I'm looking forward to Harry Reid saying:

"There is an open invitation for the President to come talk to Congress. This is not a meeting in order to compromise; this is a meeting to discuss the way forward. The president has to admit that he doesn't have $120 million in his piggy bank to pay for his war by himself. Yet he says he will veto the bill that will fund his war. At some point the White House is going to have to come to a consensus on how to move forward."

ps: is it wrong to think that Dana Perino is hot?

Who ever hired Cameron Diaz to be a press secretary anyway?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The biggest mistake we make is to judge Bush and his gang by our standards.

We keep thinking that they're arrogant but incompetent. They are not. They fail spectacularly at those things they don't care about; like New Orleans, or the troops, or being caught in lie after lie.

They don't care if they fail at those things and they don't care if they get caught, because they just keep doing what they want - and they will until they are forcibly stopped.

While we express outrage and surprise that they are still committing the same crimes over and over again, (and why are we still surprised?), they just keep on doing what they planned to do all along: starve the Federal government into non-existence, drain the Treasury for themselves and their friends, steal anything not tied down, wage endless war for profit and create a permanent ruling class for their New American Empire - which they will rule.

They aren't as bad as we think they are, they are far, far worse - and they will never stop willingly, they will have to be stopped.

How many will die before they are stopped?

Sounds like Tony Snowjob has been giving her lessons on how to be the most smug, self rightous a--hole there is. Talk about arrogance. What was it the old greek playwrights said about arrogance?

Taking a page from the Bush White House, my 8 year old son has invited me to a meeting in which he will explain why I need to urgently move his bedtime to midnight. He has specifically noted this is not a meeting in order to compromise on the hour of his bedtime.

I can only hope Congress takes a page from me. I will listen to my son's instructions. Then I will ignore him as I proceed to carry forth with my parental responsibilities: Lights out at 8:30. Because I say so -- and because I pay the bills in this house.

.

Running her comments through my Secret Rovian Decoder Ring, I get:

"Screw you, Congress. I'm the Decider and you can all go to Hell. Oh, and by the way, bring it on!"

.

Alright, so the Prez is inviting the leaders of both houses to hear," My way or the Highway"

The solution is to fund no more than 30 days at a time to allow the Prez to formulate his exit stratagy. Not funding the troops doesn't leave them without food as the Prez would have the public believe. If not funding means the troops have to pull back to the Green Zone then so be it.

Security Code: this As in this has got to end.

It is important for Dems not to be seen as running from a fight. Better still to go to the White House and tell the president, to his face, that it is no longer "my way or the highway".

Repubs are always trying to show the public that Dems are afraid to fight, and therefore not tough enough to make the "big decisions". This is our chance to stand up to the school yard bully and telling him "NO"!!!!

Strip everything BUT the war funding from the Iraqu supplemental spending bill, then add the timetable. If that gets vetoed, resend it with a shorter timeline. Rinse and reseat until clean...

DO NOT BACK DOWN TO THE BULLY!

This style of go-it-alone "I call yer bluff" cowboy bravado is seemingly Bush's only response to disagreement. It is both a tragedy and a disgrace that this insecure manchild has ended up in charge of the most powerful nation in the world.

It will take years to fix this dunce's innumerable blunders and errors in judgement

This is like Bush to the UN in 2003:
Give me my war or you are irrelevant

Sorry, Greg, but the Founding Fathers never intended for all three branches of government to be co-equal, as is explained here: http://rockfordrascal.blogspot.com/2007/02/founding-fathers-did-not-create-federal.html

Is it a coincidence that the White House has selected a press secretary that looks like she does the news updates on one of Fox's talk shows?

Isn't it procedural for the administration to show up in front of congress to request appropriations? What is this "open invitation" crap? If the pres. has something to discuss, he needs to schedule a hearing on it in the Congress and show up. Hopefully hat-in-hand.

I didn't think the grin was that smug, it was more like 'I'm trying to be nice now go Cheney yourselves'.

The Dems should simply say they are not going to attend the meeting on those pretenses, and the meeting will not be rescheduled until the President acknowledges the need and willingness to *discuss* and not just *order*.

Don't communicate with a brat on their immature level. Demand that they make an attempt to rise to an acceptable level of discourse.

.

I wish SOMEONE would do a piece on Duhhbya's penchant for switching accents, based on that day's audience.

He either does a shit-kicker accent or, more embarrassing, a struggling-to-read-the-telepromter-in-English accent.

I CAN'T be the only one noticing this.

.

Is anyone surprised by this arrogance that after leading Dems go on TV and announce that if the President vetoes the funding bill, which has still not made it through conference, that the Dems will send a bill back that he will sign. Not going to "play chicken with the troops" Obama and Schumer, and Levin. What a way to negotiate. Its like saying in a negotiation "Thats my final offer, unless you don't accept it" . Pathetic.

"While we express outrage and surprise that they are still committing the same crimes over and over again, (and why are we still surprised?), they just keep on doing what they planned to do all along: starve the Federal government into non-existence, drain the Treasury for themselves and their friends, steal anything not tied down, wage endless war for profit and create a permanent ruling class for their New American Empire - which they will rule.

"They aren't as bad as we think they are, they are far, far worse - and they will never stop willingly, they will have to be stopped.

"How many will die before they are stopped?"

I agree. These guys don't play by the rules. They ignore every law there is because they think they're above the law. It doesn't matter what Congress demands. They're just going to ignore Congress, asking, "Who's going to stop us?"

Unfortunately, these criminals have secretly passed laws that protect themselves, and, as a "nation of laws," how do we change them back? Bush will veto any effort to change the laws, and most likely, the courts are going to rule in Bush's favor because they've been stacked with Bush henchmen.

Step 1: Bush vetoes funding for troops.

Step 2: House re-enacts funding coupled with dollar-for-dollar tax on top 1% of nation's incomes.

Step 3: Profit!

How hard is that?

What is going to happen is that after the "meeting", there will be anonymous souces "close to the whitehouse" who will spread a rumour that the congressional staff were "rude" a la newt gingrich acting pissy about getting off the plane and then the bushes will hope that this will shift the momentum in their favour like it did for Clinton

RE:ps: is it wrong to think that Dana Perino is hot?

YES! It is VERY worng. She's a Republican.

Congreesioal leaders ought to respond by saying that they will be glad to meet with the President -at a neutral site- if and when he's ready to discuss some sort of compromise.

Dana Perino used to be on TV in Springfield Illinois and she was not very good. I think she has admitted as much in interviews. She married an older guy and always struck me as someone who was more interested in obtaining power or being around power than caring about the greater good. She's driven but she drank the kool-aid a long time ago.

The Security Code is "screw". And no I wouldn't.

Of course Congress will do what the Prez tells them. If they don't, he will steal a play from Abe Lincoln, give it a bit of Rovian twist, push it a bit farther, and arrest ever how many congressmen it takes to change the vote count, and keep them in jail till he gets his way.

Skippy -
I once dated a Repbulican who was hot - she's now a very actice Dem..

Sorry - that's active Dem...

If there's no compromise forthcoming from the President, I'm not clear on what he expects from the meeting. Clearly the press is unclear too. Is this their way of launching a charm offensive? Is George going to sweet talk them into doing things his way after 6 years of having his way forced upon them as they watched his way of doing things create disaster after disaster? Maybe Bush is setting the table for a stalemate with Congress so he can say "Hey, we offered to discuss the situation with you!" even though they really didn't offer to DISCUSS anything.

I can't wait to see the response to this.

Isn't this just what Bush told Pelosi earlier, paraphrasing Popeye? I yam where I yam on Iraq.

desire - we all desire a new direction

Don't try to kick the football Charlie Brown. She's not to be trusted.

If Shrub wants a funding bill for *his* war, he can f*cking well cooperate with Congress, or go back to Crawford and cut brush for the next thirty years. He isn't the king; he's *our* employee, he's doing a bad job, and we can - should! - fire him. Same goes for Cheney, Rove, Rice, and the rest of these guys.

"In it, press secretary Dana Perino clarifies just what the President meant today when he invited Congressional Democrats to discuss the future of Iraq. In a sense Bush's invitation, really, is for Congressional Dems to sit down and listen to a President whose approval rating is in the low 30s tell them that they should get serious about doing his bidding already and put aside their silly little delusions about doing the bidding of the people who actually elected them or constituting an elected co-equal branch of the U.S. government."

Greg, do you ever wish you could have the opportunity to say exactly that right to the president's face? Because I do. :)

I think it's funny how the threat of a veto is supposed to be a bad thing. So what if the administration doesn't think Congress has the override votes, and so what if Congress actually doesn't have them? Put the system through its paces.

Perino is attractive in a icy kind of way.

Bush invites Dems to meet about Iraq (AP)

Said the spider to the fly.

I say the next version of the funding bill for the Iraq war comes with a provision that pays for it with a windfall profits tax on ExxonMobil and nationalizes Halliburtion before they run off to Dubai.

RE:ps: is it wrong to think that Dana Perino is hot?

YES! It is VERY wrong. She's a Republican.

I think you can be a Republican and still be hot. Just think of her telling you what a naughty correspondent you've been.

they will be glad to meet with the President -at a neutral site-

A public meeting, that's the ticket. With a calm and forceful presentation of the Democratic position. If necessary, to an empty chair with the presidential seal hung on it.

SkippyFlipjack says: "ps: is it wrong to think that Dana Perino is hot?"

She's hot, but to get to all that spare p*ssy you'd have to hook it a little bit to the right.

"Yeah, and she's probably got alligators and neocons in there too"

I'm waiting for one single Democrat to take charge and filabuster any support for keeping the Iraq occupation going for another single day.

The Iraq war was over when Bush announced "Mission Accomplished".

Now it is incumbent on the Democrats to halt the occupation which is draining the US Treasury and enriching the military-industrial complex.

code: every. as in 'every day he sounds more & more desperate'

Randomfactor says:
Step 1: Bush vetoes funding for troops.

Step 2: House re-enacts funding coupled with dollar-for-dollar tax on top 1% of nation's incomes.

Step 3: Profit!

How hard is that?

This is just like the Underpants Gnomes plan to make profit from stealing underpants, except in this plan there is actually a step two whereas the Gnomes didn't actually know how to get from step one to step three.

Step Two is crucial. The Democratic Congress must escalate their demands instead of trying to be nice with the Boy King. He's not reaching out; it's all bluster.

They should say here's the money, but instead of pulling out the troops in 1 year like tyhe last plan, now you have to bring them home in 6 months.

And keep going down that road.

The Dems may not have the votes to override, but Bush doesn't have 60 votes to push a clean bill past a fillibuster. Congress should keep sending bills with restrictions to Bush. Bush cannot be allowed to continue business as usual.

Let's take up Dubya's offer of a "meeting". Only, let's have it IN PUBLIC. Personally, I would be willing to watch that "meeting" as a Pay-Per-View event, but I'd settle for C-Span broadcasting it.

I want to see Dick and Dubya sitting across the table from Reid and Pelosi, talking turkey. No script, no uniformed troops as a backdrop, no pomp or ceremony. A working meeting, with coffee and donuts. I know we have come to believe that substantive policy discussions can only happen behind closed doors, but that's because we're idiots.

The importance of a PUBLIC "meeting" is to put Dubya's petulance on public display. To paraphrase Maggie Thatcher, a bully must not only be smacked down, he must be SEEN to be smacked down. If he displays his ignorance, as well as his arrogance, in such a meeting, that's just icing on the cake.

-- TP

The smug, arrogant, condescending, smirking, "splainin'to a child" aura that this woman and every Bush admin personality assumes is not "hot" or even human. The universal Bushie tendency to smirk and smile indulgently at each completely wrong juncture of speach is annoying and a common characteristic of their PR coaching.

Here in the UK, "New Labour" ministers under Blair have the same universal tendency toward overweaning arrogance in public speaking. As if the audience (public) should not even question the brilliance of the leadership from Downing Street.

Pathetic. Just like the Bushies and former majority in Congress. But, unfortunately for BushCo, there's a new majority in town.

What is really annoying is that after BushCo is kicked out, we will still have to listen to these idiots for years attacking every new initiative that a (hopefully) realistic gov't puts in motion.

I think if the President refuses to sign the funding bill, Congress should resubmit "a clean" funding bill, but with 1/2 the funds tagged solely for withdrawal of the troops. If he vetoes that, then 3/4 for withdrawing the troops, etc.

Don't cave!!!!

>>"There is an open invitation for the President to come talk to Congress. This is not a meeting in order to compromise; this is a meeting to discuss the way forward. The president has to admit that he doesn't have $120 million in his piggy bank to pay for his war by himself. Yet he says he will veto the bill that will fund his war. At some point the White House is going to have to come to a consensus on how to move forward."

Posted by: SkippyFlipjack
Date: April 10, 2007 02:56 PM

I was thinking the same exact thing last week. Thanks for saying it.

Well I figured since the purge story is still gathering steam, it's time to bring up the "Distraction". Oh I mean WAR!

WAR! What is it good for? Absolutly nothing. Except for distracting attention away from what this administration is really up to.

Come on people, there's a war going on! Quick, Look over there.

After all there is "NO EVIDENCE" of wrongdoing in the pesky old USA purge.

Ms. Perino's "'dear' in the headlights" demeanor is planful. When it no longer persuades the press corps to self-censor its hard questions, Mr. Rove will put someone else into the ring.

That's, "The president has to admit that he doesn't have $120 BILLION in his piggy bank..."

I would like to see the Dems fail while trying to make a principled stand rather than fail by capitulation.
Let Bush Veto. Vote out the Veto, then move on to another similar bill.

Gen Petraus and many Republicans have said it'll be six months for us to 'guage progress'. This bill establishes six months (from start of surge) as beginning to withdraw troops. It seems everyone is in agreement.

But what does 'guage progess' mean? If we're doing well, then the withdrawal is a GO. If we're no further than we are today then what?! We add MORE TROOPS? We trudge along with the same plan and troop levels?

It seems clear that the six month timeline for beginning withdrawal is a nearly universally accepted point of reference, and the only logical act at that point in time.

If Congress fails to do exaactly what they are told, will he disband them and simply write the check on his own?

Shrub has always walked away from his messes and gotten away with it. He expects to now. His plan is to avoid dealing with every problem he's created until after the election. That's why his most recent proposal to Congress is meant to elicit nothing but a raised finger in reponse to his.

Shrub can't compromise. He couldn't tell a good compromise from a bad one. And his Base would regard it as a sell out.

The Dems should respond like Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Ignore the bellicosity, show up with workable proposals, and call Shrub's bluff. If it works, great. If not, Shrub walks away in petulance in order to hide that he hasn't got a clue and doesn't want anybody to know it.

This is not a time for faint hearts. The Sucker-Puncher-In-Chief *wants* a showdown. It fits with his (borrowed) apocalyptic worldview.

Code = attack

"Congress should keep sending bills with restrictions to Bush."

I agree. Hard to know which way it would end up breaking, but I think that's how they should play it too. There's always the chance less people would support each new bill. I think there's a better chance more would, however.

roooth has it completely correct above -- Bush&Co will not change until they are FORCED to.

The Dems come off as incapable of standing up for themselves (or anything!)

--As soon as Reid says we'll vote to defund the war, Obama says no, we'll fund it.

--When Bush&Co make noise about Pelosi/Syria, or Pelosi/Big Airplane, the response is tepid.

--When Rice or Gonzales refuse to testify or provide documents, Congress just negotiates more.

Public approval of Congress just went up because Congress seemed ready to FORCE Bush to change Iraq policy.

As soon as the Democrats go on a real offensive-- not 'asking for testimony', but demanding it (subpeonas), not asking Rice to testify, but demanding it (subpoena), etc. the public will follow.

Bush&Co were/are able to do their deeds because most of the public are followers who will line up behind the one whom they perceive as most forceful, strongest. To them, forceful = leadership.

Right now Bush&Co are displaying all of the qualities of leadership (strength of resolve, non-compromise, telling) while Democrats are displaying the opposite (capitulation, compromise,
asking).

I firmly believe that the public will start following the Dems as soon as they start acting more forceful. And not a moment sooner.

I still can't get over that there's still 30% of americans that support this guy. The credentials for a president should be world class, but sadly enough America is consistently sinking every standard we ever had.

Waxman just requested that Condoleeza appear before Congress to talk about the Niger yellowcake issue. I suspect at some point they'll have enough dirt on what went on behind the scenes that Bush and Cheney will do whatever Congress tells them to do just to avoid impeachment. Or jail.

Security code: good. As in Bush and Cheney in jail = good.

What is worrisome to me is that King George does have a way to win and no one is talking about it! All King George has to do to win, and win big is to order his Admirals to send the jets screaming into Iran. If this should happen just prior to the next election he then has the right to declare marshall law and forgo the next election. This is what King George and his Gang of Four have up their sleeve and no one seems to take notice. The delay, delay, delay in impeachment hearings is what is going to give him the space necessary to get to the end game and if he gets there and pulls the trigger there is nothing that can stop him. If the impeachment hearings start he will no longer be credible to his Admirals and then there is a slight chance that they won't listen to his command to attact, but only a slight chance.
pilgrimspring

To pilgrimspring: An interviewer on Wisconsin Public Radio posed the same scenario (martial law) to John Dean. He seemed taken by suprise, but admitted to the listeners that it was plausible. Note how Bush is doing long range planning. I find that fact frightening.

To geene, who said: "I still can't get over that there's still 30% of americans that support this guy. The credentials for a president should be world class, but sadly enough America is consistently sinking every standard we ever had."

As Jon Stewart pointed out the other night, Bush will have his base, no matter what. Even 20% of dentists say sugared gum is best as in "4 out of 5 dentists recommend sugarless gum for those who chew gum".

On another issue, the House will investigate the misinformation given to the public about both the Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch incidents.

Back when all of the talk was about awarding Jessica Lynch the Congressional Medal of Honor I posted that the nature of her injuries suggested a vehicular accident and if that were the case she was likely knocked out by the collision.

My original post has gone missing but a link to it can be found here.

http://fray.slate.com/?id=3936&m=7439617

The reason I posted this is because I didn't want to cheapen the award to earlier winners by giving a political award here.

Yes, George seems very upset about having to deal with a Congress but....

Today he said, "The Democrat leaders in, Democratic leaders in Congress are bent using a bill that funds our troops to make a political statement about the war." (NYT 4/10/07)

He used "Democrat" out of the habit of insulting the opposition but he corrected himself - a first on this word choice - and used the correct word, "Democratic", instead.

Deference? An olive branch? Or an insight into his slow loss of confidence and arrogance?

I guess all are pretty damn unlikely but it was a notable correction.

I wish David Gregory had had the balls to say: "So, in essence, the President is saying, to use Vice-President Cheney's words - 'Go fuck yourself' to the Congress. Would that be a proper characterization?"

I don't think she would have smirked...

If Obama caves on funding the troops he can kiss his presidential run goodbye.

re: sm @ 6:04pm

Oh, crap! I read that as "Osama".
I think Obama's a good option for 2008, and even _I_ am misreading his name. Geez. That could be all it takes in 08 is a name-similarity campaign.

Self-flagellating now.

geene said:

"I still can't get over that there's still 30% of Americans that support this guy. The credentials for a president should be world class, but sadly enough America is consistently sinking every standard we ever had."

Consider that Junior and many of his supporters think that God wanted him to be president. If you think that God wanted you to be president and you take direction from God and your beliefs are those of God, then it's somewhat difficult to say "I really screwed up and I'm in way over my head!" because it's like saying the big guy gave you bum advice. So anything he comes up with must be divine and those who disagree must be wrong and inferior, therefore he must stay the course, God's course.

For those supporters of his - probably many of the 30% (most of the rest are benefiting from his corruption favoring corporations and his wealthy cronies) - who think God chose Junior to be Cheerleader in Chief, anything he does is ok with them since he is God's chosen one and everything he does must be God's will. Therefore, they will support him no matter what he does. Can't very well say "This guy is a totally corrupt, dishonest, incompetent, immoral, irresponsible adolescent," because that would be like admitting that God made a serious error in judgment. Can't do that.

If God chose Bush to be president, then I'd say that's proof certain that God really does hate America.

W. Larsen

Republican or not, Dana Perino is hot! What she needs is some Democratic assistance.

I am a coward. I worry this will end very badly for the Democrats. I don't watch television news, but on NPR the story has been presented as the White House surely wanted it to: The Democrats are screwing the troops. This, of course, is completely false, but how do you convince the country of that when you are competing against the right wing noise machine?

I do hope the Dems keep their backbones intact (which would be a victory in itself)--because continuing the occupation forever is wrong--but I think people might be underestimating how much damage even an unpopular president can inflict on the opposition.

Greg-
Love your stuff - but I'd like to make two requests. First, on more than one occasion, you've put posts referring to information on the TPM home page (like McCain praising Obama's war stance) but without a link or even a pointer to where it happened (CSPAN, CNN, FOX, whereever). Please give us something to find out more information.

Second, is there any chance you can get a small link somewhere on the front page somewhere - maybe just a hotlink to your name in the staff section.

You go taters!

Way to go converting the evil-doers . . .