Edwards has already sent out his first email blasting this and begging for more money. I think the begging for more money is first to him anyways, LOL.

lowly bunch of spineless wimps. can't help but think, with the summer sun beating down outside those doors, and with thoughts of bbq grills blazing by the beach, they traded conviction for the easy way out to recess.

lowly bunch of spineless wimps. - conscriptor

You're just now realizing that?

How do you expect them to confront Extreme Jihadism when they can't even successfully confront Brit Hume, Fox News and GW?

Aren't we all so lucky that the democrats "support the troops". It was just political as usual for them. Even the dems couldn't stomach facing people on Memorial Day, while they were doing everything they could to hurt our troops and support al queda. No sense of right or wrong, no patriotic feeling. Man, I bet bin laden called reid and pelosi and gave them an ear full!

Too funny........

I wonder if they came up with that themselves or if it was scripted for them by moveon.org

The Dems won a (large) number of earmark spending and the minimum wage increase; legislation they couldn’t pass on its own, so they tucked it into the military appropriations bill. Political cowardice.

The correct response from the dems should be that the supplemental appropriations bill should have been written to fund operations until October when the new budget is in place, earmarks and minimum wage riders are political business-as-usual crap; and it should be vetoed for that reason, but Congress hasn’t the balls to send a clean bill to the President, and Bush hasn’t the balls to veto a dirty bill when he receives it; spineless wimps, all of them.

Next, Congress should insist that future funding be part of the Administration’s budget. Not off-budget as if we don’t know we’re going to have troops in the Middle East, Pah-leeeze!

Finally, Congress should pass the new budget with the Mid-East appropriations to fund the adventure if they approve of the Iraq war, or cut spending thus bringing the adventure to a close. Anything else is pure politics, and cheap politics at that.

That means the democrats would have to pass the budget without the Iraq/Afghanistan appropriation but pass supplemental appropriations to fund both withdrawals.

Do they have the guts? I think we know the answer to that one. C'mon, Reid/Pelosi; grow a spine or admit you're a bunch of eunuchs and shut the hell up about the war!

Hey Conscriptor, how is that ethics reform coming along? You guys elected these dems to stop the war and clean up Washington huh? Feel like suckers?

I am broken-hearted.
The Dems are letting our boys die in Iraq so they can keep the occupation alive to be a political issue in 2008.

Our young men and women spill blood for oil under the Republicans, and now they are dying so Dems can use the war for political advantage.

Someone, anyone, find me a country that puts the best interests of its population first.

Can you people stop thinking about Democrats this and Republicans that, Al Gore this and George Bush that?! Who cares who said what, or what "team" they're on! The only thing that matters is what's right or wrong, logical or illogical! So put down the pom-poms, stop the cheerleading for this side or that side, and just stay on the damn issues!

Rich: how is that ethics reform coming along? You guys elected these dems to stop the war and clean up Washington huh? Feel like suckers?

You just served up a softball underhanded there Rich.

Someone, anyone, find me a country that puts the best interests of its population first. - Christian

Well didn't Iraq under Saddam? I thought, according to the left, it was a secular Muslim wonderland prior to 2002. Am I mistaken?

You just served up a softball underhanded there Rich. - ricorun

No question, you must be proud of those Democrats that were drug kicking and screaming to vote for something they championed during the campiagn.

Party leaders and new lawmakers worked until the day before the vote to sway some longtime members who had balked at the proposals. It took weeks of persuasion by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other key lawmakers to convince recalcitrant Democrats -- among them some members of the speaker's inner circle.......said Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause. "But there's still a lot of work to do to prove that this Congress is serious about cleaning up Washington."

I just have to point this out. I recently saw this on the seriously brain damaged Andrew Sullivans Daily Dish site:

We don't usually describe law-breakers as being illegal in themselves. Jack Abramoff may have done illegal lobbying, but nobody has called him an illegal lobbyist. And whatever laws Bernie Ebbers and Martha Stewart may have broken, they weren't illegal CEO's.

It's only your immigration status that can qualify you as being an illegal person, or that can earn you the honor of being "an illegal" all by itself. That use of illegal as a noun actually goes back a long ways. The British coined it in the 1930's to describe Jews who entered Palestine without official permission, and it has been used ever since as a way of reducing individuals to their infractions.

How stigmatized criminals must feel. From now on I propose we call murderers "life enders" and child molesters "aggressive babysitters". Maybe that will soothe the conscience of the mindless liberals.

How do they even brush their teeth in the morning?

neocon: No question, you must be proud of those Democrats that were drug kicking and screaming to vote for something they championed during the campiagn.

I'll tell you what I'm not proud of... that the GOP worked on an ethics reform bill for the better part of last year and never managed to get anything to the floor. They had a golden opportunity to seriously blunt the Dem's "culture of corruption" meme. Instead they let them hammer them with it through the whole election season.

I am, however, glad that someone managed to do it. I wish they'd gone farther with it, but something's better than nothing I guess.

I am, however, glad that someone managed to do it. I wish they'd gone farther with it, but something's better than nothing I guess.

I agree.

You know, somehow I get the feeling that President Bush and Karl Rove wanted the democrats to be in power at this very moment.

We had 6 years of Republican rule and now we have 2 years of Democratic rule and what a difference~ Now for the upcoming 2008 election I really believe that Hillary has thrown in the towel with her most recent vote.

If the surge is successful, and I pray every single day that it will be, Hillary will be out; because she voted for DEFEAT and President Bush planned for success. The country is seeing both sides in full view; we are at war; it's a war on terror; and no one can deny that and plus the threat Iran possesses to everyone!

We need a Commander in Chief, just like Bush, that no matter what the polls says, he's going to do what he and his military leaders believe should be done so that VICTORY will be achieved.

Something to ponder.............

What you people are failing to realize is that the Democrats ALREADY TRIED to put a timetable bill for the war in Iraq and do exactly as they were elected to do---and it passed. Bush vetoed it. Do you not remember that? It was barely a month ago neocons, come on now your memory can't be that selective.

So what again would stop Bush from vetoing every single bill that comes his way trying to limit the war in any way? The Dems had no choice here, it was either fund the troops or waste time on congress for monthes on end without passing any meaningful legislation, which they already have done plenty of (see the new bill to raise minimum wage).

Stop picking at straws cons.

Colin,

You get paid by the DNC to make comments?

Collin is right of course.

In the end - unless his party turns against him - Bush can just continue to veto everything and congress will be forced into passing funding for his agenda. So they made the statement that they disagree with these policies and believe that a continuation of failed policies is not a way to go. It *is* a failure of course that they couldn't overcome this and reverse the veto - but this squarely puts everything in Bush's hand. They tried to stop him and failed. Now they have no one else to blame ..

The Dem party is full of contradictions. It always has been. And frankly, I don't think that's such a bad thing. I wish the GOP would learn to tolerate a little more internal dissent. But what I find difficult to understand is how the lefty fringe of the Dem party praised Rahm Emanuel and Chucky Schumer for their strategy of recruiting strong moderate candidates in swing districts to successfully gain majorities in both the House and Sentate, yet now trash them and their recruits for not being liberal enough. What's up with that?

Maybe if the politicians would stop trying to run the war, and let the commanders do what they need to do this war would have been over along time ago. Sadr should either be dead or at GITMO.

You can blame the failure on nobody but Bush and the Administration. This was their choice, their war, their failure. To blame the media, the democrats, the french, or who ever else is just an attempt to conceal their failure

Collin is right of course.

Can you not do one sentence without making an error, kblockhead? His name is "colon." Not Colin, not Collin. Colon. Why "colon," you ask?

Because nothing but $hit passes through him, and all his posts are $hit...