Keith hit the nail right on the head when He said Who among us will stop this war! After all, the idiots in this administration have gotten us into such a mess it is a legitimate question.Their is nobody in Washington that can turn this quagmire around and this administration wants to toss it around like a hot coal until January 2009 and then it's BACK TO THE BRUSH PATCH to do the only thing this idiot seems to be any good at!!! Tommie27

"Ouch. To me, it was a little over the top."

No, not at all. How is this over the top, even a little? We have a situation here where the elected representatives of the people utterly fail to respond to the desires of said people. The craven, disgusting political calculations that entered into the decision of the Democrats to give this president exactly what he wanted all along are worthy only of our most profound contempt.

Political cartoonist Don Wright of the Palm Beach Post had it right all along. Go to http://cagle.msnbc.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/donwright.asp, and fetch the 9/28/05 cartoon.

How's THIS for over the top? You, Joan, and everybody else who isn't screaming bloody murder at the Democrats to DEFUND the Iraq horror, are nothing more than Bush enablers with blood on your hands. Take your oh so smug "a little over the top" and shove it.

There are two things that we need to start saying to ourselves and one another aloud and often and in the media:

"The soldiers are dying for nothing."

"The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the death of Americans."

Thanks, Keith for having the courage to say it.

What was the Democratic leadership afraid of?

They've given the game away without helping Iraq, America, or our troops. And Bush lost .... nothing. He even looks stronger to his base by refusing to be "a uniter."

The congressional leadership now, at best "lacks all conviction." Hardly a clarion call for 2008.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the Democrats should be so timid about the prospect of being accused of defunding the troops at this point. What would happen if they simply refused to send Bush a bill without timelines in it? They could tinker with some of the other details, but stand firm on that central point. They could send him bill after bill including timelines if necessary. And every time he vetoes one or attempts to smear them for failing to support the troops they could scream to high heaven with the truth... that HE AND HE ALONE is responsible for blocking the funding that the DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS keeps passing! The public, who overwhelmingly want firm action to bring this misbegotten misadventure to an end, would applaud! What the Democrats should fear is the backlash of anger and disillusionment that they will face if they fail to do what they wwere elected to do and force a change in the administration's disastrous Iraq policy

Thye "compromise" that is being reported looks way too much like a complete capitulation, and will certainly be portrayed as such by the Republicans and their CORPORATE CONTROLLED CONSERVATIVE MEDIA. That only plays into all the stereotypes of weakness that the Democrats are constantly having to battle and will make it all the harder for them to stand up to Bush decisively in the future, on this or any other vital issue.

If they passed the same thing again, it would be vetoed again. They have tried three times, and they can put a veto-proof bill through the Senate. Yes, it stinks, and it stings. But we have Liebermans and Blue Dogs. The Republicans who know this war is wrong won't vote against it. So what's the alternative, exactly?

Now the pressure comes with convincing enough people, starting about, oh, September, that they should vote with us.

Sorry, but zeal doesn't work in the Senate.

then you and Salon are no better than the Democrats who caved in.

With all the Obama bashing and promotion of people like Paglia and Dickerson, I suspected that you and Salon just don't get it.

With this comment, now I know for sure.

Heading over to Huffington and Alternet for a while for some common sense, because it seems to be sorely lacking around here lately...

How about below the belt? Because that's exactly where these simpering, ineffectual cowards-- elected with a mandate to do something about this quagmire/fiasco and still enjoying the support of the majority-- have socked it to the American people.

Keith's got it just right in my book and how sad that he's one of the few to call this shameful retreat from principled representative democracy exactly what it is. Would that Salon were just as clear and just as on point with this issue!

"To me, it was a little over the top."

The problem with our political discourse isn't that it's uncivil. It's that it's too civil; so civil, rigid, fake, and disconnected from the real world that when somebody has anything more extreme than a mild, finger-wagging "you shouldn't do that" type of response to the enablers of MASS DEATH AND INSANITY, it's "a little over the top."

What a load of crap.

1) While 70% of Americans say they oppose the war, they balk at stopping it by defunding it. Poll after poll typically has approval of defunding the war at or below 50% at best.

2) E. J. Dionne pointed out what has become conventional wisdom: The last time the Democrats stopped a war by defunding it -- Vietnam -- the Republicans pushed their Dolchstoß 2.0 "we woulda won if not for the cowardly traitor backstabbing Democrats taking away our funding!" spiel to electoral gains. (Except that they really didn't -- remember, this was 1974, the height of Watergate. They actually did well that year, picking up 49 seats in the house and three in the Senate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections%2C_1974 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections%2C_1974.)

I meant to say that in 1974, the Dems picked up 49 House and 3 Senate seats -- some "punishment" for ending the Vietnam War.