Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Edwards Runs Against the Senate

There are many reasons why no senator since John F. Kennedy in 1960 has been directly elected from the world's greatest deliberative body to the White House. But no reason is larger than the fact that the Senate votes and votes (and votes) on controversial measures -- forcing members who go on to seek the White House to go on the record time and time again on matters they would probably prefer to let pass.

The latest reminder of the difficulty of running for and winning the White House while holding a Senate seat comes as congressional Democrats ponder their next move following President Bush's veto of an Iraq funding bill that included a firm deadline for the withdrawal of American troops.

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) is seeking to draw a stark contrast with his rivals in the Senate by launching television ads urging his former colleagues to send Bush the same bill again and again.

That didn't sit well with Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who released a statement late last week insisting that Edwards should have stayed in the Senate and fought the president's plan rather than retiring after a single term in 2004.

"We wish that Senator Edwards was still in the Senate for this important fight," said Dodd spokeswoman Christy Setzer. "If we can't get his vote in the Senate, of course we would welcome Senator Edwards's support for Senator Dodd's plan...rather than the incremental, 18-month approach he has proposed."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sounded a similar note, telling The Hill newspaper that he liked Edwards "but he's not in the Senate; I am. ... He doesn't have to cast votes here in the Senate; we do."

Other Democrats grumbled privately that Edwards should know better than to throw rhetorical bombs at his former colleagues for simply doing their job.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who has received the most criticism from the party's liberal wing for her refusal to apologize for her 2002 vote in favor of the use of force resolution against Iraq, took another approach in response to Edwards's call for action -- cosponsoring legislation with Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) that would deauthorize the war in Iraq this fall on the fifth anniversary of the initial vote.

According to a statement released on Friday by Edwards, the Clinton-Byrd legislation isn't acceptable, nor is a bill being pushed by Reid, Dodd and Sen. Russ Feingold (Wisc.) that would set a date certain for both withdrawing American troops and de-funding of the war.

Here's a long excerpt from Edwards's statement: "This is deja vu all over again. We saw it in Vietnam and we saw it earlier this year. We don't need any more non-binding resolutions or big statements; we need to end the war. I've been in Washington, so I understand the urge to make a statement -- but in this situation, statements can be an excuse for inaction. Congress has a clear choice -- they can talk about ending the war, or they can just end it. The only way for Congress to end the war is to cut off the money for it, and they should concentrate on doing just that. Anything else is just noise." (Read the full text here.)

Make no mistake. The statement by Edwards was aimed directly at Clinton. "I've been in Washington, so I understand the urge to make a statement," he says, "but in this situation statements can be an excuse for inaction." Put simply: Clinton doesn't get points for joining a deauthorization bill.

While his former colleagues won't like it, Edwards seems set on taking full advantage of the fact that he won't have to cast a single vote on Iraq between now and the 2008 election. The Senate is by its very nature an incremental body; in order to avoid filibusters and get anything passed, compromises must be struck.

Clinton acknowledged as much on the campaign trail earlier this year when faced with questions about the impact (or lack thereof) of passing a non-binding resolution condemning President Bush's Iraa "surge" plan. "I know that is hard medicine for people," Clinton said during a town hall meeting in Keene, N.H., in February of the Senate's incremental approach. She has repeatedly preached the politics of the possible on the stump, pointedly avoiding making promises that can't be kept.

Edwards is well aware of the institutional challenges inherent in the Senate. He knows the most likely outcome legislatively is some sort of compromise bill that does not insist on a firm deadline for troop withdrawal or cutting off funding. And he knows that people like Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) -- his main rivals at this point for the Democratic presidential nomination -- will have to vote on this bill and others like it over the next months.

By calling on Congress (and particularly the Senate) to take action on the war, Edwards is putting himself in a no-lose situation. Pass a bill outlining the changes in policy he has called for, and Edwards can say the Senate followed his lead. Vote for any bill that comes short of Edwards's proposal, and he can condemn his rivals for a lack of grit under fire.

The strategy won't win him any friends in the Senate, but it just might win him votes in the Democratic primaries.

IN TODAY"S POST: "On Poverty, Edwards Faces Old Hurdles," by Alec MacGillis.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 7, 2007; 5:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: GOP Debate: Winners and Losers
Next: Hagel Keeps Door Open For Indie Run


Nothing is as it seems in JEP's world.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 8, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else ever wondered if Zook isn't really the stupidest Republicna on the blogs, but actually a genius Democrat, who knows just how to get us all fired-up?

The only way Zook the Kook could ever be redeemed or recognized as intelligent is if he proves to be a Democrat.

If he's a Republican, he's the dumbest troll on the blogs, bar none. But if he's been a Democrat all along, and he's just masterfully pushing all our buttons, for whatever reason...(spiking up a boring blog a bit, maybe, or just getting many more posters to add their own indignant anti-zook comments??)

Get it, if Zook's a Republican, he's just as stupid as he sounds, but if he's a Democrat, he's a genius.

Posted by: JEP | May 8, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

This guy votes to give Bush the authorization as a member of the senate, and now is putting pressure on the senate to do something about the mess that he helped create?

All this guy cares about is polls. He was a centrist in 04 cause that was his opening and now he is the most liberal guy on the field who captures opportunity after opportunity for a photo op (announcement from New Orleans)

Posted by: Confused | May 8, 2007 9:34 AM | Report abuse

With-out being incredibly insulting, I also live in NC and there is great disdain for Sen Edwards.I wouod have liked to have seen some of this retoric during his vote to authorize the war.He nor Hillary had the strenth to stand against the President and therefore have no credibilty to talk now.The article is correct, Now that he is out of congress he can play both end.I would respect him if he sttod up in 2004, but what everyone forgets is that people are dying, people are loosing limbs, and Soldiers are going crazy due to this war.Forget politics, lets stop the game of politics for just one freaking year and get real.

Posted by: Kwame | May 7, 2007 8:11 PM | Report abuse

With-out being incredibly insulting, I also live in NC and there is great disdain for Sen Edwards.I wouod have liked to have seen some of this retoric during his vote to authorize the war.He nor Hillary had the strenth to stand against the President and therefore have no credibilty to talk now.The article is correct, Now that he is out of congress he can play both ends,what everyone forgets is that people are dying, people are loosing limbs, and going crazy due to this war.Forget politics, lets stop the game f politics for just one freaking year and get real.

Posted by: Kwame | May 7, 2007 8:06 PM | Report abuse

I like your wordage euni84. "keeping it fresh." That's a good way to put it. The republicans tend to give an answer, any answer, then the topic is done. The right is off talking about Anna nicole now, or Rosie. I think it's important to keep the REAL topics in the news. Keep people talking about "what is". The right will try and sabatoge the debate any chance they get. Just like the government. Divide and conquer is their goal. Fear/hate/intolerance are their tools

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 7, 2007 7:34 PM | Report abuse

I think it's great the Edwards is forcing Democrats and Republicans alike to continue to stay strong on this issue by keeping it fresh. When we are fighting a war that we were misled into fighting and causing more tumult in the Middle East, something needs to be done to force an end. We have spent over $340 billion in Iraq, with the price tag rising, and no good has come out of it. There is no peace, no end to terror and worst of all we have left the Iraqi people in deeper poverty.

According to the Borgen Project, $340 billion has already been spent in Iraq and we have a $522 billion military budget. What has resulted from that money? The money would be better spent on plans such as the UN Millennium Development Goals to end global poverty. Just $19 billion annually can end starvation and malnutrition. Issues such as poverty foster a lot of the tensions that exist in the world today. As leaders in this world, we really need to get behind peaceful growth rather than war.

Posted by: euni84 | May 7, 2007 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Chris, why is there this universal assumption that the Democrats must and will send a watered-down version of the defense appropriations bill back to the President's desk? Why, why, why? Sending the exact same bill back to the President is a perfectly legitimate and defensible route of action. Why won't you and others in the media take it seriously?

Posted by: Nathaniel Strauss | May 7, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse


"Paramedic Annette Gasten and her German shepherd, Greta, had a grim weekend searching amid the piles of wreckage left by one of the strongest tornadoes to rake across the Plains.

Every business on Greensburg's main street was demolished and officials estimate as much as 95 percent of the town was destroyed. Tree trunks stood bare, stripped of most of their branches. All the churches were destroyed.

At least eight people in this community of 1,500 were dead, putting the state's total death toll at 10. No one was found Sunday in the debris.

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said Sunday evening that the state's response will likely be hampered because much of the equipment usually positioned around the state to respond to emergencies -- including tents, trucks and semitrailers - is now in Iraq. Read more...

This is just another example of how the extended occupation of Iraq has left us more vulnerable at home. Imagine if the ferocious F-5 tornado that hit Greensburg had hit a major city. A sad side note to this tragedy, 4 troops from Ft. Riley, Kansas and a reserve police officer were arrested for looting cigarettes and alcohol from a local Greensburg store. Apparently, they weren't part of any official detachment and it's not clear why they were there."

fAILINGS of a big government, right zouk? In you twisted world sabotaging the government. Failing every time a tragedy occurs. It's not those in leadership roles fault, right zouk? It is all because of big government. If we eliminate most of the american governmetn it will all be better, right zouk?

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 7, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

roo, that is about the weakest piece I have seen in a long time. Even for an avowed Lib who loves surrender. no wonder you poor Democrats are always on defense. accusing me of using Lib tactics is most amusing. but the readers of this blog are not fooled by your feeble attempts at shaping the conversation in such a stilted way. no wonder al queda wants a Dem to win. Remember their commercial for Kerry?

Moral: if you can't win on facts or policy, silence the opposition and spin the press. Dem tactics. don't forget the personal insults you use so well.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 7, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP--Yeah, that democracy thing sure is HORRIBLE. We must do all in our power to prevent it.

Posted by: roo | May 7, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

.."democrats didn't run the government like a bunch of lackies. The had oversight. they held the president responsible. "

dufus1133 - your revisionist history is laughable.

Why would you assume that conspiracies only occur when Republicans are in office? You really should get that paranoia checked.

Why do you keep chanting "all power to the people"? If you chose to allign yourself with a terrorist group such as the Black Panther Party that used this slogan in the 60's, then we can expect you and idealogical delusions to go the way of your chosen leaders: collapse due to megalomania, corruption, drugs, and narcissism.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 7, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Dan, I'm not saying the Democrats should get credit for getting us out of Iraq. After all, we're still in Iraq. But the fact is that the Democrats have a very narrow majority in Congress, and there's no way Bush will sign any bill that involves ending his war. The Democrats deserve credit for what they've done, which is get the bill to Bush's desk. Considering that they've done that, it's ludicrous to complain that they haven't made any progress on that promise.

On another note, I refuse to tell my friends about the gas-out, because it's a stupid idea. If people don't buy gas on May 15, then they'll get it May 14 or 16. The oil companies will get exactly the same amount of money. A concentrated effort to use less gas would have a real effect; delaying a purchase a day or two is meaningless.

Posted by: Blarg | May 7, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

That's right Dan W. But we have the internet now. Just because there have been murders in the past doesn't mean we should allow murders today, correct? We are in teh middle of one of these "said conspirisies" right not. Rather than hiding from it, or denying it. The only way to ensure this will not happen again, is to stop it. To show the consequenes of what happens when someone does this?

If you cover up or lie, you go to jail. If not now then NEVER? We cannot look the other way. We have the internet now. A politican cannot go to one location say something, than go and say the reciporical somwhere else. We have the internet now. These lies and "conspircies" can be proved now. Once they are, we have to hold those responsible. IF NOT THE WAR THE RIGHT WINFG HAS BEEN WAGING AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR OVER 120 YEARS WILL NEVER BE WON. All power back to the people

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 7, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Rufus: This has been going on for a long time. Remember the Maine? There has always been speculation that the Maine sinking was allowed to happen to draw the Us into war. Same goes for Pearl Harbor. Many conspiracy theorists believe FDR knew of the attack and allowed it to happen.

Hell, Lincoln probably knew about the attack on Fort Sumter.

Posted by: Dan W | May 7, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Like I said earlier. We've had democratic house senate and president. The democrats didn't run the government like a bunch of lackies. The had oversight. they held the president responsible. This conservative movement is nothing but yes-men and cronies. Sell-outs, I'll say it again. Sorry to anyone who takes offense. You should watch news other than Fox and see why EVERYBODY else in the world is so angry. You cannot live the the conservative cave forever.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 7, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Public service announcement to anyone new to the blog.

We, the Evil Libs, are intentionally ignoring the poster known as kingofzouk. Not because we are afraid to take him on, not because we are afraid to discuss issues with him.

In fact, as you may notice, we do discuss those very same issues with several of the other staunch conservatives, just not KOZ.

The reason we ignore kingofzouk is that he lacks the intellectual honesty required by a serious debate. His posts--rife with opinions and conjecture presented as facts along with the rare but easily disprovable links or citations--have been rebutted several times. Usually he responds to this in one of three ways: 1) ignore the response completely, 2) make a strawman against a single part of the rebuttal while ignoring the rebuttal itself or 3) admits he was lying or exaggerating and explains that "only perception matters, not the facts."

Enjoy the good parts of the conversation. Keep your hands and feet inside the vehicle and do not feed the trolls.

Posted by: roo | May 7, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

tHAT WOULD WORK DAN W, getting other repubs to sign on. If the republican movement had not sold this country would to the defense lobby. It's hard to cross aisles and work with the right when they all look like the ignorant monkey; ie See no evil hear no evil speak no evil.

Sell-outs. I think once the democrats take over they should throw all in jail. What George Bush did would have been call treason 100 years ago. How did they handle treason and selling your country out to line your own pockets back then?

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 7, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

FW: No Gas On May 15th ..

Passing it on, tell your friends....

NO GAS...On May 15th 2007

Don't pump gas on MAY 15th

In April 1997, there was a "gas out" conducted nationwide in protest of gas prices.  Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight.

On May 15th 2007, all internet users are to not go to a gas station in protest of high gas prices. Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places.

There are 73,000,000+ American members currently on the internet net work, and the average car takes about 30 to 50 dollars to fill up.

If all users did not go to the pump on the 15th, it would take $2,292,000,000.00 (that's almost 3 BILLION) out of the oil companies pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on May 15th and let's try to put a dent in the oil industry for at least one day.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

well im leaving this thread, zouks starting to insult people,its people like him that's driving away the moderates.

to the brainless Lib above - I am blogging, Libs are rioting. who needs to be babysat?

obiously you. you want to sit here and throw temper tanturums fine. but some conservatives have jobs. what do you do?

Posted by: former gop | May 7, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Blarg, No credit there. They don't get credit for out of Iraq until they get out of Iraq. If the Pres is the prob they need to figure out how to get around him. The Constitution gives several methods.

The best method is to create a bill that their R colleages in congress will support to sustain the Veto. Statesmanship, governance, leadership. Pick a word.

Create a bill the moderates can get behind, get it vetoed and ouverride it.

And thank you for putting that Schoolhouse Rock song back into my head. It refuses to go away...

Posted by: Dan W | May 7, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Spartan, stop making sense, you can be kicked out of the Democrat party for that.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 7, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, I am not surprised all your knowledge comes from cartoons.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 7, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

here's the actual story

Sunday, May 6, 2007; 9:28 PM

SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea is considering using one of its state-run banks to act as an intermediary to transfer North Korean funds out of a Macau bank, a South Korean newspaper reported on Monday.

Pyongyang has demanded the transfer $25 million in assets at Macau-based Banco Delta Asia as a condition for starting the shutdown of its nuclear facilities under a February 13 deal among six countries.

North Korea missed a April 14 deadline for the start of the nuclear shutdown.

never mind the fact that they are stalling until the nkoreans get the money. they still have nuclear weapons, so accoring to zouk thats a victory. gee i call that appeasement.

Posted by: zouk's anoymous stalker | May 7, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

"Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure"

you think these people should be making decisions for us?

the more truth is revealed, the lower the Dems sink. wait until the voters find out about the social security fraud that has been perpetrated on them, which the Dems are defending to the death.

to the brainless Lib above - I am blogging, Libs are rioting. who needs to be babysat?

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 7, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats delivered on withdrawal from Iraq. They sent a bill to start withdrawal to the president last week. He vetoed it. Somehow that's the Democrats' fault?

See, you don't understand how a bill becomes a law. Watch the cartoon.

Posted by: Blarg | May 7, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

All right, Zouk. Put down the Twinkies and back slowly away from the convenience store counter with your hands in the air. Yes, even though you need them to hold your pants up.

Posted by: the Sheriff | May 7, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

aside from zouk's rantings about the dems not passing laws and the 60's(stay on topic buddy), here's the thing about edwards. the guy's like 3rd in the polls right? it really doesnt hurt him saying that the de-authorizing bill doesnt go far enough. i dont know what is short of de funding,which ill admit congress wont do,because 1)did it before in vietnam and earned the "soft on defense" tag and 2)we dont know whats going to happen 1,2 maybe even 5 years from now.

heres what we should do over there.
1)kick everyones asses-shia and sunni. sorry this doesnt sound liberal but letting them have target pratice on us isnt a stratgy.
2)seal the boarders, no more al quidia or forigen fighters coming in and out.
3)get the neighbors more involved. if it means having to talk to syria and iran, so be it.
4)force a political solution. ultimately its going to have to happen. trying to solve this millitarily is going to prolong the war.

ya know sometimes i feel sorry for congress, they have to go about this slowly and thoughtfully. if they could they could pull out tommorrow they would. but you also have to consider the consiquences of the matter. thats why you havent seen the dem laws passed in the senate. other than a repubican president and a 49+1 joe liberman willing to hold up anything.comprimise has to rule until there's a majority either way.

well thats my 2 cents, now back to the shrill partisan bikering thats going on now.

Posted by: spartan | May 7, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Bush is down to 28 percent approval -- see Lois Romano chat transcript.

At this rate his invitation to the 2008 GOP convention might get "lost in the mail."

If they do let him in, and even speak, look for plenty of ads from the Dem candidate showing Bush arm in arm with whatever poor sap is the GOP nominee.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | May 7, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Only rufas would think that more voices equal proof. that is why Dems do the furious push-polling and rely upon scientific "consensus" for global warming bonafides.

"In fact, there has been very little progress on any of the priorities Democrats laid out in their "New Direction For America." Lower gas prices? Stem-cell research? Withdrawal from Iraq? Pension reform? The Democrats have failed to deliver on any of these alleged priorities. "

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 7, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Zouk needs a job to keep him off the blogs and out of trouble

Posted by: chi town hustler | May 7, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Rufus: Actually I belong to the crowd that thinks we have given the Iraqis enough time to pull themselves together. I am just being realistic about the result of the end of the Occupation. I am not defending the president in my above comments, I am defending the Rs in Congress who are choosing to prevent a massive bloodletting in Iraq. However, I can be easily convinced that most of the Rs are looking after Corporate interests in Iraq. It is just my naive hope that some of the Rs are being responsible in trying to prevent the duplication of history.
Note that I am not going to bash the Ds (and Rs) who are placing the will of teh American people over the lives of Iraq post withdrawal.
As you said we don't live in a monarchy, I remind you we don't live in a democracy either. As a Republic, we elect representatives to do what is in our best interests, not what we want them to do.

Posted by: Dan W | May 7, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

North Korea Ready To Shut Down Reactor North Korea is ready to quickly shut down its nuclear reactor as soon as it receives funds that had been frozen in a banking dispute

blame it on Bush

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 7, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Zouk is a coward and a schizophrenic. Posting as multiple users to proves points. What a facsist. This blog is a joke because of him. Peace in the middle east. Screw the facsist right wing movement. Your time is up. Rush/Coulter/Hannity/O'Reilly are done. Your movement is done. For today I'm done

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 7, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

troll=zouk. please dont feed him, he's too busy fighting old wars in the 60's and 70's. having to go back 10 years to find a old quote by a secatary of state from a news corp owned paper. can someone get a time machine and bring him to the present please?

Posted by: zouks anonymous stalker | May 7, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, where are the rest? Which of the promises made have been fulfilled?

When proven wrong, you don't skip a beat.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 7, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

A riot to show anger is better than the other option. The right-wing militant gun loving option, isn't it Zouk. They gotta do something. The right in these countries loves to falsify elections. We know that from our history of false elcetions here

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 7, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Albright responded by telling Senator Byrd, "This is playing with fire. In the Balkans, signs of impatience can be misinterpreted as symptoms of weakness. We cannot afford that in a region where weakness attracts vultures."

Ms. Albright went on, "We will not achieve our goals in Southeast Europe if our eyes are always on the clock and our focus is solely on what others do. We are more than bookkeepers and spectators. We are leaders, and our fundamental objective in Southeast Europe is not to leave. It's to win." The same reasoning applies to Iraq."

My those words are distasteful the second time around.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 7, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Zouk said that the Democratic Congress has passed zero laws. That is provably false. When proven wrong, he doesn't skip a beat, just switches his point of attack and keeps babbling.

I didn't say that those were important laws. But the fact is that they are laws, which were passed by Congress. And this isn't the full list of all laws passed; it's the list of laws in the past 2 weeks. So Zouk's statement that he's repeated numerous times is completely and totally false.

Posted by: Blarg | May 7, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

"Riot Follows Sarkozy Victory Riot police fired tear gas at stone-throwing protesters gathered in central Paris yesterday to demonstrate against the presidential election victory of right-winger Nicolas Sarkozy"

Angry rioting liberals - isn't it always. they only fight at home against the police and other pols. never willing to go abroad and fight actual enemies.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 7, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Come Dan W. I know your smarter than that. This is like Vietnan because of teh lead-up to the war. Because of the lies and cover-ups. What happened to Nixon? He didn't go willingly did he. He threw everyone under the bus he could before he, ultimatly, was made to be held accountable. If only the right would do what's right for the country rather that what is good for each individual. This is a government for and by the people. This i not a monarchy

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 7, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Blarg: Not meaning to side with the flamer but one of those bills renames a building. You are right, they did pass laws, but I really don't see this being that important.
Didn't read them all so will cut the statement there since I am not fluent in Legaleze.

As to how a bill becomes a law is irrelevant. I do not consider the Rs in congress to being obstructionists when they represent the views of the people who elected them. I personally am against raising the minimum wage at a federal level (it should be set state by state). So I am happy that there are representatives in congress who are representing my view on this matter.

Similarly with timetables and such for getting out of Iraq. Many people in this country want the US out of Iraq NOW. Now tell me, how are those same people going to react when the ethnic cleansing begins in Baghdad. Everyone compares this occupation to Vietnam. Well read the history books on what happened in Vietnam and Cambodia when the US left. Many people believe the forward looking analogy will continue and repeat history.

Posted by: Dan W | May 7, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

blarg - Animal fighting and building naming. I don't remember those from the 100 hours promise. These six are it.

this is so typical of the Dem response. find one tiny crack in the big argument and try to conflate it into a giant rebutttal of the entire point. but what really happens is that you remove your disguise and we see that you have no legs to stand on and wish to hide the truth.

Blarg, please report on the status of the campaign promises. I can save you some time:

All promises broken.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 7, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

zouk-what the hell are you babbling about? ill respond if you start to make sense.

Posted by: spartan | May 7, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards version 1, whom ran for senate in 1998 here in the Tarheel state isn't the John Edwards he was in 1998. Yes, he had made his living suing the pants off of corporations and individuals. But, he turned that into "John Edwards, working hard for the little man's rights." He promised to cast swift votes to make insurance more affordable, to fight for a strong tobacco buyout bill...ha, what a freakin joke, to fight North Carolina values...ha, another freakin joke. As soon as he got to Washington, he turned into a liberal who was all about anything but NC values. He bagan pandering to the left in 1999 after he arrived in Washington, and has forgotten all about his home states here in the Carolina's. That's why he's not leading in SC right now, although I wouldn't be surprised if he won the early state. Who knows whom Easley will endorse, if anyone? I doubt he endorses anyone, b/c if a Dem. wins, he'd like an education cabnit post. I can see him getting it under Clinton, Edwards or Richardson. Perhaps, he could even be in line for a VP nod. If I had to guess right now I'd say #1 condenters for the VP nod would be: Bayh, Richardson, Easley, Warner or Vilsack. Edwards will lose the democratic nomination, will not picked for a cabnit post and will, hopefully, move back to Chapel Hill to his liberal fest.

Posted by: reason | May 7, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

And that's where we're at now dan w. A constitutional showdown. I agree that impeaching the president is moot at this point. If it was going to be done it should have been done 3 years ago.

That doesn't mean there should be letigation. This war is illeagal. Lying to the American people is illegal, but somehow covering it up is more illegal. The only why to regain control of this country is to show the people the LAWS apply to everybody. I sincerly hope Bush and ALL his cronies get serious jail time. For our futures sake. So we can tell our kids america is a good just country again.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 7, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

This site lists all the bills that have recently become laws. There are 6 bills listed which have become law in the last 2 weeks.

But don't let this stop you from repeating that "ZERO laws passed" thing. Why let the truth get in the way of a good lie?

Posted by: Blarg | May 7, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"WASHINGTON (AP) - The races for both parties' presidential nominations are showing signs of tightening. Yet a closer look at the numbers also reveals intriguing crosscurrents that raise questions about how solid the presumed Democratic advantage may be in November 2008. "

The press will try to make this look inevitable for hillary, despite all facts to the contrary.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 7, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Interesting that Edwards will win votes from the Democtrats by insisting that the Senate refuse to do its job (Which is to debate and PASS legislation). REpeatedly sending the same bill so that the President can up his veto count is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they created the Constitution (then again I doubt they envisioned a President that would be so insistant on maintaining an occupation that was so patently contrary to the other leaders of the Republic).

The job of the Senate is to create laws and oversight the President. If they are really against the ocupation, they need to revoke the authorization and end the occupation. If the Pres refuses to comply we run into a Constitutional challenge and review of the War Powers Act. Congress can then Impeach The Pres for violating the Occupation Termination Resolution. Hell they can Impeach the President for Vetoing the funding measure. (My point here is you can Impeach the President for anything you can get 2/3 of congress to agree, there is NO real definition of what classifies as crimes for which officials can be impeached (What exactly is a High Crime or Misdemeanor anyway). As long as the House impeaches and Senate confirms there doesn't need to be a real reason. Of course they will never impeach Bush...Repeat after me - President Cheney - (The real reason Bush will never be impeached.)

Posted by: Dan W | May 7, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"I've lived next to the poor and I know why I'm not poor."


Posted by: JEP | May 7, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

zouk's trying to refight the 60's because some hippy girl didnt give him any free love or had a bad acid trip. time to come into the 21 century,zouk. let the 60's die already.

Posted by: check the calender zouk, its 2007 | May 7, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

"Basically, you're excited that the Democrat beat the Green."

aw jeese blarg dont tell him that, since he's all happy about that.

Posted by: spartan | May 7, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

It would seem the Democrats are the ones who don't understand how a bill becomes law. go back and review the promises - lower gas prices, min wage (complete misunderstanding of economics). and the rest. who's fault is it now that the Dems control both houses - the repubs? another waffle on Libs part.

did you know that the new French president's nickname is "the american" . what would you clintonista vocabulary experts say about the meaning of that?

something to contemplate:

"Meanwhile, corruption and demagogy are standard on the Left, because Democrats are never, ever scrutinized. They know the press will let them get away with it.

Rarely in American history is morality and common decency so clearly on one side of the political divide. Republicans have no lock on decency. But the Sixties Left is cynical, self-indulgent and flagrantly immoral --- as Nicolas Sarkozy just pointed out in France. The Summer of Love turned into a Winter of Moral Decay a long time ago. It's too bad, but it's true. The Left is still drunk with self-love, enchanted with its divine right to political power. That won't change, because narcissism is not a curable condition."

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 7, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Your right zouk. Tell people to wear red or die. Throw people in jail or don't hire them if they wear any color but red. It's amazing how many people will wear red. The truth is out. You cannot legistate your conservative movement. There is a thing called freedom in america. These tricks may work in austraila or other countries without the freedom we have. You right-wing facsist movement will not work here because I won't let it, and people like me. We will never be Ronald Reagan slaves/clones. Without individuality we would all be the same. There would be no Tom Jefferson, Ben Franklin, George Washington, Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, Tom Edison, Dion Snaders. What do these people have in common? They are individuals. That is what america is founded on. If we are all mormon clones hwo would america look? How creative would we be. If your movement wins, creativity/freedom loses. NOT IN MY LIFETIME.


Posted by: rufus1133 | May 7, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is speaking TO the Senate FOR the People, and our Senators should understand it that way. The public wants us out of Iraq, and Edwards is using his campaign to remind Congress of that fact...

The clear mandate to end the war that was put forth in the November 2006 election should be proof enough. Edwards is speaking for that majority in his ads.

The message was clearly "END THIS WAR!"

If the President won't do it NOW, and we must wait until 2009 just to preserve his poorly constructed delusion, how many more Americans will die, halfway round the world, just to protect the big oil and Texas contractors and all their phony no-bid, multi-billion-dollar construction projects.

Baghdad and Iraq have become the ultimate contractor's easy-money honey-hole. They have US military AND a shadow contractor mercenary military there to protect them, as they profit from their own abject, unchecked failures.

Really, just what ARE our soldiers dong there? What are they protecting?

Posted by: JEP | May 7, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

You're bragging because one of the more conservative candidates won in France. (Not the most conservative candidate, of course. He was knocked out in the first round.) In doing so, you're ignoring the fact that Sarkozy is not at all conservative by American standards. Basically, you're excited that the Democrat beat the Green.

By the way, you keep saying that no laws have been passed, as if that's the fault of the Democrats. Do you know how a bill becomes a law? There's a "Schoolhouse Rock" episode about it you might be able to understand, if you watched it a few times.

Posted by: Blarg | May 7, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

zouk-what the hell are you babbling about? ill respond if you start to make sense.

Posted by: spartan | May 7, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, by your own logic, the Dems didn't win the last election then, since most of the Dems elected would be GOPs in different states. this is a desperate argument.

spartan, what happened to all hail France and germany when they were on your side? What happened to foreign policy according to UN decree? Conveneiently abandoned by the roadside when it no longer fits your purpose? Is there a single morality or principle the Dems would stand by regardless of situation?

the point was that the tide is turning, the direction is changing. you may dispute how fast, but the internet has voided the truth blackout the Liberals have enjoyed for so long. Once the truth is revealed, the Dems/Libs/socialists inevitably lose. and the fake polls don't matter. Only elections matter.

OK, so the Dems won the US election, what have they done with it - ZERO laws passed. Is this what you expected when you pulled that lever? More corruption, more earmarks, more spending, more partisan politics, more conniving and dissembling?

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 7, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

That's why MOST americans don't vote. They are not represented. I say we have left right center. Then the american people can decided what WE want, as opposed to the republicans telling us what we want

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 7, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

blarg-spot on, good comment. lets keep up with american politics instead instead of french politics.

Posted by: spartan | May 7, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

The red scare blarg. The red scare eliminated all "true" left wing parties. The concept of a real left wing is "un-american" by the irght. That is what I call facsism. That is called a monopoly. What happened to freedom? What happened to a government of the people?

If you disagree with us You will get fired, you will get thrown in jail. That is the conservative movement. The red scare was disigned to take out democracy much like the war on terror is designed to now take our freedom. The same people are involved at a differant level. ALL POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 7, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Of course, what's conservative by the standards of other countries is liberal by our standards. In most countries, the Democrats would be center-right, and there would be several parties to their left. So this supposed global "conservative wave" has nothing to do with American politics.

Posted by: Blarg | May 7, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

eh, excuse me "A". Edwards is dipping into Cheney territory? I think you've been dipping into a secret stash somewhere, becasue you're delussional. I can decompose you argument to support Obama to two one liners: If youre not a racist you will vote for Obama, which is so inane as to defy belief, and Obama is a fresh face, which defies what we see. Both "arguments", and I use the term very very loosely, of ignores the fact that Obamas biggest cheerleaders right now are the very same neocons that supported Bush and created the economic, moral and policies mess we are in right now. Ask yourself, why would these whack jobs and assorted corporate moral equavelants of pedophiles dump supporting people like McCane and Guiliana, et al? They are doing so because they have assurances from Obama and his camp that they can continue their business as usual. So, with Obama you will get the same outsourcing of jobs, the same guest worker programs, more H1B and L1 visas, plus you get a gun control nut, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Coporate bosses can continue the same immoral practices, selling out this country and it's workers. I dont think so! The current bumper stickers are W - Worst President ever. I agree. Electing Obama would erase that. I am thoroughly convinced that Mr. Obama would be an even worse nightmare than George Bush. I heaven't heard one candidate talk about jobs and corporate wrong doing other than John Edwards. If the experts are correct, however, and we do slide into a recession before the next election, you can count on the fact that jobs and outsourcing and guest workers will be THE issues. Obama and Clinton, running as they do with the corporate crowd, are all but unelectable in that sort of climate. McCane, Guliana, even a third party candidate, will attract more votes than either of them. People are fed up with "business as usual" and both Obama and Clinton represent " usual".

Posted by: MikeB | May 7, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

It's ok zouk. Where will you be without Rush/Coulter/O'Reilly/hannity/savage/drudge?

They don;t have much longer. What will you do without you brian/avatar?

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 7, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Watch for the highly partisan and insightful response by the Liberal intelligencia.

Moonbat alert!

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 7, 2007 01:03 PM

anyone find that ironic coming from zouk?

Posted by: anonymous | May 7, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

KOZ: I want more americans to die and think Bush is doing the right thing but don't have a clear idea of what that 'thing' is.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Watch for the highly partisan and insightful response by the Liberal intelligencia.

Moonbat alert!

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 7, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

It seems the liberal/socialist dream of world domination (or is that sublimation) is coming to an end. even the French have voted to end the insanity. This follows the Germans doing it a while ago. australia remains strong along with most of the new east europeans, the dutch, etc.

Meanwhile, the usual lemmings try to spin the facts to seem like they are in control. I suggest you socialists take a poll to prop up your numbers:

Pollster: now that the war is completely lost and the US is hated world wide, and President bush is completely to blame for tricking the super intelligent Democrats into voting for it, do you support saving american lives by withdrawing? Yes or NO?

Citizen: I don't want more americans to die, but think Bush is doing the right thing.

Pollster: I'll mark that down as hates bush, wants to surrender. goodbye.

As usual the propaganda doesn't match the actual votes. the conservative wave is building worldwide and the surrenderCrats are in retreat. but aren't they always?

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 7, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

That;s true JD. Most dems don't have the spine to pull funds. We know why though. The republicans would then blame everything on the dems. Even though the repblican party has had control for 10 years. Even though the republican party LEAD us into this position. I don;t get how anyone can BLAME the dems for trying to hold this TREASONOUS administration responsible. We know the right won;t hold them responsibile. Unlike democratic houses and senates in the past when the president is a dem. The house and senate always used their oversight duties before. But I know everything is the dems fault. Dittoheads these days

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 7, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

How convenient for Edwards that his non-Senatorial time now coincides with the growing anti-war sentiment in America and the '08 election. He seems to like having things both ways, and has no qualms with using his wife's unfortunate status and his change of heart on Iraq to his own political benefit.

But what about his flip-flop on the Yucca mountain issue, and nuclear energy?

He supported Yucca in the Senate in 2002. Now, he's against it and says he is against expanding nuclear power.

For candidates, the issue can be a tricky one. In addition to trying to win the electoral votes of Nevada, a small but critical swing state, they must also campaign in the many states eager to get rid of the waste sitting precariously at the plant sites in temporary storage.

This is just more evidence that Edwards will stop at nothing to claw his way up in the polls.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 7, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

It comes down to this: ---> If you believe that the war is lost, as Reid said, then you have the moral obligation to cut off funding NOW. Not keep sending the crybaby bill that cuts it off a few months from now, as Edwards suggests they should do. You either believe in the cause and fund the troops, or you don't and you pull all funding. This middle ground is silly politicking and reflects poorly on the Dems, trying to have it both ways.

Even myself, as a libertarian, believes that Iraq doesn't deserve us any more and we should pull out now. But nobody's got the balls to pitch that bill, at least nobody in power.

And the Dem senators telling Edwards to STFU are right - if he wanted to run for Senator, he should have run. Otherwise, he's way out of line to run those commercials.

Posted by: JD | May 7, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Anybody know why McCain did not even show up to vote on the Emergency Supplemental? Funding this war, and staying the surging course, McCain claims, is vital to American security. So vital, he is a no-show at vote time. Maybe he forgot about it?

Posted by: Mark Skudlarek | May 7, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

There is only one way to get our troops out of Iraq, and that is by cutting off the funding. All pols speak of how smart the voters are, another lie. For by cutting off funds for the troops in Iraq, it not only saves life but the phsy damage being done that will be with them forever. Yet each party will blame the other of not supporting the troops, when in fact the only way I can see that would actually supporting them would be to get out asap, and this could be done in a month or two, with safety.

Posted by: lylepink | May 7, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

John Edwards, in our opinion, doesn't stand a chance at being our next President. We neither like nor trust him. He's been campaigning for years and is only leading in Iowa - and not by a huge margin.

Posted by: Sarah and Henry Cobb | May 7, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

He's right on one front. All these people(dems) against the war and the republicans. But what are they voting? Edwards and Reid are right. If you believe this is illegal do something about it. The rebuplicans went after Bill Clinton for nothing. What Bush did was something. I'm begining to think the right had this all planned out. We can't impeach Bush, we just impeached clinton. We can't go to war with iran, we just invaded iraq. Very scary. The right has sold this country down the river

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 7, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

What a weak appearance by Edwards on This Week on Sunday.

A far cry from Hillary's detailed exit strategy from Iraq. Is that going to be his ultimate downfall again?: All fluff and no substance?

Posted by: mpp | May 7, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Edwards wants to shoot the Senate ducks in a barrel with lofty judgments even though he is part of the cowardly crowd that voted to give our frat boy "Commander Guy" the power to invade Iraq.

I like Clinton's proposal, recind that stupid decision to hand such power to Bush.

Or, pass a short-term funding bill, say for three or four months, and then reassess.... in effect setting benchmarks and deadlines.

Sending to Bush again the same full-funding legislation with deadlines is, as they say, that form of insanity where you do the same thing over expecting a different result.

Commander Guy won't change, so the approach to ending the war must.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | May 7, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

The tornado's wind was estimated to have reached 205 mph as it carved a track 1.7 miles wide and 22 miles long.

The National Weather Service classified it an F-5, the highest category and the first since the weather service revised its scale in an effort to classify the bigger storms now occuring, and their increased damage potential.

The governor said the state's response was limited by the shifting of emergency equipment, such as tents, trucks and semitrailers, to the war in Iraq.

"Not having the National Guard equipment, which used to be positioned in various parts of the state, to bring in immediately is really going to handicap this effort to rebuild."

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2007 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday, a new videotape from al Qaeda deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri was released, in which he expresses opposition to the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and says he wants 200,000-300,000 U.S. troops killed before the America pulls out.

Zawahiri says Congress' proposed Iraq timetable is evidence of American "frustration," but adds, "This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap."

This morning on Fox News, host Chris Wallace attempted to spin the Zawahiri tape. He repeatedly said Zawahiri "says the Democrats' troop pull-out bill is proof of a U.S. defeat," never once mentioning the fact that Zawahiri also advocated Bush's strategy of staying the course in Iraq.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2007 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Which candidates, either party, do you characterize as "straight shooters"?
I think Paul, Brownback, Kucinich, and Gravel are. Is there anyone else you have confidence in?

Posted by: Mouse | May 7, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse

'I've lived next to the poor and I know why I'm not poor.'

What kind of idiotic comment is this? Maybe because you weren't born poor?

'Lovely people, the poor. Have you met them?'

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2007 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Newt Gingrich is a nut. Yet he is fervently worshipped among the legions who also bend the knee to the "George II is Churchill" school of wingnuts--Limbaugh, Malkin, Medved, Hannity. Upon the radio show of the latter, Gingrich has hinted, broadly, and on numerous occasions, that he plans to enter the Republican presidential sweepstakes this September.

On Face the Nation yesterday, Newt Gingrich, this darling of the George II dead-enders, suddenly and savagely stuck a fork in George II, and pronounced him done.

"President Bush is not the future. He's not a solution. He doesn't solve Social Security. He doesn't solve Medicare. He doesn't solve the economy. He doesn't solve the environment. He doesn't solve education. He's a current fact."

When Host Bob Schieffer suggested that Gingrich seemed to advocat[e] steering clear of President Bush, Gingrich responded, "Well, I think that's clear."

Posted by: Ken | May 7, 2007 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Re all the comments about Edwards leading Republicans, I personally would vote for McCain over Edwards.

However I hope I won't have to and can instead vote Obama in the general.

Posted by: Golgi | May 7, 2007 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Edwards is running as a populist for the primaries but that is almost a sure fire loser in the general election. People who have a little something - surely, nothing like John Edwards has - will get scared. The Walter Reid scandal scared me off universal healthcare run by the government. If you have a little something, you have something to lose and it makes you very wary of politicians who talk big about "the poor." I've lived next to the poor and I know why I'm not poor.

But Edwards doesn't believe anything he says, just like he had no problem dropping his solid, outspoken support for attacking Iraq. He is very much like Mitt Romney: He'll be THE BIGGEST pusher of issues that appeal to the base.

Posted by: Tara | May 7, 2007 9:53 AM | Report abuse

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | May 7, 2007 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Edwards is a weather vane? Yeah, and what about Flipfloppin Mitt and Pandering McCain?

Posted by: Kathy | May 7, 2007 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Four years ago this week, US soldiers fired on a crowd of unarmed demonstrators outside a school in Fallujah, killing 13 civilians, including two children. Two days later, a US soldier fired a machine gun at another group of unarmed demonstrators outside a US army base. These incidents, and similar killings in Samarra and other towns in the Sunni Triangle - for which no US soldier was ever put on trial - played a critical role in sparking the Sunni insurgency against the US-UK occupation.

To date, at least 186,000 Iraqis have been killed by US-led forces (according to a Lancet-published study that we now know was regarded as "robust" by the Ministry of Defence). The proportion of Iraqis who regard it as acceptable to attack coalition forces has tripled from 17% in 2004 to 51% in 2007.

Posted by: what US papers refuse to report | May 7, 2007 9:38 AM | Report abuse

I think Edwards' stance is a good political move in that it shows that he is willing to buck his own party and stand up for what he believes in. It is also good for the democrats as a whole because it gives them a way to pressure the Republicans into coming up with some type of compromise.

However, I think that sending a bill that the president has already vetoed over and over again is a poor strategy for governing a country. It makes both sides seem childish.
If the president won't allow this bill then send him 3 month spending bills and use the 'power of the purse' to create deadlines. The longer this war goes the more and more republicans will jump on the Democratic side of thinking. The president has asked for the end of the summer to see if this lame startegy will work (which it won't), fine give it to him. Then in September the Democrats can come back with set deadlines for redeploying the troops.

Bush will have lost all political support and the republicans will be reeling. They will override his veto to save their own skins and the American people will finally have an end in sight.

Posted by: Andy R | May 7, 2007 9:38 AM | Report abuse

'One cold London morning in January, I received a phone call from one of my brothers. Uncle Kakarash was dead, killed by American soldiers at a checkpoint. He was my mother's brother, 75, and like most Kurds had suffered greatly under Saddam and welcomed the Americans as liberators.

Civilians in Iraq face everyday hazards beyond the snipers and the insurgents' bombs - hundreds have been run over by tanks or hit by stray bullets or shot at checkpoints. There are no records kept of the numbers of civilians killed during the war or by coalition troops.

Figures released last month after a request from the American Civil Liberties Union revealed that the US army has paid out $32m to Iraqi civilians in compensation for 'wrongful deaths' and injuries. That does not include condolence payments which can be made at the discretion of commanders on the scene.'

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2007 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Currently being reprinted in the Guardian and elsewhere, Trudeau's 2002 series was set in Iraq in the wake of a future invasion. He predicted that US occupation would produce a violent, partitioned country, threatened by its neighbours and sectarianism. He sent Uncle Duke, his sunglass-wearing imperial viceroy, to Al Amok, where he hid from reality as his aide Honey warned him of the unfolding disaster. "The country is 60% Shiite! A Shiite state could ally with Iran! Plus they've got all those blood scores to settle with the Sunnis who used to rule them," Duke declared in a strip first published in November 2002.

"Coming, summer 2004!" yesterday's episode predicted, "2,143 dead". "Coming, summer 2014: 46,537 dead". Trudeau saw through the case for invasion too: "Why war with Saddam, exactly," reporter Rick Redfern asked at a White House press conference. "I mean, there's no real al-Qaida link, he doesn't have nukes, his army's been decimated and he hasn't been able to shoot down a single US jet!"

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2007 9:34 AM | Report abuse

The Pentagon this week imposed restrictions on internet postings from war zones, and claimed it was because of the risk of providing sensitive information to insurgents.

One report last weekend from a soldier in Iraq advised a trooper in the US who was about to deploy in Iraq on ways to watch for and detect explosive devices planted by insurgents.

Reacting to the ban, soldiers said that the real reason for the curb was their negative comments about the war, including skepticism about Mr Bush's claims about progress.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2007 9:31 AM | Report abuse

One in 10 of the US soldiers in Iraq purposefully mistreats civilians or damages their property, according to a survey published by the Pentagon last night. The report said the mental health of soldiers and marines deteriorated significantly as a result of extended or multiple deployments.

The study confirms the extent to which the US military is being strained by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2007 9:30 AM | Report abuse

'Come September, when Gen. David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, says that he will be able to judge whether the new tactics and the nearly 30,000 additional troops have turned the tide in the effort to reduce the carnage in Baghdad, different political forces will prevail.If he is successful and if the Iraqis begin to make the political accommodations needed to form a stable government...'

And if I had a pony...

David Broder, the confused and senile goper once again talks about give it more time, give it more time... how many hundreds of '6 more months' do we have to hear?

What excuse do you think he will come up with in September to say 'give it another 6 months' It's truly pathetic. Maybe he has alzheimers, and can't help but repeat himself.

Posted by: disgusted by broder | May 7, 2007 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Please give Bill Richardson the credit to "de-authorize" the was not Hillary's.

Posted by: Ray | May 7, 2007 9:22 AM | Report abuse

There is no reason to assume that the al Qaeda group controlled by Osama bin Ladin, operating out of Afghanistan and/or Pakistan, and responsible for attacking the US on 9/11 and other occasions is the same as or even operationally connected to the group calling itself "al Qaeda in Iraq." The Bush/Cheney's Administration's policies have probably inspired many groups around the world only too willing to inflate their egos by calling themselves "al Qaeda" but having no proven connection with bin Laden, let alone 9/11.

Yet the White House will continue to conflate these groups because they know that the media will not question or explain it and will rarely invite onto their 'news shows' any expert who might point out that we are being lied to again about the link between Iraq, bin Laden and 9/11.

This Administration will not stop lying, because to do so would concede that they started a war on false pretenses and without any justification, and are continuing it for the same reasons; and their neocon supporters who wanted and planned this war and still cheer it on will continue the lies into the next generation.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2007 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Edwards is a political weathervane; one that seems to point in only one direction: his own personal ambition.

Posted by: JoeCHI | May 7, 2007 9:16 AM | Report abuse

'The President of the United States recently told us that the measure of success in Iraq is a reduced level of "sectarian violence," terms likely chosen to correspond with the fact that the US military does not count as "sectarian violence" the 27 people killed in a recent car bombing. And he is willing to accept continuing high levels of US casualties to obtain his new misleading goal.

"Either we'll succeed, or we won't succeed," he said. "And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not no violence. '

He shrugged his shoulders and laughed when he said this. Laughted and smirked -- 'either we'll succeed or we won't, just like that. As if it didn't much matter... tell that to the pile of 3000 bodies of US young people. What a sick, pathetic creature he is.

Posted by: Ike | May 7, 2007 9:16 AM | Report abuse

good for Edwards. the Dems in Congress aren't listening to the American people - Edwards at least can get their attention, and he's saying exactly what they need to hear. hope he keeps right on doing what he's doing.

Posted by: jeannie | May 7, 2007 9:04 AM | Report abuse

'A pair of companies owned by Rudy Giuliani represented both a debtor and a creditor in a recently concluded bankruptcy proceeding, a potential conflict of interest that wasn't disclosed to the federal judge overseeing the case, records show. The matter could heighten pressures on Mr. Giuliani's presidential campaign to be more forthcoming about the candidate's stable of businesses, their clients and the services they provide.'

I wonder if the lazy and slavishly republican country-club DC press will EVER look into Rudy's business dealings, or if they will give him a pass because they have a mancrush on him, same as sock puppet Bushie? There are so many HUGE conflicts of interest it will make your head spin.

Posted by: drindl | May 7, 2007 9:03 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON -- The House Republican leader said Sunday that GOP support could waver if President Bush's Iraq war policy does not succeed by the fall.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Bush's troop increase deserves a chance and should be funded even if benchmarks for success are not met. Last week, Bush vetoed a $124 billion bill to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan operations in part because it required troops to begin returning home by Oct. 1.

A senior House Democrat said it would be "ridiculous" not to condition war money on progress in Iraq.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2007 8:59 AM | Report abuse

So far nobody has addressed the issue at hand: does it make sense for Congress to send President Bush the same bill over and over again until he has to sign it? I believe it's a good strategy. It puts the president in the position of either having to repeatedly veto money for the troops or accept the conditions that the American people want.

Posted by: ancient_mariner | May 7, 2007 8:54 AM | Report abuse

' For crying out loud, why does the WAPO have to continuous foist their leftist views down its slavish reader's throats?'

The WaPo's leftist views? What a joke. Edwards is leading ALL republicans among EVERYONE -- the whole US population. You wingers are not the mainstream... far from it. You are extremists.. and your time has run out. Thank God. Maybe we can still save the country from the disasters you created.

Posted by: Lou | May 7, 2007 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Anyone see Dodd on Sunday, when Wallace was trying to goad him into attacking Edwards' ads, which basically call him (and all the dem senators) out? Like putting to ferrets in a cage and poking them with a stick. Dodd, to his credit, didn't take the bait.

Still, Wallace did a number on him. Too bad, too, Chris is a decent guy, too bad he has no chance to win the Dem nomination.

Posted by: JD | May 7, 2007 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Where is this country 'Iraa' that you write about? A part of the world that has run out of consonants?

I have to give CC some credit. At least he resisted the urge to state that this little tit-for-tat was going to have a big impact on the electorate. Until the very end, that is. I wish the electorate was well-informed enough to be sensitive to these little exchanges but unless they all suddenly start reading this blog such nuances will be totally lost on them.

And from Newsweek ( "George W. Bush has the lowest presidential approval rating in a generation, and the leading Dems beat every major '08 Republican." The news couldn't get much worse for the GOP, could it? Keep strongly supporting Bush's War. Your upcoming 'rewards' are obvious.

Is Eric Cantor (Mindless Partisan-VA) up for re-election in '08? I can't think of a better climate to get rid of him.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 7, 2007 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of Mitt, I have yet to see any of the Very Serious People address the fact that he's frighteningly (to him anyway) unpopular. I don't think I've ever seen another national matchup between pairs where a named Democrat beat a named Republican by 37 points. And that's just Edwards. Obama beats him by 29 points, and Clinton by 22 points. He's dipping into Dick Cheney territory and losing even some of the die hard lizard brains.

Posted by: A | May 7, 2007 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Why doesn't Edwards remember that after the US left South Vietnam and then stopped funding them in 1975, over 3 million people in the region were killed in mass genocide? Although people may disagree with US involvement in Iraq, we certainly can come up with a better exit strategy than we had in Vietnam.

Posted by: dch | May 7, 2007 8:44 AM | Report abuse

May 14, 2007 issue - The shopkeepers glower as an American military patrol rumbles past the village bazaar at Afghany, some 80 miles northeast of Kabul. Mohammad Qayam and Ghul Jan are still seething about the U.S. airstrike in early March that hit their friend Mirwais's home, less than a mile away. They and other neighbors pulled nine broken corpses from the ruins: Mirwais's grandfather, father, mother, wife and five small children. Mirwais himself and his 7-year-old son were away seeing relatives, the men say; now he has fled into the mountains."We hate the Americans so much now, we don't want to see their faces," says Jan. "They're no different from the Russians."

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2007 8:42 AM | Report abuse

May 14, 2007 issue - The shopkeepers glower as an American military patrol rumbles past the village bazaar at Afghany, some 80 miles northeast of Kabul. Mohammad Qayam and Ghul Jan are still seething about the U.S. airstrike in early March that hit their friend Mirwais's home, less than a mile away. They and other neighbors pulled nine broken corpses from the ruins: Mirwais's grandfather, father, mother, wife and five small children. Mirwais himself and his 7-year-old son were away seeing relatives, the men say; now he has fled into the mountains."We hate the Americans so much now, we don't want to see their faces," says Jan. "They're no different from the Russians."

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2007 8:40 AM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter how the Dems. get that sub human pres. to discontinue this wholesale murder which is feeding his nerotic fantasies AND HIS GREED*OIL FOR BLOOD* and the hell with the rest of the world THE ONLY THING HE SEES IS $DOLLARS FOR HIS OWN SELFISHNESS. JUST LETS GET RID OF THIS SWINE AND CLEAR THE WAY FOR RECOUPING OUR COUNTRY!!!!!!

Posted by: lynn parker | May 7, 2007 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Will, if you support Edwards you are the idiot!

Posted by: hehe | May 7, 2007 8:35 AM | Report abuse

This is wasn't a news story it was Chris' Fantasy President League. For crying out loud, why does the WAPO have to continuous foist their leftist views down its slavish reader's throats?

Posted by: Schratboy | May 7, 2007 8:29 AM | Report abuse

I second that notion. Having lived here in NC my whole life, sure it would have been nice to have another Sam Ervin but come on its a catch 22 for Edwards to spend too much time in the US Senate because he would've had no chance at getting elected president due to the hard votes you must cast. Edwards is simply trying to use is political shelf life before it expires. Can't blame him......PS HE was the most electable in 04' and the dems screwed themselves in Iowa. But the field is stronger this year anyones ballgame ?????

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2007 8:21 AM | Report abuse

"What no one is saying is that Edwards is not in the senate, and didn't run, because he would have lost re election in 2004. I'm in NC, have been for years, and Edwards is not a popular man"

you sir, are an idiot.
he is still leading in every statewide poll done in this state for the 08 primary, and won this state in 2004.
In an exit poll done on election day in 2004, the exact same voters that gave Bush a huge victory over Kerry and Burr a strong win over Bowles said that they would have chosen Edwards over Burr by the same margin he beat Faircloth.

You might not like him, but you are not the whole state.

Posted by: will c | May 7, 2007 8:12 AM | Report abuse

Rasmussen's latest poll shows Edwards running strongest of all Dems in a general election. He is the only Dem who outpolls all Reps.

note: I have watched my tape of Rep debate now and found myself anticipating moments thanks to this blog.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 7, 2007 7:59 AM | Report abuse

The LAT fronts news that a coalition of 36 companies, including some of the country's largest corporations, is planning to begin a new lobbying campaign that will call for medical insurance to be expanded to everyone.

Posted by: interesting.... | May 7, 2007 7:55 AM | Report abuse

Yeah really, GGGF, you wanna talk about pandering? Get serious. How can you even mention it when you got Mr. Double Talk Express and Flipfloppin Mitt? And Fred Thompson who was for amnesty before he was against it, and Rudy who is for AND against reproductive choice?

Posted by: drindl | May 7, 2007 7:49 AM | Report abuse

ATLANTA (CNN) -- The price of gasoline has hit a new record high, averaging $3.07 for a gallon of self-serve regular in the United States, a survey reported Sunday.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2007 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, I meant to say that Fred Thompson favoured the Feingold-McCain bill on public financing. I imagine now he's against it.

Posted by: Tina | May 7, 2007 7:29 AM | Report abuse

Oh come on GGGF, tell me who is not a panderer from either side. I just read that Rudy is against civil unions before he was for them. Do you want me to mention Romney? And Fred Thompson, I imagine your hero when he was in the senate voted "yes" to comprehensive immigration reform. Now, I imagine he would be against it?

And I watched the interview with George and Edwards did just fine. His answers were good but he should have been more forceful.

Posted by: Tina | May 7, 2007 7:17 AM | Report abuse

Great interview by Stephanopolous with Edwards on This Week. Good questions by George, tough interview, shows what a phony, self serving, double talking panderer Edwards is. Talks about his senate votes and current positions. What no one is saying is that Edwards is not in the senate, and didn't run, because he would have lost re election in 2004. I'm in NC, have been for years, and Edwards is not a popular man. He served maybe 3 years of a 6 year senate term, began running for pres, and never looked back!

Posted by: GGGF | May 7, 2007 6:59 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company