Reply #63: Oh great, someone else who can't handle subtlety

[jgraz]

Let me explain this as clearly as I can: The fact that the Democrats were under no obligation to send anything is an illustration of just how much power they held, and how much power they pissed away. Nobody thought they were just going to sit on their hands, but they didn't have to cave in completely. The fact that they didn't have the Republicans on board is a complete, dishonest red herring in this case. The Dems held all the cards, they could have crafted the bill in any way they wanted.

As far as your comment that "overwhelming majority of the public expected Congress to do something -- fund with a timetable or fund without one", is ridiculous. It's like saying "the overwhelming majority of the public will either vote Democratic or Republican in 2008." These are two opposing viewpoints. Lumping them together is disingenuous and smacks of intentional spin.

It seem like you and the rest of the apologists are just grasping at ways to justify the funding of this war. Knock down one argument, you bring up another. Knock that one down, the first pops up, whac-a-mole style.

This is typical political spin, just like the Dems "signing ceremony" and Reid's promise to send "an even tougher bill" after the first veto. Remember those? Wanna guess how many times those are going to be brought up when * wants to label something "political theater"?

This was a colossal failure, and the Dems will pay for it with the loss of credibility, loss of political capital and the loss of seats in 2008.

And when they do lose seats, I'm sure you and mzmolly will come back here and explain to us how it was all part of some grand plan. After all, the vast majority of the public was either in favor of the Dems losing seats, or they weren't.

:banghead: