Wait.

A reporter for one of the country's "premier" newspapers can't tell the difference between an aide spouting off about how the "withdrawal dates had to go" and the Dems actually offering that concession to the White House in a negotiation?

The public debate is drowning in stupid.

The media's coverage of this focussed on the Democratic dilemma because they simply have no ability to retract their heads from Karl Rove's behind. In this Media position every fart Rove makes sounds loud and important.

Greg, isn't the question you raised at the end of the piece the real problem with the MSM? They are not independent. Whether the cause is right wing ownership of media outlets, or fear of loss of access to the WH and other administration sources, the plain, obvious conclusion is that the MSM has been transformed into a state propaganda device. Unfortunately, there are no indications presently that this situation is changing in the current environment.

maybe I'm missing something. but it sure looks to me like wapo was eager to report that the Dems have already caved.

Is WaPo's article a part of a misinformation campaign by the WH? Or given its pro-war coverage, an attempt by WaPo itself to pressure Dems?

I label WaPo's story with a Scecurity Code:

Full of beans in an effort to divide Democrats

Interesting. While the reporter is now talking about his sources, the article itself does not source the story's main thurst, that Dems have supposedly offered to cave.

"Why the eagerness to report that Dems have already caved if they haven't yet?"

Very simple. It's Rove 101.Change the subject by making up an outrageous lie that puts the Dems on the defensive, then accuse them of flip-flopping. Repeat as necessary.

The WaPo and its GOP masters may be figuring that if enough parts of the media report it this way that people will give up putting pressure on the Democrats to keep that language in the bill. Then Shrub 'wins', for some value of winning that I don't seem to get.

Who are the aides who keep saying this, and who do they actually work for? Because it sounds to me like Rove might have sleeper agents in the Democratic Party. Shame on the party if it falls over its own voters and caves again.

Why does Weisman say "nobody has contacted me about it", in response to your contacting him about it?

The WAPO is about as believable as the DOJ these days

That is not the only bind the Republicans are in. Why doesn't anyone point out that when the Republicans vote to sustain the President's veto, they are voting to deny funding for the troops?

Weisman's tone alone is what tells me a lot. I can almost see him thumbing his nose at you. "Neener-neener!" Drowning in stupid is right.

And if you have not called the offices of the Speaker, Senate Majority Leader and House Majority Leader to let them know how strongly you feel about mandatory timelines, please do so now.

is this same jonathan weisman who reported that a few GOP members would be 'gleeful' over the democrats' maneuvers to conduct oversight? this is more troubling evidence of some kind of innate desire to cast the democrats' position as emasculated.

The Dems should pass two bills:

1) A bill providing funding SOLELY for the purpose of effecting a safe and orderly withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

2) A bill identical to the one that has just passed.

If our King veto both bills, he will be the one that has left the troops in the field with inadequate funding. If the republicans sustain the veto, they will be the ones who have acquiesced to leaving our troops in the middle of a civil war without funding.

The King has a remarkably weak political position in this fight. The American people overwhelmingly want this war to end. The American people overwhelmingly see the King as untrustworthy, unintelligent, unlikable, and delustional. The King has no clothes.

I swear to god nearly the same words were used in an AP piece that was written by David Espo that I saw last night on Yahoo News. It was something like "Dems WILL jettison timetables" - I'm paraphrasing. The amount of bias in that article just make me irked in the same way that you're describing, which lead me to look at the author and the organization producing it. I will try to dig it up.

"is this same jonathan weisman who reported that a few GOP members would be 'gleeful' over the democrats' maneuvers to conduct oversight?"

Yes, it is. He's a hack, possibly a liar, and so is Murray.

Oh, here it is: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070502/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

He writes:
"Democrats flashed defiance, yet signaled they were ready to make significant concessions such as jettisoning the troop withdrawal timetable and cutting some of the domestic funds that are part of the bill and Bush opposes."

How's that for objective reporting?

Why shouldn't the WaPo go with the story? It would news, indeed, if in the end the Dems didn't cave. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that hell would have finally frozen over. Why isn't the ball in Bush's court? The Dems passed a bill funding the war; if Bush doesn't like it he can send up an alternative bill. Pelosi would "agree to consider the bill", send it to committee and let it die there. In fact, why isn't it the "talking point" that it is Bush that has defunded the war? (Will someone please teach the Democrats how to play the game?)

Love how all the stories said "Congress fails to override the veto". Save a few, it was the Republicans that voted against overriding. Why isn't the story that House Republicans are complicit in allowing this illegal war to continue.

"Why isn't the story that House Republicans are complicit in allowing this illegal war to continue."

And that House Republicans are complicit in denying funding for the troops that they stuck in the middle of a civil war.

Hmmm, maybe it's a smoke screen...maybe some aide purposefully planted this story with the author of the Compost (as kkKarl continuously using the sclm with fake stories). And I agree the author's smugness here is despicable, no one has called me on it neener neener!. Maybe that's how the game is played these days. Abuse and use the media (tools)...kKKarl's a master at it and dems might just be getting in on it. Hope it makes every journo wonder if they're being played for the slimy dupes they generally turn out to be ... just like butter!

I think that making this into a conservative plot is preemateure and perhaps a bit paranoid. The fact is we don't have a conservative or liberal media. It is a Corporate Media that more often than not embelishes or worse yet fabricates it's own stories to "sell toothpaste". No confirmation, no investigation, no spellcheck just "BE FIRST". Right or wrong.
Like yesterday, not only was the leader of Al Qaida in Iraq killed they knew who and why. NOne of it was true.
The days of Woodward and Bernstein and independent confirmation are over. Rumor is the rule of the day.

Reporter Weisman has learned a lot from the beltway since his answer is nonresponsive. Ask him how an offer being made and and a senior aide saying the language will have to go are the same thing? To which party do the other sources belong? Is leadership synomous with Democratic Party?

In this Media position every fart Rove makes sounds loud and important.

But more importantly, it smells wonderful!

i wonder if the story has now been challenged by the demo leadership because, like me, thousands of outraged liberals e-mailed reid, pelosi, and our somewhat timid presidential hopefuls,and vigorously expressed our dismay as soon as we read the article this morning. if you have not done so, please do.

who is willing, however, to bet good money that the withdrawal date language will remain in the bill? any takers? i didn't think so.

No reteat, no surrender. The Democrats have a solid majority behind them, now is the time to press the advantage. It's like a turnover in football inside the 20, go for the touchdwown on the next play.

Members of the leadership?

I smell Emanuel and Hoyer.

Why can't the the Dem. leasders and spokesperson simply say: The President is cutting off funds with the veto, stupid. (The stupid part is optional.)

You know what I'd like to see? Send the bill back. Just the same. And then raise money for a media pounding of the home districts of the 60 something Republican reps that would be most likely to buckle to constituent pressure. While it's somewhat short of 60, there are a lot of Republican reps out there who got reelected by trumpeting their independence from the White House, while still claiming that a Republican could serve the interests of his/her district. Time to put that to a test. In each district, I bet a majority of a given Republican rep's constituents support withdrawal. Hit them hard with that.

Well, Greg, how'd he respond to the follow up?

"It's one thing for the aides to be saying that the language will have to go; it's another to say even before the negotiations have started that the concession has already been offered to the White House."

If they haven't already offered this concession, the article is simply untrue.

I too think the withdrawal language will be taken out. but that doesn't mean the wapo should be reporting that the offer has been made to the white house when it hasn't yet

And we know, don't we, that rather than citing the comments of Reid and Pelosi, the talking heads will all be citing the WaPo as the proof that the Dems are caving...it works better as talking points than getting the statements of the Speaker and the Majority leader.

I will be very disappointed if the timelines come out and the meaningless and unenforceable benchmarks go in - that is the equivalent of a full and complete surrender to Bush - a surrender that is, in my opinion, totally unnecessary.

When you have the media out there talking about this as being all about the "anti-war base" of the Democratic party, you know that nothing they say - or write - has any credibility. Russert tried this the other night - even in the face of some 60% of the country being in favor of a timeline for withdrawal.

I often think that the MSM is simply narrating a story of its own invention. The storyline continually gets kicked by reality. MSM reports facts without them altering the trajectory of the underlying story.

For example, there was concensus in the MSM that oversight=bad news for Dems. Now that we've seen a little oversight in action, the storyline was adjusted: Gonzo=bad, but oversight=bad still.

Another example is the Iraq Study Group. MSM take on it was: Gates + Bush I Wise Men=new course. After the surge the new storyline quickly became Rumsfeld=bad, but Gates + Bush I Wise Men=new course still.

Nothing can change the script of Hillary=shrill, Barack=naive black man, Reid=ineffectual, Rove=genius and so on. It's their assigned roles in the Beltway soap opera.

Code=snake

"I smell Emanuel and Hoyer."

There are lots of other possibilities (although Hoyer is definitely one of the sources). Ben Nelson for example.

And in my browsing this morning I'm already seeing a chorus of criticism of the Dems for wimping out. Can we at least find out what the truth is before jumping on the bandwagon and playing into the administration's hands?

The spin, that the Democrats are in disarray and factionalized while Bush is resolute and strong, seems to be the meme in the Pet Media.

I can't recall the exact language, but CNN's website yesterday afternoon was already pushing that line. So was ABC's evening news coverage yesterday - their main sound bite shown was Bush's "We all care about our country" remark before meeting with the Democratic Congressional leadership at the White House, while presenting the Dems in a "gee, whadda we do now?" mode.

Even after years of the MSM giving a pack of criminals a virtual free pass -- after all the recent and continuing revelations of fraud, abuse, waste and kleptocracy -- it's still disgusting to see major media spoonfeeding the public with whatever pours out of their fax machine with an RNC letterhead.

The story will have a very short life if the Democrats choose to include some sort of timeline in their new proposal. This will be all just momentary noise.

Maybe the timeline will go, but the consequences for Pelosi especially would be severe: It would truly fracture her caucus.

I do think it is an important point that by far the largest emphasis has been on how the Democrats are in a bind. Is that really true, since they do actually control the revenue spigot and can actually afford to run out the clock on this quite a bit? Bush doesn't want timelines, but he has to have the money. With the public behind the Democrats, how is their bind worse than the Republican bind?

Pelosi's crew needs to play more poker.
Now is the time to beef up the bill and sent it back.
Doesn't a single Dem know how to turn the tables and take charge?!

>What really irritates me about this is my own reaction to the WaPo lead reporter's last name.

I'm irritated by your reaction also.

>my instinctive reaction to Weisman is "Uh huh, just another NeoCon operative working a propaganda angle."

Jewish != neocon operative. Need I point out that the founder of this website is Jewish?

And WTF is up with the link to the "scholarly" paper contrasting "European Culture" versus "Jewish" culture and highlighting Jews' "agressive" nature?

I suggest you take your anti-Semitic, racist crap somewhere else.

Headline from this morning's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

"Democrats give up on war deadline"

...in big, bold letters. I didn't get to see the source of the article, but there is a similar article in the online version that is sourced to a P-G staff writer.

I've also heard the same thing from...um....who was it...oh yeah, beltway journalists! (i.e. Richard Wolfe).

At what point did cocktail hour replace real journalism? Even if what the reporter says is true, and it may be, it does not lend itself to a front-page "Democrats are Pussies" headline, especially when a phone call to other aides refutes the story.

The author of the article claims to stand behind the story, but apparently the Post isn't so sure. I had to actually do a search to find it on the page. It's not exactly a headline (which I would think it would be if they had any confidence in it).

The Weakocrats already have caved. Has no one been paying attention to how dispirited and limp both Pelosi and Reid are in both their verbal and body language. They think of themselves as abused children. They are very,very poor representatives for withdrawl because they display no passion and far too much the concilatory in their demeanor. If you want to smoke out a genuine and practiced bully who is also a psycho-sociopath you must show savage and unrelenting strength, period.

Kerry foolishly did the same. Gravel is the only one who projects the passion. Projection is all. Just ask FDR or Kennedy or Martin.

The story is for real, the sources accurate. Pelosi is inherently weak and Reid is weaker. They are governed by their fear and by their fear of a political outcome. To this extent they are very much already far too enamored of and attached to their new 'power'.

World's Most Skilled Fatman doesn't even need to compete with such children. K. Rove wins again this round. People need to get over this and face reality. What stopped Kissinger and Nixon in Vietnam was not a politician. It was a large groundswell.

I am so tired of corporate media and corporate america. Can we please take our beloved country back? Will you please listen, Congress?????

PUSH BACK HARD. NOW

code: Silver, as in lining

The story is no longer the lead on the Washington Post homepage, but it's still there.

The "story" was top right of the print edition. Like Mark F. says it seems to have been played down:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/print/asectionfrontimage.html

adam putnum was pushing the exact same line as wapo this morning on c-span.

"Why is much of the media's coverage of this focussed on the Democratic dilemma the veto creates, while so little of it is focussed on the fact that Republicans, too, are in a bind, are trapped between public opinion and their unyielding President, and are going to have to make concessions towards a compromise?"

Answer: Because the Democrats don't the balls to confront Bush like that and haven't.

The republic is going down the tubes and the Democrats can't take on a record low approval Repub president pushing an unpopular and disastrous policy based on lies.

Utterly fucking pathetic. And sad.

WaPo reporter is a media hack for Rove. Simple.

Everyone acts like the Dems have to produce a bill that the President will sign. Not true. What they have to do is either (a) Pass a bill the President will sign, or (b) Pass a bill that can sustain a veto override.

The more the President persists in his denial, to the political cost of Republicans in Congress, the easier it will be to take option (b).

The Philadelphia Inquirer has the WaPo story as its front page headline.

dbf: there's another approach that doesn't require Bush to sign or overriding a veto.

Armando at Talkleft has been arguing the following. Announce far in advance that they are NOT funding after, say, March 2008. Fund it in increments between now and then and then on that date, send Bush a funding bill with mandatory withdrawal and let him veto it.

That doesn't require a veto override, just some balls.

Any reason, other than the nutsack deficit, why the Dems can't do that?

Gee, the WaPo is trying to put Democrats on the defensive with regards to Iraq.

Um, and the surprise about this is what, exactly?

-

Alotta oped, and very little news. Projecting news before it happens is a new American Staple,......these reporters should be fired because they write the story as if it already happened.....

"President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq"

so democrats dropped the timeline yesterday? Truth or Lie? or Just Republican wishful thinking.

influencing the news is the battle here! And TPM is great at discovering that and putting the culprits to shame. Bravo!

Am I the only person who's confused by Weisman's sourcing here? The key claim here—"...Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq."—is unsourced.

And why did Weisman grant anonymity to someone who is stating an objective fact? Doesn't he have to disclose a reason for this per WaPo rules?

Maybe the reason Weisman hasn't received any calls is because nobody can figure out who his claims are attributed to.

If Pelosi and Reid are "still deciding" on the response to an event everybody's known was coming for many weeks now, that in itself is plenty bad enough, and they don't need the NeoCon Post's help to look bad.

It sure smells like a pr push. William Arkin put up some "Dems cave" concern trolling yesterday:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/05/on_plan_b_look_to_ronald_reaga_1.html

Man, it is a shame what the WaPo tries to pass off as journalism these days. Once upon a time, it was a real newspaper. Now its just Pravda on the Potomac.

Why doesn't the story start:

"President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats seeking concessions from the White House that vetoed funding for supporting the troops in Iraq.

Democrats remained engaged in the process, despite the President's rhetoric, and a veto that rejected an effort to fund the troops as part of an overall effort to bring the war to a close."

Stockholm syndrome. Pure and simple. Placating Republicans has become what passes for being politically moderate: "What choice do we have? Bush is a Republican, and we can't expect him to compromise. He might even throw a hissy fit. Best to simply back down. We don't want to make a scene." This headline was just a reflex action by Post.

The reason why the media is obsessed with the Democratic delema Bushs veto creates and not a serious delema for Bush and the Republicons is because THE MEDIA IS PRO REPUBLICON!! Until the Democratic majority start kicking the MSM in the teeth over their lying regarding the Bush/Republicon agenda and truth telling regarding the Democratic agenda NOTHING will change.

Personally, I can't think of many other people in the democratic party I would rather have than Reid and Pelosi. I would hardly call them weak. Why is this such a big deal? We could probably pick out 20 stories this week form the WAPost with bias, lies and pro-republicanism. Its not this story but what the democrats do and so far, they are doing ok in my book. When you are up against a bunch of crooks who think the law doesn't apply to them and you are playing 'by the law' it isn't easy.

This is hilarious -- lefties competing over who can condemn (get this!) the Washington Post as a right-wing organ faster!

Talk about a "non-reality based" community.

Sounds like a typical Karl Rove move to me. Make the Dems defend a position they didn't take and by itself it moves the debate into the Presidents direction. Hasn't anyone around here bothered to read "Bush's Brain"? It's a Karl Rove Handbook and this comes straight from it.

PS
My code word is very funny considering this story. Code word sheep.

Before I even heard about this reaction, I was watching CNN this morning and pondering how it was the perfect example of right wing spin in action. Works something like this:

1) The Washington Post (always assumed to be a legitimate news source instead of a right-slanted organization) posts the headline: “Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable”. Without knowing anything else, my first thought is, why isn’t the real headline something more like “President Forces a Stalemate on War Funding”?

2) CNN jumps right on the slanted headline and puts Democrat Steny Hoyer on the defensive to react. The Dems did what they were supposed to in trying to force the President to meet the will of the citizens, and the President arrogantly defied it. The Dems hands are tied because the Republicans in Congress are lock-step behind the arrogant misguided President and refuse to support a veto override. Why doesn’t CNN interview one of these Republicans and ask them how they can conscientiously allow him to defy the will of the citizens?

Just the SOS from the MSM.

One of the comments above requires a couple of slight corrections, so I thought I'd take care of it:

"This is hilarious -- wingnuts competing over who can pretend (get this!) the Washington Post is a left-wing organ faster!

Talk about a "non-reality based" community."

Hope this helps.

My guess is some Dem staffers thought they could casually float the IDEA of dropping a timeline in negotiations to see how that flies, and then they get this story reporting it as an accomplished fact.

Memo to Dem staffers et al. - Weisman, indeed anyone from the Post, is not your friend. Be careful whom you talk to and what you say.

Question: Why is much of the media's coverage of this focussed on the Democratic dilemma the veto creates, while so little of it is focussed on the fact that Republicans, too, are in a bind, are trapped between public opinion and their unyielding President, and are going to have to make concessions towards a compromise?

Answer: Because the WaPo is in the tank for the administration.

This has been another edition of short ansers to easy questions......

The people at WaPo know that the story is false. The WH has fed them the 'information' to put more pressure on Reid/Pelosi.

Rove knows that the American people want the troops to come home now instead of being wasted in Bush's illegal war.

The misinformation will not help the neocons. We are tired of them, we don't want them, we don't trust them, we want them gone.

It's all baloney.
The Dem leadership know this is a knife fight and will act accordingly.
As for the reputation hit to the Dems, nothing destroys the power of republican bitch slap politics faster than the slapee getting up and belting the slapper. Think of the headlines when they send the bill back to the child in chief.

The GOP slappers are in for a surprise.

roll: as in let's roll

I just talked to the Speaker's office. I told them to stand firm and not to compromise on the appropriations bill. I asked if the reports from the WP were true. The office denied the report and said told that no such decision has been made.

Maybe "big people in corporations" called them and told them what to report.

Code = still; as in, "We're still waiting for you to sign a bill funding the troops, Mr. President."

The WASHINGTON POST rightwing? Step away from the acid, hippies.

"Democrats count votes; weigh options"

There, now that wasn't so hard, was it?

There's no focus on the Republican dilemma because there is no Republican dilemna. Mr. Bush said that he will veto anything that contains time-table language and his supporters support him in this: no dilemma.

Maybe the Dem congress will never send another apropriation bill to the President. Works for me. We have recall votes in my state.

How amusing to find that the Washington Post continues its attempts at assassinating Pelosi and Reid in print. We all knew that Moon's competing rag was a pile of dung, but who knew the WaPo also stank on ice? Well, we know now. It's getting so a guy has to watch comedy shows to hear the truth about our (dare I say, rancid?) American political system.

Ron Coleman, you are a deluded racist scumbag.

If Pelosi and Reid are "still deciding" on the response to an event everybody's known was coming for many weeks now, that in itself is plenty bad enough..
Steve LaBonne

BAH DA BING! We have the winner! Are the Dems gonna get "Bushwhacked" again? Will they again fold after holding the winning cards? Stay tuned!

"I just emailed a Pelosi aide to ask whether the story was true" So you contacted an aide and the Washington Post contacted an aide, so it would appear that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, politics as usual.

Kind of reminds me of the networks in 2000 calling Florida for Bush early.

Holy bloody hell, there really are living breathing people who think the Washington Post is a rabidly right-wing pro-Bush outlet? Wow. Get help, people. Serious help.

It's clearly a talking point issued by the right wing noise machine. Everyone from O'Reilly to Pat Buchanan (!) was spouting the idea that the Democrats are "breaking up" over what to do with the war funding bill. I think it's part propaganda, and partly that the modern GOP is so top-down controlled that they can't fathom the idea that a party can have serious disagreements and debate but still come together on a course of action.

Nancy Pelosi has done in 4 months to the Democratic party what it took Tom Delay 12 years to do to the Republican party.

She needs to resign.

Hary Reid has done in 4 months to the Democratic party what it took Tom Delay 12 years to do to the Republican party.

He needs to resign.

If you want MODERATES like us military parents to ever support the Democratic party again; both of these people need to get out of Dodge.

Also, Dennis Kucinich' aides need to stop hanging up on people they don't agree with.

It would seem prudent that someone reporting such an important news item would have contacted Reid or Pelosi their selves before committing to print, rather than relying on unnamed sources. Maybe it would have adversely affected the "impact" of the story to have a leadership denial included.

Does this sound like a pro-Bush newspaper from 2004?

"We do not view a vote for Mr. Kerry as a vote without risks. But the risks on the other side are well known, and the strengths Mr. Kerry brings are considerable. He pledges both to fight in Iraq and to reach out to allies; to hunt down terrorists, and to engage without arrogance the Islamic world. These are the right goals, and we think Mr. Kerry is the better bet to achieve them."

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Message control. Fire the stupid leaking aids. Discipline. Make Bush ask for money every 30 days.

Frank: Endorsements don't mean diddly when Fred Hiatt spends the other 364 days of each year reaming out Democrats and praising Republicans. But you knew that.

This is highly reminiscent of the budget battle between Clinton and the Republican Congress in 1995. At the time nobody expected that Clinton would have the guts to go through with his veto threat, or if he did veto it that he wouldn't later cave in when government agencies started to shut down.

It seemed like it should have been easy to pin the blame on Clinton. All the Republicans had to do was keep passing slight budget variations or short-term budget extensions and force Clinton to keep vetoing the bills. Instead Clinton labeled the Republican plan as Dead On Arrival, with his veto an unavoidable given, and insisted that until they gave him a satisfactory budget it was their fault that all the federal workers were going unpaid and parks were being shuttered.

Soon enough, despite all their posturing and bluster, the Republicans in Congress surrendered. They couldn't take the political heat, because they were faced with the monumental task of keeping hundreds of Representatives and Senators in lock step. They didn't have the necessary unanimity.

The killer for the Republicans was when word seeped out that Gingrich was being stubborn on the budget battle because he was peeved over a perceived "snub" by Clinton on a plane trip to the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin. That sealed the public perception as to which side was being unreasonable.

Now the situation is reversed. Democrats don't have the necessary unanimity to stand up to the President. Much like Gingrich's "snub", Harry Reid's remarks about the war being lost could not have come at a worse time public-relations-wise. And after a lot of posturing and bluster and frantic attempts to save face, the Democrats in Congress will surrender and meet the President's basic terms. Just as Congress found it impossible to shut down the government and not pay federal workers, Congress will find it impossible to shut down the Iraq war and not provide financial support for the troops in the field.

What's the problem with the Dems just coming out and saying "Look, we gave Bush all the money he asked for plus some. HE'S the one who vetoed it and turned it down"? The majority of the people already are aware that this is W's war. He started it and he screwed it up.

Another war "lost" and we are surprised? It's in the water !!

ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH THE POST PIECE:

The Washington Post led today's edition with a large-font, top-of-the-front-page article entitled "Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable" that opened as follows:

President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.
That would be a major news story (though many have expected such a move, eventually). Unfortunately, the article utterly fails to substantiate it. The article has no quotations from Democrats, or even Republicans, even referring to timetables at all.

"Democrats remain deeply divided over how far to give in to the White House," the article goes on to say. This is "why have you been beating your wife?" logic. Nowhere does the article point to evidence of a Democratic division over a presumed decision to "give in to the White House."

This is editorial malpractice unworthy of Washington Post front-page coverage of an important story. By contrast, the New York Times covers this same non-development in a story that makes no reference to "concessions" or "backing" down but quotes at least five Senate Democrats by name about the difficulties of finding a consensus withing their caucus on withdrawl timetables and war funding.

See:

"Kind of reminds me of the networks in 2000 calling Florida for Bush early.

Posted by: expatjourno
Date: May 3, 2007 03:15 PM"

Say what? The networks called Florida for GORE, even before the polls in the heavily Republican panhandle region were closed.

Kind of scary for a commenter claiming to be a journalist to be so far out of touch with reality. Not surprising, though. Which outlet, al-Jazeera?

Using a generic label to imply a specific leads to a false assumption. Sounds to me like deceptive reporting. If the reporter had said that indeed he was told this information by democratic subordinates and not "the Democrats" he would have done his job correctly Obviously he is not interested in good journalism.

To Ron Coleman and Redjack Donovan,

The Washington Post editorial page, as well as another of its columnists, have been among the strongest and most consistent supporters of the war in Iraq. This is not to say that The Post supports the full right-wing/Bush agenda, but as far as the war in Iraq goes, Bush and the Post are pretty much on the same page. Given the Post's editorial commitment to continuing the war, I am more than a little suspicious of the paper's news reporting on efforts to withdraw the troops, for the same reason that those of you on the right are suspicious of the Post on its reporting on other issues, where its editorial perspective tends to be more liberal.

Stop saying WaPo!!! Washington Post, WP... anything!

Sorry - that first sentence should have read "as well as a number of its columnists" rather than "another".

"Why report that Dems have already caved in the negotiations if they haven't yet?"

Because they will, and everybody knows it.

Well, when ya think about it...that's just what Dems are good at now isn't it...cuting and running...

Cookie,
They are getting better and better with all of the practice they are getting.

That they are matey...that the are....

While they are cutting and running, the Reid/Pelosi bunch are trying to usurp the powers of "commanders-in-committee", and pouting about the WaPo. Being that delusional must be exhausting for them.

"Why is much of the media's coverage of this focussed on the Democratic dilemma the veto creates, while so little of it is focussed on the fact that Republicans, too, are in a bind,"

In this case it is because it's the WaPo. In that newspaper, it isn't just the editorial section that is proBush despite what some of the reporters claim.

Hey Veritas, Cookie and Richard,

Hope you enjoy spending the next couple of decades in the political wilderness with the rest of your Neocon brethren. Because of this moronic and dissasterous war you all pushed so hard for, not only have you done extraordinary damage to the country, but you have crippled the Republican Party and the right-wing movement in general for perhaps a generation. Democrats will be winning elections by running against George W. Bush for many years to come.

Have fun being out of power. See how much the MSM kisses up to you then.

I am no Democratic Strategist but it is my humble opinion that the Democrats should work with the Republicans in the House and Senate to try and find a compromise. It is obvious that the President does not want to compromise on anything. He doesn't have to run for re-election but the Republicans in the House and Senate do have to run. And they are scared to death, no matter the brave face they are trying to display to the public.

No doubt, George W Bush will make a public display criticizing the Democrats for holding up the funds. The Democrats will then need to tell him that once they work out a compromise with the Republicans in the House and Senate, he will get it back on his desk. But, they should point out at every opportunity that Mr Bush had the funds on his desk, but for political gamesmanship, he decided to veto those funds. He has no one to blame but himself....

Homer,
If I remember correctly all but a couple dems voted for the war too. Why not give them as much credit also? Short memory?
If you had any ideas you wouldn't have to run against President Bush. It would be so much better to have an idea for a change instead of just being against the President.

Homer, in regards to "the Democrats being in power for many years to come...I guess we'll all just have to wait and see. The MSM "kissing up to us"...LOLOL...just when the hell have they done that in these past many years. They lean so far left they are about to fall over....

...and of course Kennedy, Pelosi and others haven't hurt the Dems at all now have they....RIGHT!

Such bitterness, Homer! Go call your therapist. Meanwhile, red states will still be in control for years to come, responding with an electoral backlash to the antics of Reid and Pelosi.

Whoa there Kentuck,
The dems played political games loading the bill with pork and a losing game plan. Put the blame where it belongs son.

Kentuck...Richard be right mate. The bills were loaded with pork that had absolutely nothing to do with the war, just stuff to line democrats pockets and garner votes...

Gotta go have dinner...will be back in two shakes of a Democrats ass...thats about an hour or so...

I cannot imagine the gall of Republicans to accuse the Democrats of porking up a bill after they have put us into debt by $3 trillion dollars in 6 short years, much of that in the hog market. But I ask you what do you consider "pork" other than the peanuts and spinach subsidies which were taken out??

Good try kentuck, I don't blame you for trying to change the subject, but to back to the subject, there were a bunch of non-military items put into the bill just to buy dem votes and the loser game plan was the frosting on the cake.

Kentuck, in answer to yur query...lets try 100 million for citrus growers and more luxury office space for lawmakers themselves....ya...thats really got alot to do with Iraq now doesn't it....

And don't forget the SCHIP line for 650 million, just to pick another one.

Kentuck....careful when ya ask questions like that mate...lessin ya did yur research...yur gonna get burnt...like ya just did...

Funny... I didn't feel anything?? If the Congress feels they want to vote for what you call "pork", they have the majority. What is so hypocritcal, in my viewpoint, is for the Republicans to suddenly get that ole time "cut spending" religion, after six years of the biggest spending in the history of the nation. However, my original point is that the Democrats cannot bargain with George W Bush - they should bargain with the Republicans in the House and Senate to come up with a compromise that the President can accept.

Well Sir...ya just might be right about a compromise...that does indeed make sense....

Still trying to change the subject... I really do not blame you. But, back to the point. Why should a military spending bill be porked up so much and more importantly have a guaranteed losing plan attached to it?

All I can tell you is in watching the D's little stand-up after leaving the WH meeting I had the sickening feeling that they were backing down. Nothing they said sounded like they were doing anything more than setting up things for backing down from the Shrub. Were they intimidated by W's alacrity in using the veto pen? My gut says if we don't want the D leadership to back down, we're going to have to put mucho heat on them quickly to repass something as strong or stronger and send it back to the WH.

Plutodog, why would you want to do that?

The D's are always 'for it before they are against it'.

The D's have no plan. They are just drifting along.

it is biased, no doubt. must be $$ involved for someone to leak like that or the "reporter" is lying.

my trust meter is broken.

Hey Kentuck, I'm sorry I slapped at you that last time. Cookie was trying to get your idea of a compromise. Don't go away mad. Come back and play...

Liberal foreign policy--RUN AWAY!

The Democrats should do nothing, send no bill. The ball is in W's
court. Let him sweat.

Richard..
It was not a "military" spending bill, per se - it was a supplemental. Bush could have requested this in his initial budget. Oh, the Republicans did not present a budget. So are you saying the budget should have been vetoed because of the pork or because of the withdrawal timelines that were placed in it? Which one bothers you the most?

By the way, you try and slap me, and you get the crap kicked out of you. Just trying to figure out where you're coming from here?

My party did the "withdraw the troops" thing already to suffice some of the fringe kooks of my party (Democratic), but they are vocal minority. Most of us Democrats want to win in Iraq, and funding the troops is the right thing to do without any timeline. That would be like going into WW2 with legislation saying if we don't defeat the Germans and Japanese by October, 1943 then we'll quit and withdraw all the troops. That's not realistic and neither is withdrawing from Iraq.

I think some type of benchmarks for the Iraqi gov't to do more for themselves would be a good compromise for both sides. The Iraqis need to realize they need to step up to the plate, pick up the pace and start doing more.

Tyler, now there is some common sense thinkin for a Democrat...and many of us want the Iraqi's to step up so we can step out....everythin ya just said makes sense....at least t'me it does...

Oh...Kentuck...I'd be a might carefull mate regardin "kickin the crap outta Richard"...he's a mighty testy feller who can use words like a sword when he wants to....

Kentuck, The cowardly time table bothers me the most, but the pork was a good enough reason to veto that sorry bill.
A little touchy are we? By the way, I did slap you a couple times.
Must go tend the yard now. Be back later.

AN $8 BILLION a month war for over 4 years and at least $8 billion unaccounted for and the GOP hacks dare preach about a little "pork"?

Jason,
Common error lumping people together with out investigating what they really stand for. Just makes you look like an amateur. I have never been in favor of pork.
The pork part is all that bothered you? Are you in favor of our losing to the terrorists then?

By the way, Richard, there were more than 2 senators that voted against the Iraq War Resolution. I think there were about twenty-three? But what's the big deal, huh? You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Just saying...

The code word is "right" . :-)

kentuck
Looks like I was wrong on that one.
But, back to why you want us to lose to the terrorists. Why is that?
And, why are you so in favor of the pork in the bill?

You can call a horse's tail a leg but that doesn't make it so. The Republican mantra of pork is simply that. There have been some major disasters in our agricultural production. You may think that is "pork" but some others may think it is necessary. And surely you don't think the money spent on Walter Reed Hospital or the veterans programs was pork? As for the supplemental, I would like to see an itemized list fo what this $100 billion dollars is going to be spent for? It's not like there has been no fraud or waste in this war. Clever question but beneath you, I would hope,"why you want us to lose to the terrorists". Much like, when have you stopped beating your wife. We are not losing to the "terrorists". We are losing to ourselves. Lies and deception can lead to no good. A bad tree cannot bear good fruit. This war started with a lie and has continued non-stop. Sorry, friend, you are wrong on this one...

kentuck,
I have never been if favor of pork and have fought it all of my life. The bill was full of pork and a nice story from President Lincoln does not change that fact. No mantra with me son, just a fact.
If there are disasters that you think need attention, propose help for them in a separate bill and let them stand on their own merits. If they can't then they do not deserve to be funded. Do not use them to buy votes.
Walter Reed and VA funding is part of the overall military operation and is directly related to how those who have served and are serving have their needs met. Why would you even think of that as pork?
Not trying to be clever with the question about losing to the terrorists at all. You are confusing yourself with that idea.
We will lose to the terrorists if we pull out of Iraq as that turkey bill insisted.
What lie are you referring to?

"What lie are you referring to?"

Where should we start? The lie about nuclear weapons and the aluminum tubes? The lies about "mushroom clouds"? The lies about WMDs? The lies about knowing where the WMDs were exactly located? The lies about the length of the war, as short as six weeks? The lies about the oil revenues paying for the war? The lies told by Colin Powell and George Tenet in front of the United Nations? We could go on and on...

We are not in a war - we are in an occupation of another country. It was not necessary and it had nothing to do with us being attacked on 9/11. There is no evidence that matters would be worse if we withdrew. When 80% or more of the Iraqis do not want us there and the majority think it is OK to kill Americans, don't you think it might be wise to re-evaluate our position??

kent,
You are over the edge and not worth my time to post to. You really need to seek help for your condition.

kentuck,
I'm going to be out of town for several hours. See you later.

Kentuck, I'm sure you are aware that the Clinton administration also thought that he had WMD's as well....and that Colin Powell, after realizing that he himself had probably been mislead by mis-information in the Bush administration, resigned.

Ya know, we (this country and the two parties) keep going backwards and pointing fingers...and I'm sure we can both do that till the cows come home....there have been many, MANY errors on BOTH sides of the aisle...that's why I've always loved a saying that the Japanese have...."Fix the problem...not the blame". That saying...philosophy if you will...is one of the reasons that the Japanese industrial machine took off like it did after WWII. We Americans spend and waste way too much time doing exactly what we are now doing...

So the question now should be...whats next. I'll listen to anyone, Democrat or Republican who has a rational solution to this mess...other than just dropping the ball and running. For us to that...all will have been in vain....

Cookie,
I think kent pointed out the biggest problem, although I do not think he realized it, with his post. His desire to blame the President for every evil in the world has blinded him to the truth that he did speak. Our intelligence gathering and analysis apparatus has become severely flawed.
Potential warnings about 9/11 did not get to those who needed to know. Information was not shared like it should have been, etc.
Just about all of his comments about what is now happening in Iraq could have possibly been avoided or dealt with faster if our intelligence information had been up to snuff.
That still does not solve the current problem, but a recognition of a real problem will help to solve it. More attention to the intelligence operation is critical, but it is a long term part of the solution. It takes time, a lot of time as you know, to develope a proper intelligence organization that can help guide us around the pitfalls. I believe that is a necessary part of the solution though.

The IRAQ war was lost when it was started. It was a HUGE mistake. That our military could knock off Saddam and his army was a no-brainer. That that would end the matter was a disasterous fantasy. We are stuck IN Iraq to save Bush's eventual fate of having lost a war he shouldn't have started. Our troops still die in that pitiful cause. There are losses we can't get around because GWB had to have his excellent adventure.

Staying in Iraq as we are only puts off dealing with the fallout like adults and doing the best we can to minimize that fallout from the best strategy and location we can.

Who's going to be the last soldier to die for GWB's (dis)honor? Could be that won't be known for years, decades, it was THAT bad an idea. We still have to extricate, quit throwing good after bad, and actually RETURN to the war against the good folk who brought us 9-11 (as opposed to the good folk who sat and read about my pet goat while it was going down).

The disaster was (more or less, mostly less) elected, when do we elect to actually do something effective about it?

Plutodog,
Why do you think we are not doing something effective about the war on terror in Iraq?

C'mon Richard, be more specific. Let's start out with, it ain't a war on a tactic. It's a war on the tacticians who attacked us. That wasn't Iraq, they weren't Iraqis. By knocking off the Iraqi tyrant and compounding that by sticking around for an occupation, we turned from Afghanistan where Al Quaida was let off the hook and we built a magnet for Al Quaida in Iraq where history shoulda told our geniuses we were setting up a civil war that Al Quaida could take advantage of, rub our noses in, kill our soldiers, recruit more "terrorist" combatants, and put us in a box where we can only "win" by coming pretty close to genocide...if we had enough troops to do that or could survive the blowback from having enough bombs to do that.

But your open ended question to a something I didn't say seems to be saying you think it is a war on terror and properly fought in Iraq.

To the contrary, I believe we blew it going in, we're blowing it staying there. There was a price to be paid for going in, there's a bigger price to staying there and that price grows the longer we stay. Time to cut losses and try to retool our policy for dealing with the price that GWB has cost us. For him and his to blame others for the mess he created, the war with no good way out, to hide behind the "cut and run", "support the troops" smokescreen is more cowardice and dishonesty of the chickenhawk/corporatist variety. You don't keep doing the same insane thing and expect different results. You support the troops by getting them out of this quicksand as fast as damned possible and get some adult supervision in the White House. You quit digging the hole deeper.

Pluto,
If word games make you happy, go for it! It sounds like you need a little happy in your life. All of the pent up dislike you have for the President is probably a very heavy load to carry. Most of it unwarranted as well.
We haven't let anyone off the hook in Afg. We are still there knocking them down every time they stick their heads up. A problem we have there is that we have driven them across the border into Pakistan tribal regions where no one really is in control and the terain is really horrible. Now unless you are in favor of attacking Pakistan we are doing about all we can on that front.
As I already stated, poor intelligence data has caused us problems. That is a non issue here.
Over and over the UN had called for Sadam to cooperate and warned him repeatedly of the consequences for ignoring them. Our past administration had called for his removal. Our congress voted over whelmingly to remove him. Then when President Bush had the will to do it he gets attacked as a reckless cowboy. Where is the blame for all of the other ones who called for Sadams removal but did not have the guts to do anything about it?
Al Quaida chose to make their stand in Iraq, not the US. If that is where they want to fight, lets take it to them there instead of having to do it somewhere else is a little while.
There is a new plan being implemented. That seems to be what you are calling for, so why not wait and see if it will work? What, you want it both ways?

Lotsa happy in my life and lotsa hope for the future, Rich. As for pent-up dislike for the prez, trying not to get off topic, you bet I've got a lot of dislike for how he's blown the response to 9-11 and the cost in blood and lives. Going from "Dead or Alive" to "I don't know where he is and frankly I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it", letting him get away at Tora Bora, taking the majority of our troops out of Afghanistan for a war of choice in Iraq when we had inspectors in there doing their job, and now you're blaming terrain and Pakistan for the prez's strategic blunders and "poor intelligence" for GWB's brainpower? In fact, Al Quaida is not just in Iraq but has been spreading far and wide -- and we give them a great training ground in Iraq. A new strategy, this latest "surge"? As if it were a new, as if it were robust enough to do any good, as if it were an intelligent response to the facts on the ground (civil war, poor leadership, ineffective infrastructure repair, war profiteer contractors who don't employ Iraqis, etc etc etc). We had the world behind us when 9-11 hit and this dimbulb tossed it in the trash, continues to burn lives braver than his ever was and you want to go on "taking it to them there"? This is not a new plan and it's doomed. Would that it were otherwise but it was doomed from the time Bush took his eye off the ball and decided THIS is the time to take care of Saddam. Letting Bush go on is like letting a kid play with a pistol when there's anybody else's kids anywhere in the neighborhood. Putting aside the mortal danger to the kid with the gun, how many more innocents are you willing to let Bush condemn? How many more, I should say.

Plutodog,
I just realized that I need to apologize to you. I am sorry that I didn't see it earlier. I wasn't aware what a great military planner and mind you were. So much gerater than the combined wisdom of our entire military. Wow! I am impressed!

Hey, Richard. No problem, bro. Any time you want to clear up anything else, let me know. I'm here to serve even the dead ender bushbots! Have a good one now.

huge boobs

nice boobs

[url=http://backgroundexposure.com/rw-blog/wp-content/uploads/2005/1/boobs9.htm ]
bouncy boobs
[/url]

http://backgroundexposure.com/rw-blog/wp-content/uploads/2005/1/boobs9.htm

cialis soft tabs

cialis levitra vardenafil

[url=http://www.acestainless.com/images/uploads/gif/cialis.htm ]
cialis for order
[/url]

http://www.acestainless.com/images/uploads/gif/cialis.htm

buy viagra online
href="http://www.acestainless.com/images/uploads/gif/viagra.htm ">
mail order viagra

http://www.acestainless.com/images/uploads/gif/viagra.htm

buy viagra online
href="http://www.acestainless.com/images/uploads/gif/viagra.htm ">
mail order viagra

http://www.acestainless.com/images/uploads/gif/viagra.htm

baby got boobs

teen boobs

[url=http://www.blackagendareport.net/wp-content/uploads/2005/boobs9.htm ]
boobs
[/url]

http://www.blackagendareport.net/wp-content/uploads/2005/boobs9.htm

baby got boobs

teen boobs

[url=http://www.blackagendareport.net/wp-content/uploads/2005/boobs9.htm ]
boobs
[/url]

http://www.blackagendareport.net/wp-content/uploads/2005/boobs9.htm

levitra uk
href="http://www.blackagendareport.net/wp-content/uploads/2002/levitra.htm ">
generic levitra

http://www.blackagendareport.net/wp-content/uploads/2002/levitra.htm