in the game, and neither do any of the useless social diseases who comprise the jackasses’ base.

He wanted just under $200 billion to continue the mission of completely wrecking Iraq and ushering about a thousand Americans a year to an early grave. Heckuva job, that.

On Thursday the House Democrats said he should hold the phone.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said that the congress would give him $50 billion to continue operations for about four months, and that there would be strings attached, including a mandate that the (still undefined) mission be restricted. If the Resident vetoes it, she said she would not send him another bill this year. “This is not a blank check fir the president. This is providing funding for the troops limited to a particular purpose, for a short time frame.”

Bush’s fetid, soulless mouthpiece Tony Fratto got his knickers in quite a twist and said that any bill containing “artificial timelines” for withdrawal would be vetoed. “We should be supporting our troops as they are succeeding, not finding ways to undercut their mission,” he whined.

(Let’s put that “success” in perspective, shall we? As of the end of May, more air strikes had been used than in all of 2006. And 2007 is already the deadliest year for Americans in Iraq – with over a month and a half to go. Then there is the fact that the ethnic cleansing has been largely successful, and that has lead to a decrease in sectarian violence in that beleaguered nation.)

Congressional Democrats are in a tight spot – you might say they are between Iraq and a hard place. They were returned to the majority in the 2006 elections by a public that is sick to death of the Deserter in Chief’s vanity war. But, being Democrats, they are split on how to proceed. Some say the war must be funded while troops are in harms way, and they fear that the craven, soulless fuck “president” would simply abandon troops in the field and leave them stranded. He is just about that petty and pathetic, so those fears are not entirely unjustified.

Several of the anti-war liberals in the House said on Thursday that they were tentatively willing to get behind Pelosi this time – provided the Speaker will not cave as she has in the past, and send him the money he wants anyway if he vetoes the spending bill. “What I don’t want to do is get on this merry-go-round where we try to end this war and negotiate it down to a blank check. It’s time to play hardball,” said Democratic Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts.

And if they can't manage that...then We, the People need some new, authentic, fire-breathin' DEMOCRATS. They have a short period of time to show us something,then screw 'em. Primary challenges it is!

Raise your left hand if you are as sick of Nancy "can't kiss enough 'Publican ass" Pelosi as I am

I have had it with that miserable Republican-lite cephalopod (spineless, yet predatory).

Fuck her.

The only time she seems capable of showing any moxie at all, she is attacking other Democrats.

Fucking miserable bitch.

Here is what has me so fired up...

Fellow Bay-area Democrat Pete Stark, Californias longest-serving congressperson, said out loud yesterday what a hell of a lot of us say in private all the damned time.

He said that American soldiers and Marines are fighting and dying for the amusement of the sociopathic Deserter-in-Chief.

Of course, the Big Lebowski's in the GOP (motto: High Dudgeon 'R Us!) immediately started frothing at the mouth and emergency rooms throughout the land immediately filled up with stroke victims, so offended were their chickenhawkin' warmongerin' judgment passin' sensibilities. (They can't handle the truth! - apparently.)

Immediately the head of the National Gropin' Old Perverts denounced the "Democrat party" and demanded everyone who has ever driven through or vacationed in a blue state make with an immediate apology! The troops had been dissed! Oh horrors! Apologize now! If you don't, you aren't patriotic!

So what did the feckless, faithless, cowardly, pathetic excuse for a leader Pelosi do?

She took Stark to task!

What a bitter disappointment she has been. I thought she had brass ovaries, but apparently not. She is just another Republican't light, and I hope to hell we elect a passel of real Democrats next session and replace her worthless ass as speaker.

She is a far cry from worthy.

In fact, I hope she looses her god-damned seat to a primary challenger. Or even a moderate Republican. Hell, that's what she is, so really, what would be the diff?

The one where I pitch a fit in Nancy Pelosi's direction

If you are in the mood for a rant, keep reading. I started to do a news roundup, but the first topic sent me a-ranting, so here you go.

Seattle Democrat Jim McDermott has signed on to House Resolution 333, introduced by Dennis Kucinich and supported by nine others. It can’t get better for Richard Bruce, but he is a typical antisocial personality, with grandiose affect – he doesn’t care. The failure to defund his office looks like a victory to him – while to me it looks like some spineless, lobbyist-bought politicians occupying seats that are counted as Democratic on paper and for leadership and committee purposes stabbed Rahm Emanuel in the back. I’m considering sending him some dead fish to pass out on the floor of the House. I hope he is keeping score. I know I am. Fortunately, one thing keeps my head from exploding. My district is solidly blue and represented by a real, live Democrat, one with a spine and a conscience and he ain’t afraid of either one.

Nancy Pelosi continues to insist on breaking my heart. "I made a decision...one year ago that impeachment was something we could not be successful with, and that would take up the time we needed to do some positive things to establish a record of our priorities and their shortcomings. The president isn't worth impeaching. If it were the beginning of his term, people might think of it differently, but he's at the end of his term...the last two years of his term, we just want to be rid of him."

Now see – importing that quote, I’m seeing red all over again. I am pretty sure her parenting approach when her kids were teenagers was not “They’ll be gone to college soon, so I’m not going to worry about them doing beer-bongs and Lion of Judah-sized spliffs of the kind bud in the family minivan while speeding through the Presidio.”

Nancy, that was a year ago. A lot has changed since then – for starters that election in November. Maybe it would not have been successful a year ago, but this is now, and the evidence against the president and especially the vice president that supports impeachment has mounted significantly since then. That pathetic run-out-the-clock strategy is lame. Pathetic, weak, chickenshit and lame. Lame, lamer, lamest – a perfect specimen of lame. If-it-was-a-horse-we-would-shoot-it - lame. The sorriest damned thing I have ever heard in my life – and over two decades in emergency rooms, I have heard "explanations" of how things accidentally got inserted into rectal cavities, okay? When it comes to lame excuses, I have literally heard a litany and I’m a tough judge. When I say something is lame to that degree, it’s lame.

Besides, I don’t care if it is their last day in office – impeach them and get it on the record. The only reason I can think of that squares with these fuckers thinking they could get away with this shit is spineless Dems let Nixon off the hook. When that rat bastard didn’t go to prison, it emboldened this crop of neo-brownshirt fascist wannabes (I actually know what fascism is and can define it – unlike most of the jackoffs who throw it around and look as stupid as reich-wing idiots who toss the term Socialism around without understanding it’s meaning. This is especially sweet when the are Packers fans. I ♥ irony.)

Anyway – back to the neo-fascists at hand. They felt emboldened to stage a coup against the Constitution that hindered them in their quest for power because Nixon skated back to Yorba Linda and not only faced no consequences for his actions, but his reputation rehabbed to the point that he became an elder statesman of sorts, much to the dismay of many. Until they know that severe consequences await such power-grabs, they will keep coming back, each subsequent version more vile, more mendacious, more poisonous to the body politic than the last.

As I plan on hanging around for another thirty to forty years, even though I will be in my dotage by then, I don’t want to deal with another crop of reTHUGlican politicriminals and therefore we need to stop these bastards right now, where they stand. Even if it is the last day of their term, justice demands that charges of impeachment be brought.

Aw, hell – Ronnie Earle – you out there? aWol was in your jurisdiction when all those private jets, owned by “Rangers” and “Pioneers” were lined up on the runway in Austin, can you find something to indict these fuckers with? You might be the last elected official in America with any real power who isn’t descended from the late Mr. Lupner.

It's Mother's Day - let's play the analogy game...

It’s Mother’s Day, so I’ll work in a gratuitous anecdote about childrearing. I raised three, and my husband’s commitment to the USAF meant that a great deal of that time I was essentially a single parent.

I had neither the time nor the inclination to brook foolishness. When they held their breath, I let them. The middle one actually passed out once – and promptly started breathing again. Every time the Useless Tool™ threatens a veto of the funding supplemental, I think about my daughter trying to throw a hissy-fit at the queen of the fit-throwers, and ending up passed out in the kitchen and getting stepped over as I continued to make dinner.

There is another oldie-but-goodie from my childrearing days: Whenever a kid was having a terrible, horrible, no-good, very-bad day, stomping around with a little black rain cloud overhead and generally being a pain, I would pull that kid aside and remind them that if you have a problem with everyone, and everyone has a problem with you, the chances are overwhelming that you (being the only common denominator) are the problem. (That one really rings true when we are talking about the Resident, doesn’t it?)

Today’s Washington Post has a comprehensive article on the status of the interactions between the White House and the real Deciders in Congress. This bit, from an unnamed Republican jumped out at me (especially in light of last weeks trip to the Oval by a disgruntled group of GOP congresscritters with a nervous eye cast toward ’08.)

The trouble for the White House is that increasingly, the mistrust may not be not limited to Democrats. As evidenced by a contentious Bush meeting last week with House moderates complaining about Iraq policy, Republican lawmakers are increasingly leery of a president whose war policies many believe are leading the party to ruin in the 2008 elections. The result is that the president finds himself in an uphill struggle not only to win a few domestic victories on his way out of the Oval Office but also to maintain necessary GOP support for continuing the war in Iraq. (emphasis added)

Joshua Bolton, the Resident’s Chief of Staff predictably downplayed the discord. "I could have seen a scenario in which Republicans would be blaming the president for being in the minority status and trying to distance themselves aggressively from the president, and I don't see it happening," he said.

Methinks Mr. Bolton might be spinning it just a tad – (okay, he's spinning it hard enough to make cotton candy.)

From the same article:

But one conservative House Republican with close ties to the leadership said the concerns expressed by the congressmen in the meeting were widely shared across ideologies. "That wasn't the Tuesday Group speaking," he said, referring to an organization of moderate GOP legislators. "No, that's the Republican sentiment."

It isn’t just the RINO’s that are bristling. The reality of November 7 is sinking in to quite a few of our legislators.

And hopefully that awakening is reaching the executive branch as well…

White House officials acknowledge that they are trying to make up for lost time with Democrats and are looking for any angle, however unconventional. When Rep. John P. Murtha Jr. (D-Pa.), among the most prominent and outspoken Democratic war critics, showed up at a recent meeting with national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, Cheney stopped by. The two men had worked closely during the Persian Gulf War, when Cheney was secretary of defense and Murtha was the top House Democrat on defense spending issues. Cheney seemed to want to question Murtha on what the Democrats were planning with the then-upcoming vote on war funding.

"I just told them where I was, what I was going to try to do, how I felt about the war -- that I didn't think we could win it," Murtha said in an interview, adding that he told Cheney that House Democrats would pass a tough spending bill with benchmarks and conditions on the war. "I don't think he believed we were going to pass the legislation."

But pass it they did, and when the Useless Tool™ vetoed it, they came back like there was a Mother in charge and passed a more restrictive bill for funding. (I’ve said it before, and I will say it again – he should have to ask my mother for the money he wants.)

After the Veto, another invitation was extended to congressional leaders for a meeting, and the operative thinking was that they would begin negotiations on the next bill. They assumed wrong, and the Resident was taken aback, left slack-jawed and dumb-founded (although to be fair, that is not much of a stretch.)

But according to several sources familiar with the meeting, Pelosi made it clear that House leaders would not engage in serious negotiations with the White House until after another bill passed and moved to a conference committee with the Senate.

Sounds to me like someone get sent to their room with no dessert and no tv, and now has to think about what they have done.

Too bad that approach is being tried half a freakin’ century too late.

So who is going to blink first?

.

As they seek to reconcile two versions of the spending resolution to fund Bush’s not-so-excellent adventure, Senate Democrats are looking at making timelines and benchmarks “advisory” rather than binding.

They are also considering giving Bush the authority to waive troop readiness standards.

Sounds to me like they are folding like a bunch of cheap suits. Their compromise will cost them dearly with the staunchly anti-war members of the party, but will likely pick up some Republican support.

Bush claims he will veto any legislation that isn’t 100% to his liking, and insists he will never compromise. Timelines, to his way of – ahem – thinking – ahem – are a “date to surrender” you see. (Never mind that American forces are viewed as occupiers, and are caught in the crossfire.)

The haggling between congressional Democrats came as their leaders met at the White House with Bush to try to hash out their dispute. Both sides termed it a polite, productive meeting in which they restated their positions but emerged without an agreement. Democrats promised to send Bush their bill next week.

"We believe he must search his soul, his conscience, and decide what is best for the American people," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters on the White House driveway. "I believe signing the bill is that."

White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino said later that Bush has not changed his mind. But she expressed optimism that after a veto, Democrats would pass legislation without conditions to provide $100 billion to continue operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "It was clear that ultimately there will be a bill that can fund the troops, that the troops will get the funds they need," Perino said.

It is, of course, brinksmanship, pure and simple. This is all positioning for the post veto phase of the process. One Democrat was reported to have said that Congress might pass a 60-day spending bill, without conditions and continue the debate on the supplemental. . Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) said Democrats are treating June 1 as the final deadline for passage of a war-funding bill that would not be vetoed.

Bush offered platitudes, assuring the congressional leaders that he believes in benchmarks and has been pressing Iraqi leaders to meet them, he just doesn’t want them to be binding or anything he has to live up to. Democrats want to make the benchmarks binding.

Democrats were quick to cite Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who told reporters traveling with him in the Middle East yesterday that demands for withdrawal have been constructive. "The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact . . . in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment," Gates said.

When the House convenes tomorrow, Speaker Pelosi will have quite a task on her hands keeping the Democratic caucus together.

.

The First 100 Days of the 110th Congress

Friday marked the close of the first 100 days of the 110^th Congress. But lets be honest – when we look at the first hundred days, the focus is on Nancy Pelosi, the first woman to hold the position of Speaker of the House of Representatives.

It turns out that Speaker Pelosi disappointed some, surprised others, and confirmed the faith that the rest of us had in her abilities and acumen from the outset. Liberals who expected camaraderie and solidarity have often been disappointed that a steamroller-agenda hasn’t been unleashed on the Republican Party, and they say she's a poor listener. Conservatives who expected her to be non-receptive to their concerns say listening is one of her better skills.

The defining issue, of course has been that of funding the war. And there is where the natural politician shone through. Democrats are a diverse party. It has always been infinitely more difficult to keep a consensus among a Democratic caucus than a Republican caucus. Democrats by definition are less dogmatic and doctrinaire, and far more prone to exerting their independence on any given issue.

A case in point to highlight the Speakers ability to form and hold together a caucus would be convincing Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat from Portland Oregon who opposed the war and had never, prior to the recent vote, cast a single yea on any legislation that supported the Iraq war.

"She convinced me," said Blumenauer, whose vote helped give Pelosi her most important legislative victory. "For me, there was no attempt at pressure. I was able to convey my concerns. She was there. She was listening."

Pelosi's performance on the war spending bill highlighted what has become her signature: an aggressive leadership style that seeks to put Congress on par with the White House and prove that her notoriously fractious party can indeed govern.

A lot of people “misunderestimated” the speaker as a “San Francisco Liberal.” They forget that her father was Mayor of Baltimore and a U.S. Congressman representing the city. She grew up reading the Congressional Record and Roll Call. Machine Politics went on around her kitchen table. Make nop mistake – she keeps a totebook of political favors – but she remembers birthdays, anniversaries, Bar Mitzvahs and christenings, too.

As minority leader, she kept a diverse and disparate party together. Without her steady hand, last November might not have turned out quite so well for the Democrats. But as Speaker, she appears to be in the role she was born to fill.

"She has elevated her game, which is exactly what you have to do," said Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, a leader of the moderate New Democrats. "She is a lot better leader as speaker than she ever has been."

The woman was a stay-at-home mother of five – and she runs the chamber the way successful moms run households. She doesn’t reward tantrums, she knocks the wind out of the sails of those who get “too big for their britches,” she makes small concessions to get the whiners to shut up, and she not only assigns chores, she follows up on the brats she assigns them to.

The Republicans have, for the most part, been reduced to criticizing her through non-issues. Issues like the flap over her military plane for trips back to the district. She didn’t request it, the Sergeant of Arms for the House did. And she is required to have that access as the second in line to the presidency. They new that, they just couldn't resist priming the Wurlitzer.

Then there was the determination by many to smear her recent trip to Syria and Saudi Arabia. Everyone piled on, from the big-three networks to the editorial page of the Washington Post. Dick Cheney dropped the drive-by slander that we “don’t need 535 Secretaries of State.” (No Dick, but we sure as hell could do with one. Got anyone in mind? The position has been vacant since General Powell retired.)

Speaker Pelosi has weathered that storm as well, and looking a hell of a lot better when her trip is stacked up side-by-side with that stunt contrived by the McCain-Graham-Pence clown college field-trip to the Shorja market. At least 21 people were not rounded up and executed after she completed her visit.

Cranking Up the Mighty Wurlitzer

As they always do when they have no facts or precedent to make their case, the right-wing noise machine has been cranking non-stop in an effort to smear Nancy Pelosi and her trip to the Middle East.

None of the sources criticizing Pelosi has mentioned the five Republican congressmen who were in the Middle East this week and who also met with the Syrian president.

To hear them tell it, Ms. Pelosi is setting up a shadow presidency and only wants to embarrass the idiot in the oval. The ABC website actually implied criminality might be charged.

Please.

I would like to refer those screaming the loudest to 1997, when two different Speakers of the House truly did usurp presidential authority:

From Digby:

In 1997, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) led a delegation to Colombia at a time when U.S. officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to U.S. security assistance programs. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass” President Clinton and “communicate directly with Congress.”

…a congressional delegation led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) which met with Colombian military officials, promising to “remove conditions on assistance” and complaining about “leftist-dominated” U.S. congresses of years past that “used human rights as an excuse to aid the left in other countries.” Hastert said he would to correct this situation and expedite aid to countries allied in the war on drugs and also encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress.”

Subsequently, U.S. Ambassador to Colombia Myles Frechette sent a cable complaining that Hastert’s actions had undermined his leverage with the Colombian military leadership.

In other instances, Hastert actually guided congressional staff to unilaterally reach deals with Colombian officials:

House Foreign Affairs Committee staff, at the direction of the Hastert group, would fly to Colombia, meet with the nation’s anti-narcotics police and negotiate the levels and terms of assistance, the scope of the program and the kinds of equipment that would be needed. Rarely were the U.S. diplomatic personnel in our embassy in Bogata consulted about the “U.S.” position in these negotiations, and in a number of instances they were excluded from or not even made aware of the meetings.

And from Glenn Greenwald:

This is, of course, totally different than the right-wing outrage scandal de jour:

New York Times, March 31, 1997 -- reporting on a trip to China by House Speaker Newt Gingrich, one week after Vice President Al Gore's trip:

Speaking with startling bluntness on an issue so delicate that diplomats have tiptoed around it for years, Newt Gingrich said today that he had warned China's top leaders that the United States would intervene militarily if Taiwan was attacked.

As he left for Tokyo after a three-day trip to China, Mr. Gingrich said he had made it absolutely clear how the United States would respond if such a military conflict arose.

Referring to his meetings with China's leaders, Mr. Gingrich said: ''I said firmly, 'We want you to understand, we will defend Taiwan. Period.'"

He also said, ''I think that they are more aware now that we would defend Taiwan if it were militarily attacked.''

Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, delivered his message, among the most forceful ever given about Taiwan by a visiting United States official, to Wang Daohan, China's chief representative in talks with Taiwan. Mr. Gingrich said he had given the same message to President Jiang Zemin and Prime Minister Li Peng in Beijing last week.

Chinese leaders offered no public response to Mr. Gingrich today. But on Friday, Mr. Jiang urged him to treat the Taiwan issue with care. . . .

Asked about Mr. Gingrich's statements, a Clinton Administration official in Washington said Mr. Gingrich had received briefings about American policy toward China, but that Mr. Gingrich ''was speaking for himself'' in his conversations with Chinese leaders.

The White House issued a statement saying that the policy of the United States was to ''meet its obligation under the Taiwan Relations Act, including the maintenance of an adequate self-defense for Taiwan,'' and that the Administration would maintain its ''one-China policy, the fundamental bedrock of which is that both parties peacefully address the Taiwan issue. . . ."

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Gingrich said he had spoken with Mr. Clinton, and with Mr. Gore on several occasions, to make sure that their messages to Beijing dovetailed. At the time, he did not mention his message on Taiwan.

Several days later, Gingrich's remarks in China led to this -- New York Times, April 4, 1997:

China admonished the United States today to speak with one voice on foreign policy and accused Newt Gingrich of making ''improper'' statements on Washington's commitment to defend Taiwan from any military attack by the mainland.

The criticism was made by the Foreign Ministry spokesman, Shen Guofang, who earlier this week had expressed basic satisfaction with remarks made by Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, during a three-day visit to China.

The visit followed Vice President Al Gore's first trip to Beijing. Both men spoke on issues of contention between Washington and Beijing, but Mr. Gingrich's remarks were noteworthy for their directness and for exceeding the normal State Department formulations on American commitments to Taiwan.

China's decision to criticize Mr. Gingrich came after he traveled to Taiwan on Wednesday and met with President Lee Teng-hui.

Back then, the media treated Gingrich like he was the American Prime Minister, and his right-wing supporters had no problem with the House Speaker travelling and expressing his own foreign policy views which deviated from the Clinton administration's.

Desperate, ain’t they?

Meanwhile, I just love this bit from a Saudi paper:

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reminds us of the ambitious office worker surrounded by dunderheads who can't or won't get the job done. So she rolls up her sleeves and says for all the world to hear: 'Well, it looks like I'll have to do it myself.'

This is, of course, a non-issue. Just like the military jet was a non issue. I’m not a hyper-sensitive feminist, seeing misogyny in every shadow, but there just might be an element of that in this instance.

It’s a faux scandal because they have nothing real to object to. So they crank up the slime machine and slander the most competent politician working today because she is speaking truth to power, and it is scaring power shitless.

Good for her. I just think it's terribly sad that Speaker Pelosi had to give up her time off with her large Catholic family to do the job that Condi-the-incompetent has failed miserably at lo these many months.

IOKIYAR

How convenient…While the White House is jumping up and down, pounding on the table (which is what you do when the facts and the law are both against you) and all but accusing Nancy Pelosi of treason for her scheduled trip to Syria and planned meeting with Syrian leader Assad, they are failing to mention that not only is her trip bipartisan, but other Republican lawmakers are either currently visiting the country, or are scheduled to do so.

"I know that Assad probably really wants people to come and have a photo opportunity and have tea with him, and have discussions about where they're coming from, but we do think that's a really bad idea." That is White House spokeswoman Dana Perino in a press briefing held Friday, March 30.

Note that she did not criticize Republican lawmakers who were separately slated to visit Syria. In fact, on April 1, Reps. Frank Wolf (R-VA), Joseph R. Pitts (R-PA) and Robert Aderholt (R-AL) traveled to Damascus and met with Assad, two days before Pelosi's scheduled trip.

Yes. Nancy is downright treasonous in their eyes, but the Republicans who are sitting down to tea with Assad were not even mentioned.

Like I said – election be damned – I(s)OKIYAR – It’s (still) OK If You Are A Republican.

Emboldened, Democrats hang tough on deadlines

The showdown over war funding continued Wednesday, with dubya getting more and more shrill, and Nancy Pelosi chiding him like the petulant spoiled child he is.

Speaking to a group of cattle ranchers on Wednesday, the president threatened to veto any legislation that specified withdrawal dates and timelines, and tried to shift blame for any future funding delays to the congress.

"Members of Congress need to stop making political statements and start providing vital funds for our troops," the president said

"Now, some of them believe that by delaying funding for our troops, they can force me to accept restrictions on our commanders that I believe would make withdrawal and defeat more likely," Bush continued. "That's not going to happen. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible."

(Catch that? I only have a bachelors education here - in other words enough psych to make me dangerous - but that right there comes from god-damned delusional thinking. Seventy percent of the country agrees with the congress on this one. Look it up.)

Nancy Pelosi, mean time, was in no mood to deal with a spoiled brat throwing a hissy-fit.

"Calm down with the threats," Pelosi said. "There's a new Congress in town. We respect your constitutional role. We want you to respect ours."

Hehehehehe…BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

*****

It's time to

ITMFA!!!