Re JimPharo's comments

Why are you "mystified" about the Democratic voters' anger?

We. Do. Have. The. Votes.

The Iraq funding bill was not veto proof. There is a BIG difference.

More importantly, ...

The. President. Does. Not Have. The. Iraq. Money. As. Long. As. We. Have. The. Votes.

Thus, there was a standoff.

65% or more of the voters backed the Democrats in the standoff. But the Democrats, nevertheless, collapsed.

That is why "so many Democrats are angry at Democrats for 'caving.'" The Democratic leadership has behaved shamefully. The Democrats (and everybody else who can count) always knew that they did not have the votes to overcome a veto. And they all knew that a veto was coming. Everybody knew that. So why did the Democrats bother to pass the bill in the first instance if they weren't going to stand their ground after it was vetoed?

Have I de-"mystified" this anger for you yet? If not...

As far as the canard that the Democrats would be viewed as de-funding the troops if they did not pass Bush's idea of what a funding bill should look like (a blank check and unlimited time)--let's all put an end to that now.

The Democrats provided funding for the troops in the previous bill--with benchmarks/timelines--some semblance of reporting and responsibility. It was BUSH who de-funded the troops with the veto, because he wanted a blank check and no accountability. Bush has blatantly admitted that his plan is to postpone any withdrawal until after he has left office and put it on another President's watch. He is now six months closer to that goal. He has gotten his blank check. (How many more die in the meantime? How many billions more will be flushed down the Iraq toilet?).

The People last November elected Democrats for one principal reason--to end the Iraq War, as soon as possible. The Democrats, less than six months after taking office, have bailed on the electorate when called upon to fulfill their promise to voters--and did so after being confronted with nothing more than a lame-duck President with an approval rating in the high-to-mid 20 percent range. And, after bailing on the voters, the electorate is treated to the spectacle of the self-proclaimed "architect" of the November 2006 election victory, Rahm Emmanuel (together with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi), all parading around on the news channels proclaiming this a "huge victory" for Democrats, when, in reality, everybody knows it is an utter surrender.

Have I cleared up the "mystery" of this anger yet?

Where, I ask, was the Democratic leadership? Obama and Clinton, for example. That's what a presidential hopeful is supposed to have on his/her resume--LEADERSHIP! The opportunity was there--they ran away from it!

Obama and Clinton actually went so far as to keep their votes SECRET until they were cast--in other words, the exact OPPOSITE of leadership! Are you kidding me? That's the kind of stuff one does in high school when voting for a prom queen! Hoo boy!

Dick Durbin. Oooops. He voted FOR the bill.

Freshman Senator Sherrod Brown? Supposed leader of the new-breed "progressives?" The ONLY reason he got elected to the Senate was his constituents' dissatisfaction with the Iraq war. Less than 6 months in, and he's already sold out the voters.

Overall, another Democratic surrender.

That said, I want to wish a Happy Memorial Day in advance to the families of the almost 2,000 more troops who will die in Iraq (and countless more wounded troops, and dead/wounded Iraqi civilians) before Bush leaves office, at which time this war will still be going strong, while the Democrats continue to "triangulate" and listen to their consultants, rather than their constituents.

I beg to differ, Mr. Koppelman. Status as an UNLAWFUL enemy combatant is hardly a technicality.

Only UNLAWFUL enemy combatants can be tried by military commissions. That UNLAWFULNESS is THE MOST PERTINENT FACTOR in accusing and proving culpability of the individual detainees. Absent accusation and proof of that UNLAWFULNESS, the detainees are simply ordinary enemy combatants, and enemy combatants are ordinarily entitled to the protections under the Geneva convention. Which is exactly what the Bush/Pentagon lawyers are trying to withhold from the detainees, and have withheld from them for over 5 years.

Simply put, the Bush/Pentagon lawyers have to choose a legal theory and stick with it--they can't have it both ways.

Hoo boy! Who coulda seen this coming?

The Democrats bail in large numbers on the single most important issue to voters last November, and the Democrats' poll numbers actually plummet! The Democrats betray the voters who gave them a majority, and the voters disapprove! How could anyone have predicted such a thing?

Time to huddle again with those consultants. (Eight time loser)Bob Shrum, here they come!

Repeat after me, Rahm--"Triangulate!"

Yep--according to the "deep-thinker" Bill Kristol, Libby was "convicted of lying about a crime that the prosecutor can't even prove was committed"--but what he and the GOP noise machine conveniently ignore is that the prosecutor couldn't prove it because Libby LIED! In Fitzgerald's words, Libby "threw sand in the eyes" of the investigators. Kristol's circular reasoning wouldn't satisfy a fourth grader. But it seems to satisfy our uncritical mainstream media.

Apparently, lying about treasonous activities (or being convicted of actual treasonous activities) is acceptable--(see Libby and Cap Weinberger), but a lie about a "hummer" in the Oval Office constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors." Yet, nobody in the mainstream media seems to pick up on this hypocrisy either!

I said it three months ago on Salon, and I'll say it again--the ultimate outcome in this drama is inevitable, "a pardon will be granted by Dubya on Christmas Eve when nobody is paying attention--just like Daddy did with Cap Weinberger."