READER COMMENTS ON
"BREAKING: Feingold Excoriates Fellow Democrats for Failing to 'Play Hardball' to End Iraq War"
(46 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 2/5/2007 @ 7:39 pm PT...
I would like the names of the Dems who are "playing it safe"...and any Repugs we might be able to sway. I call various reps around the country at least three times a week (800 828-0498)...But often feel I could do a better job if specific people need to be targeted.
Senator Feingold if you should read this please make it easier to help you by providing a list of names that would enable us to use our limited time more wisely.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 2/5/2007 @ 7:45 pm PT...
To the Dems in office:
The repugs got voted out of office for a reason --- wishy washy weakness. They folded to party interests, corporate interests, the war agenda, group-think, and greed.
Grow a spine or get booted out the same way as your predecessors.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 2/5/2007 @ 8:55 pm PT...
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Norm Coleman (R-MN)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Larry Craig (R-ID)
Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)
Pete Domenici (R-NM)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Ted Stevens (R-AK)
John Sununu (R-NH)
John Warner (R-VA)
All up for election in 2008
But then there's the clown Lie-berman, voting sooo happily with the republicans. Just forced himself into office, of course.
I dearly love Feingold and Jim Webb. We can speak their names with pride.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
JPentz in Maryland
said on 2/5/2007 @ 9:35 pm PT...
I would like a list of the spineless dems.
I know Mikulski has a spine, sort of. Well she is mad at Bush too.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 2/5/2007 @ 11:50 pm PT...
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 12:54 am PT...
And please note that Bush is attempting to cut Medicare and Medicaid to help pay for his illegal war. He wants to put some of the burden on the backs of elderly and poor, while the fat cats sacrifice nothing. This should be well emphasized so that the applicable voters (like the large number of Medicare-recipient voters) are well aware of it.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 1:09 am PT...
Feingold for majority leader!
He's absolutely right on the money. This is not the time for bipartisanship or strategizing. The time has come to give the Republicans hell.
I want to see one of those brush-ups right on the floor of the senate until these bullies back down. They started it and they've been asking for it. I guarantee you, the American people and the world would love it.
Our anger is REAL. We have the moral high ground. We can't lose!
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 1:15 am PT...
I'd like to see Feingold in the boxing ring with Reid.
Reid used to box professionally but I'll bet Russ could kick his wimpy ass all over the mall!
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 1:17 am PT...
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 2:08 am PT...
If Russ Feingold jumped off a bridge, I'd jump off two.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 4:50 am PT...
Fiengold is full of shit. It was the republicans who said they would get out of the rubber stamp habit and allow a debate on the anti-Iraq war resolution.
Do you just believe anything anyone says?
The vote was 49-47 and two republicans kept their word and voted for the debate.
Lieberman is not a democrat, he is a DINO in some things, but he is a neoCon when it comes to war. He favors the war in all its gory "glory".
List the democrats and republicans who voted not to have the debate.
Then complain about the party who has the most members that do not even want to debate it.
What hogwash Fiengold is putting out!
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 5:18 am PT...
The 'fake' opposition is angry about the 'surge' a.k.a. 'The 10% solution'. Currently, approximately 200,000 soldiers fight for 'democracy' in Iraq [roughly US troops + foriegn troops + paid mercenaries (i.e. Blackwater)]. So, the President's solution is to add 10% more (20,000 troops). Even assuming these extra troops perform 100% efficient, things will merely get 10% better in Iraq. Will 10% be worth the continuing carnage of American soldiers? Don't look to the Democrats for help. They will sit idly by as they did when the gov't suspended habeas corpus, opened mail, banned the novel "America Deceived" from Amazon, stole private lands, conducted illegal wire-taps and continues wars in the Middle East based on a false-flag event known as 9/11. If the Democrats (including Feingold) cannot stop the current 10% increase in this war, then they will never stop 100% of this war.
Only remaining link (until the gov't pulls the novel off Google Books):
America Deceived (book)
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 5:49 am PT...
Feingold is one of the few who have a pair in DC... I can't believe so many people were not willing to go along with this resolution, especially since it is a symbolic, non-binding one... come on, folks, the blood of Americans is on your hands...
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 5:50 am PT...
Feingold is from lofty Wisconsin, way up north, and evidently he sees himself as being free from the problems of the rest of us as a result of being that high up? No, Winconsin has a legal legacy where they have even persecuted scientists based on the race of the scientist:
Academic doors were often closed to him, and one company in Wisconsin decided not to hire him because of an ordinance forbidding blacks from staying overnight within city limits.
(The Forgotten Genius).
If they will screw up hard science over racism, they will screw up political science too. And this is what is being done by falsely framing the fillibuster on the Iraq debate as a sigh of democratic weakness. CLUE: the dems did not filibuster, the republicans did.
Let him tell us about the senate fillibuster the republicans used to prevent a debate, the same fillibuster the republicans threatened to do away with in the 109th congress if the minority dems then used it.
Let him also sprinkle in a little discussion about hypocrisy as well ... only this time try doing it with the facts in hand.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 6:20 am PT...
Of your list of senate republicans who are up for re-election in '08, the senator from Maine, Susan Collins, and the senator from Minnesota, Norm Coleman, are the only two republicans to vote "Yea", meaning stop the filibuster and lets debate, for the first time, the Iraq war escalation.
All the democrats who voted voted "Yea". So the democrats were unified in their vote.
Republican senator John McCain was afraid to vote, because he is watching the polls and the polls are against his neoCon position on the escalation.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 6:26 am PT...
Here is the vote tally. A "Yea" means stop the republican filibuster and debate the resolution, but a "Nay" means lets not debate the escalation:
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Not Voting
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Lieberman (I-CT), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Not Voting
McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Thomas (R-WY), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Nay
One democrat did not vote because he is in the hospital. Note that republican senator Warner voted not to allow a debate and vote on his own resolution which said the president's policy is wrong.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 6:40 am PT...
I'm with ya Dredd! Here's my version of the same.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE S1566 February 5, 2007
Iraq Study Group said. That is what all
people say, with rare exception. Those
are the people holding hands with the
We must heed the results of the November
elections and the wishes of the
American people. We must change
course, and this change starts with this
This side—Democrats—have offered
the minority everything they have
asked for. Remember: Vote on Warner,
vote on McCain; you want a simple majority;
you want a supermajority; we
will go along with that. We have been
fair to them. Now the Senate must be
fair to our troops, their families, and
the American people. We must proceed
with a debate about Iraq and send a
clear message to President Bush that
escalation is not the answer.
Some say let the leaders work it out.
Part of this stall has been a stall for
obvious reasons. If not tonight, tomorrow?
I must file a motion to invoke
cloture on the continuing resolution
because the Republicans said they are
going to filibuster it. I have gotten letters
to that effect. We should have been
debating the Warner, McCain resolutions
today, but they have not allowed
us. They wouldn’t allow us to proceed
on this matter.
I am telling everyone within the
sound of my voice, a decision will have
to be made whether to go further than
tonight, but the time is very tenuous—
very tenuous. If they stop us from
going forward on this debate, this does
not end the debate on Iraq. It may end
the debate for a few days or a few
weeks, but, remember, we have the 9/11
Commission recommendations coming
and that is open to amendment and I
can guarantee everybody there will be
Iraq amendments involved in that debate.
The supplemental bill is coming.
This is to fund the war in Iraq basically
more than $100 billion. I think
there will probably very likely be a
number of amendments dealing with
They can run, but they can’t hide. We
are going to debate Iraq, and they may
have gotten all their folks to vote
against the motion to proceed, they
may stop us temporarily from debating
the escalation, but they are not going
to stop us from debating Iraq.
We have lost 3,100 soldiers, sailors,
and marines. They are dead, Madam
President. We don’t know the exact
number of how many have been wounded—
We are not going to allow the situation
in Iraq to continue. It is wrong.
There can be no military solution. The
President has been told that. I think it
speaks volumes when he meets with
the Iraqi Prime Minister who is elected,
and the Iraqi Prime Minister says:
Mr. President of the United States, get
all American soldiers out of Baghdad.
That’s what he said. I think it speaks
volumes when military commanders
say that it is not the way to go. We
know what Casey said. His tune has
changed a little bit since he was relieved
of duty over there.
The families of the 3,100 soldiers who
have been killed, the families of the
24,000, 25,000 who have been wounded
demand we go forward with this debate.
We are going to start voting momentarily,
and remember what the vote is.
The vote is whether we can proceed to
debate the escalation of the war in
Iraq. And the Republicans have told everybody
they are all going to vote no.
If they think this can pop up real easily
again, I think they may have another
I repeat, the Republicans left town
and left the Government without adequate
resources to go ahead and complete
funding of the Federal Government
for this year. We have to take up
the work they did not complete. They
funded the Government until February
15, and now it is up to us to make sure
the Government continues to run.
If they want to pull a Newt Gingrich
and close down the Government, that
is their responsibility. But I believe we
should move forward and make sure
the Government is funded, and there is
not a lot of time for Iraq. That is a sad
commentary on the situation because
we lost days as a result of these parliamentary
I ask unanimous consent that if we
get to third reading of S. 470 it then be
turned into a concurrent resolution
and passage occur on the concurrent
resolution and not S. 470. Before hearing
how anybody feels about this, I said
last week that we would be happy to
consider this bill as a resolution. Everybody
heard me say that. The American
people heard me say that. So anybody
who tries to hide under a procedural
vote because this is a bill and not
a resolution is not being fair because
simply I have stated—and I know that
everyone in this Chamber heard me say
this, and I have said it many times—I
ask unanimous consent that if we get
to third reading of S. 470, that it be
turned into a concurrent resolution
and that passage occur on the concurrent
resolution and not S. 470.
I add another unanimous consent request
to this. I am willing to change it
to a concurrent resolution right now,
as I was willing to do last week.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
Mr. MCCONNELL. Reserving the
right to object, this is essentially the
same unanimous consent request propounded
last Thursday night. This
matter ought to be dealt with as a concurrent
resolution. It is clear the other
side does not want to vote on the Gregg
amendment. Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection
Under the previous order, pursuant to
rule XXII, the Chair lays before the
Senate the pending cloture motion,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance
with the provisions of rule 22 of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby
move to bring to a close the debate on the
motion to proceed to Calendar No. 19, S. 470,
Bipartisan Iraq legislation.
Carl Levin, Joe Biden, Ken Salazar,
Harry Reid, Pat Leahy, Sherrod Brown,
Patty Murray, Robert Menendez, John
F. Kerry, Barbara Mikulski, Dick Durbin,
Jack Reed, Tom Harkin, Dianne
Feinstein, Bill Nelson, H.R. Clinton,
Herb Kohl, Ben Nelson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous
consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the
Senate that debate on the motion to
proceed to S. 470, a bill to express the
sense of the Congress on Iraq, shall be
brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory
under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the
Senator from South Dakota (Mr. JOHNSON)
and the Senator from Louisiana
(Ms. LANDRIEU), are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators
were necessarily absent: the Senator
from Florida (Mr. MARTINEZ) and the
Senator from Arizona (Mr. MCCAIN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
SANDERS). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 49,
nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 44 Leg.]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this
vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 47.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen
and sworn not having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a
motion to reconsider that vote.
VerDate Aug 31 2005 01:09 Feb 06, 2007 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G05FE6.036 S05FEPT1 jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with SENATE
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 6:47 am PT...
Then everybody ought to read Alexander Cockburn's article in The Nation "Who Can Stop The War." Let's get it right folks!
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 7:07 am PT...
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 7:16 am PT...
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 7:17 am PT...
I adjusted what I saw as a typo. Reid, the democratic leader, voted "Yea" instead of "Nay".
Here is an article that catches the true nature of the lead up to the vote and the vote itself:
Today's vote was absolutely WOEFUL. It makes me ashamed of the Senate. I worked for that institution for six and a half years. It was always the place of reason and debate. Today, debate was silenced. It's tragic. It's what Republicans are all about.
(The Shameful Senate).
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 7:33 am PT...
With the exception of only a few, our two parties are duplicitous in a false left-right paradigm. The level of bi-partisan hand-holding beyond public scrutiny should be relegated to the center-ring and viewed as professional wrestling. The good clown - bad clown Punch and Judy show that these demonic marionettes preform daily would be threatre of the absurd if so many innocent weren't dying.
Woody Allen stated in a film, "That he was once Hebrew but, has since converted to narcissism". I think that pretty well says it all about our power structure and who is in control.
If we don't stop these neo-pagans and insane Zionists soon, nuclear war is our future.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 7:34 am PT...
Science. An abstract concept, yet quite useful. I say abstract to emphasize, as your link does, that what is practiced is not always what is preached. Think of the millions of science textbooks that are at first worshipped then thrown into the trash and hated when a new fact enters the picture. (that may be why textbook companies like to invest in research) A sort of scholarly planned obsolescence.
A current story shows that science, which is what astronauts are expert at, does not change a person such that the person is immune from emotions and other essences which militate against science:
Nowak --- who was a mission specialist on a Space Shuttle Discovery flight last summer --- was wearing a trench coat and wig and had a knife, BB pistol, and latex gloves in her car, reports show. They also found diapers, which Nowak said she used so she wouldn't have to stop on the 1,000-mile drive. Reports show that after U.S. Air Force Capt. Colleen Shipman's flight arrived, Nowak followed her to the airport's Blue Lot for long-term parking, tried to get into Shipman's car and then doused her with pepper spray.
(Sexy Science and Astronauts).
Feingold is showing us that political science likewise does not offer immunity from the plagues upon the human mind, such as inflamatory rhetoric posing as fair factual comment.
I mean it does not take political rocket science (or even an electronic voting machine) to count a hundred votes.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 7:52 am PT...
Speaking of political science, and Feingold's mastery of it or the lack thereof, note that the science of psychology may experience the benefits that Ted Haggard brought to political science (stumping for republicans) as Pastor Ted.
He is now saying that he has been cleansed and is heterosexual and that his years long homosexual behavior while a pastor preaching fire and brimstone against homosexuals ... has faded away.
He is studying psychology with this wife in an online college somewhere.
Hell, why doesn't he just run for senator as soon as he becomes an ePsychologist ... those he helped get erected into the republican ranks would filibuster along with him.
They could vote "Yahoo" instead of "Yea" or "Ney", and it would be a big bang of sorts.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 8:15 am PT...
Thanks for correcting the Reid vote, didn't catch that. And your comment about text book companies is true enough when you know that those companies are basically Repub owned. Reminds me of the phrase, its not about what actually happened but who gets to write what happened.
Your astonaut comparison is also quite to the point. (I was just reading a similar article.) I'm just hoping Feingold was trying to steele Dems resolve to keep pushing in this situation. But, that's why I'd have Gore as Prez and Feingold as Vice.
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 8:23 am PT...
What's MISSING in this entire discourse is the REAL REASON our Congressionals can't or WON'T actually DO anything to strongarm Bush into bringing the troops home:
You will find out that everyone of our "Heroes" and Biggies -from BOTH parties, has taken Bribe Money from AIPAC (I know, but that's what it amounts to!)
Note especially the amounts the ones on the Defense Committee get, like McConnell, Biden, Warner, Collins, Hillery, Durbin and especially Carl Levin!
Then ask yourself why none of them has the backbone to stand against Bush's war, let alone one that Israel wants for its own advantage!
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 8:29 am PT...
GREAT STUFF DREDD, KEEP ON GOING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 8:35 am PT...
Well, if that ain't the definitive list! Thanks GrannyB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 9:07 am PT...
Did anyone notice that McCain did not vote.Why not?
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 9:12 am PT...
Any senator can be critical of his colleagues during a conference call to a blogger. That's no distinction. What is needed is for a senator to be critical of these people to their face, publicly, and officially.
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 9:29 am PT...
Ok - what happened to Hagel, Smith, Graham, Warner who have all come out against the escalation? Seems like all talk and no walk to me. The majority of Americans are for a discussion and these wimps crawl into a hole.
I can understand Landriu she is trying to pry the promised money out of the hands for war to help her state but why the others?
How can one party hate another so much they will consign more of our soldiers to death? How many have to die for this administration?
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 9:31 am PT...
Someone PLEASE tell me is campaign finance even on the horizon at this point?
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 9:34 am PT...
The apocalypse is on the horizon, big as heck.
These fucks are keeping us busy while the administration starts World War Three.
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 9:35 am PT...
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 9:55 am PT...
Very true 99, but that's why I think Feingold is moving in the right direction, especially in light of what GrannyB posted.
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 11:17 am PT...
Fellow bloggers here know I would vote for Feingold for president or vice president, even tho he talks shit sometimes.
Ancient, you were technically correct about Reid's vote, however, I was advancing the spirit of the thing. He had to cast a "Nay" vote to keep a reconsideration motion open. If the heat gets up like I think it will, there will be another vote on Warner's resolution.
The bottom line here is that the dems are together in unity for the correct position ... YES debate the Iraq war escalation ... and the repubs are unified, except for two senators, for the wrong reason.
I have tried to illuminate the way the senate and house work ... and I have done it here on this blog for several years.
It takes 60 votes for anything to happen in the Senate, and since congress is bicameral, for any legislation to get passed that is in filibuster danger.
And add to that the presidential veto and we see that unless there are 67 votes the republicans can stop anything. It takes two-thirds to override a veto.
If we, Feingold included, stop beating on the democrats, the public will start to get the message: THE PEOPLE MUST VOTE 10 more democrats into the Senate in '08. Or 10 repubs out and 10 indys in, or greens, etc., I don't care. They will be more reasonable and less knee-jerk robotons than republicans. Anything but republican trance fools.
When that happens and they can't get 60 votes THEN I will join the feelings of Feingold.
As it stands now his position is deceitful and will mislead those who are not up on civics 101 and the way congress works.
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
Grizzly Bear Dancer
said on 2/6/2007 @ 1:03 pm PT...
The US REPUBLIDEM PARTY - self serving to the corporate 1% running this country/world.
Wake up American soldiers in IRAQ because your gonna continue to die for their illegal war based on BUSHIT LIES because these greedy mismanagers are 1 party with 1 cause!
On 9/11, Arabs in a cave collapsed World Trade Building #7 in 5.6 seconds 10 hours after the twin towers fell without even having to crash a jet airliner into the steel concrete structure. That's some amazing shit but could they do it to the new taller rebuilt #7 in the same time???
Keep the war machine going Senators!
Haliburton has no problem with that.
Siege Heil to US Imperialistic FASCISM!!!
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 2:05 pm PT...
I didn't see Feingold saying the Democrats voted against the debate. What he is saying is that they need to draw the line for the Republicans and quit putting up with their crap. Just voting isn't enough. The Democrats have to start playing rough and making threats about "nuclear options" . The Republicans are acting like they're still in charge!
After all, Feingold DID prove the Democrats were AWOL on voting to give George a simple censure when he should be hung for treason! On the other hand, Feingold hasn't been saying much about the voting machines. Every Democrat should have been SCREAMING FROM THE ROOFTOPS about that one. Even former congress members.
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
said on 2/6/2007 @ 3:46 pm PT...
When I called Senator Specter's office to voice my opinion his aid said, "the Senator hasn't made up his mind yet, but the reason he voted ney yesterday was because the democrats wouldn't hear/vote on (not sure which he said) any of the republican's resolutions." I then proceeded to tell him that this wasn't any time to be pussyfooting around. What part of the fact you work for us and it is clear Americans want out of this war now, don't you get. I also made clear that out of all the resolution's Senator Feingold's is the one I support.
I don't know about you, but to me it seems the repubs are dancing around to make themselves look good for the next election and not taking into account we have the most treacherous, deceitful administration in history that is purposefully trying to start WWIII. If there ever was a time to reach out to repub friends or family to get them to see exactly what's going on it is NOW! And whatever it is you have to do to get them to call their Congress people directly for the love of God and Country do it!
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
said on 2/7/2007 @ 5:45 am PT...
Larry #38 and Ancient #39
After all, Feingold DID prove the Democrats were AWOL on voting to give George a simple censure when he should be hung for treason!
Actually Larry, Feingold introduced his resolution in the 109th congress in the judiciary committee which Specter chaired. It didn't even get out of committee to the floor in the republican controlled 109th congress.
Already the dems are getting this out to the floor in the 110th democratic controlled congress. The problem at issue is that the republicans are filibustering it and no vote on the resolution can happen until cloture.
Feingold's 109th congress resolution was not substantially different from Warner's 110th (only republican resolutions - one Warner and the other McCain are now being considered) by the way Ancient. Both are non-binding rebukes of the president's policies.
The elephant in the room in this senate filibuster debate, folks, is that if a non-binding resolution can't get thru, any binding resolution doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting thru.
I was glad to see that the House is starting up a similar resolution.
The House cannot be filibustered, and there most certainly will be a vote on it (link here).
One good thing about this is that this whole exercise is an opportunity to learn civics 101 and constitutional law 101. A good place to start a better understanding of US government.
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
said on 2/7/2007 @ 7:10 am PT...
Thank you Dredd for exposing the REAL story! To bad we don't get that kind of straight talk from MSM. All they seem to want to do is put a label on a person, then crash the person, not the idea, into the ever growing pile of shit that is our means to making informed decisions!
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
said on 2/7/2007 @ 11:30 pm PT...
It's true that the Senate is still a tough place for time honored procedures to allow us any real power, but what I want the Democrats to start doing is simple. We are treated like second class citizens by the "main stream media", but that doesn't prevent the Democrats from raising holy hell on every other venue they can find.
If they are truly on the side of the people, there are plenty of places on the internet that are not owned by the corporations where they can jump in the deep end and risk their jobs to get the word out. If enough of them fall, the people will stand up. Howard Dean proved that we care and will stand up for the ones who support US instead of the established old boys club.
If I'm wrong, and we all go down, at least we tried. We can no longer be represented by leaders who talk tough and fold when they get a call from Exxon.
This house resolution sounds good though, maybe things will come out to our advantage on that. You are much more knowledgeable them I am about the way things work in Washington, but I'm still livid about Roberts and Alito.
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
said on 2/8/2007 @ 4:52 am PT...
The republicans who are facing election next year (see Lindy's post #3) are beginning to feel the heat.
They are telling McConnell, their leader, that they are going to protest the Iraq debacle in upcoming bills (link here).
The dems have already told McConnell he can run but he can't hide.
The dems have full committee control and the republicans can be completely shut down in committee and they know it.
The temper tantrums and the bushlike stubbornness McConnell is ordering the republicans to exhibit will cost them very dearly in the '08 election, and in committee proceedings.
We have them exactly where we want them.
COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
said on 2/8/2007 @ 4:20 pm PT...
I like your last comment there in #43. Hope you're right. I'll try to calm down for today.
COMMENT #45 [Permalink]
said on 2/9/2007 @ 4:14 am PT...
Another place where we have them exactly where we want them is in the Intelligence Committee.
That is where the 109th republican congress committee chairman, Pat Roberts, lied to the dems to get them to accept Phase I of the inquiry into the use of intelligence leading up to the Iraq invasion.
Roberts promised a "Phase II" where they would scrutinize the president's role to see if the intelligence was misused.
The new democratic chairman, Rockefeller, has said he will take up Phase II big time soon.
A report just released indicates:
Contrary to speculation and some earlier reports, the Department of Defense Inspector General's office did not exonerate the controversial Office of Special Plans, which has been accused of cooking pre-war intelligence on Iraq, nor was its then chief overseer, former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith, vindicated.
According to a statement released by Armed Services Committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) Thursday night to RAW STORY, the IG's report is a "devastating condemnation of the activities of the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy." In a separate statement, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, states that whether the intelligence activities "were authorized or not, it appears that they were not in compliance with the law."
(Raw Story, emphasis added). While the Libby trial can be said to have fried Cheney, this one will also fry Bush. I fully expect impeachable offenses to be exposed.
COMMENT #46 [Permalink]
said on 2/9/2007 @ 7:53 pm PT...
The evidence has been known to everyone who cared to look for years. It should be easy to get this train moving. Maybe we're in good shape after all.
The media should be shaking in their shoes also.