Kossacks and Markos needs to calm down. Obviously we can't play games or play politics if Bush won't back down.

We don't have the votes to override his veto, so what do we do then? We barely got that bill through?

What next, we ask Liberman for support?

Obama is entirely right, I don't like this war and he doesn't like this war but people (Liberal Kossacks) act like we have an alternative option.

Oh, well we do.. not give Bush what he wants and act like the bigger child.

There is no win, win scenario here.

If we could end this war, we would today. But it takes time, and it takes pressure.

We are already doing that, don't be discouraged now because Obama is saying what obviously could happen.

Obama isn't the enemy, these are the same people who beat up Hillary like she's the enemy.

Wait, aren't these Republican failures? They are trying to end this war, we just can't do it with a blink of an eye.

You know that I have neither love nor respect for bush-cheney.  However, either there are enough votes to override the veto or there are not.  If there are not, Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi should hold a conference and point out there are not enough votes to override the veto by the President.  Then they should say that to support the troops, they will immmediately send another bill.

If Obama is gonna cough up the ball like that with little or no fight, how hard will he fight the GOP nominee next year?

Gordie's comments below are right on the mark. Obama is willing to give up immediately. We need to force Bush to veto. then go back bite the bullet, cut the pork. Load it up troop armor and health benefits and then shame Bush everytime he opposes that plan.

I am so pissed at the Dems for putting the pork in this thing and giving Bush a semi valid reason for whipping out the veto pen.

Well at least we know now what will happen in situations like this now. OBAMA WILL BLINK.

They do not command enough votes to override a veto.  So, either they strip the timeline out or they block funding for the war.  What is wrong with Senator Obama being a realist?

He's the enemy now. Hey equate that real answer to a question as his support for Bush.

They are smoking something, and I am sure it isn't legal.

Several other Democratic members of Congress said basically the said thing as Obama on the morning news shows today (Sunday).  What choice do they have? The dems don't intend to pull the rug out from under the troops if/when the measure is vetoed. I neither for nor against Obama right now, but he was just stating a fact of what he expected Congress to do.  I'm sure this was all agreed to ahead of time when the measure was passed. 

We need to concentrate on local and statewide elections, rebuild the party from the ground up.  That's how Republicans took over. We sit around arguing about the '08 Presidential race when we should be working to elect Democrats for councilman and mayor.  Electing progressive judges and state legislatures are the little not-so sexy part of politics and these wins pay off down the road with a strong party.  And it's a lot more important we have a veto proof congress than which Dem is in the White House.  Already fundraising is out of the roof and it's only gonna get worse. 

Preach it, Nick!

That's why we're working hard here at RK to raise money and otherwise support our Democratic candidates in Virginia...

Markos first line then Markos quoting

I wish this was an April Fools Day joke:

If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Not only is it bad policy, not only is it bad politics, it's also a terrible negotiating approach.

Instead of threatening Bush with even more restrictions and daring him to veto funding for the troops out of pique, Barack just surrendered to him.

Let me repeat that -- Obama just surrendered to Bush.

This is a good reason why the internet should not be left to partisan heads.  We just came from history, by taking the House and Senate. We,Democrats, have been able to get liberal and conservative votes with each new trail of the vote on the war. Markos says this, Markos says that, its obvious that Markos is a product of the public school system without civics classes and history classes.

Its like quoting a presidential historian on medival europe just because the person's a historian. History is such a broad subject.  We've got gridlock on this issue at least for now, because as another perspn said, we don't have the votes. It will be interesting though if Bush carries through with his threat.

so much defeatism in my entire life. Why is every one going to play dead in the water.

If the village idiot vetoes then go to plan B.

Start over in the house. They pass another bill with less pork and another withdrawl date. Give more money for body armour and V plated Humvees. Make Bush look like a jerk after the Veto. Come back strong at him and do everything possible for the troops.

Then the House can send it to the Senate again. From what I heard months ago there is money for troops up to June. Why has it changed? Because the people with the biggest spin is out there pushing bull again.

Obama does not have a chance and never did have a chance against the Clinton Machine. All wishful thinking on the Republican side of Politics, trying to muddy the waters and divide the party. Right now the biggest question is who will be the VP choice?

Why should Democrats waste valuable legislative time writing and re-writing a supplemental appropriation?  Bush will veto anything that attempts to deny his decision making authority on Iraq.  Whatever they do, they will eventually come back to passing the appropriation with no strings attached.  So, why delay the inevitable?  And how is that defeatism? 

You do not know Bush. He buckles under pressure. Time and again he has said he will never do something, but the Democrats come up with some way to change his mind.

The more Democrats push this issue towards election time the more Republicans up for re-elction will buckle under the stress.

If the Democrats have guts they will follow the motto
"We have yet begun to fight".

If you have to ask the question, "how is that defeatism" there is little help for you.

That is self evident. Refer to Gordies remarks on how the Dems should proceed. Cut the pork, load it with goodies for the GI's and attach a timeline as a condition. This is not frickin rocket science. ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK. Never surrender.

Wow. I can't believe that had to be explained.

It is nice to be able to have nice, reasonable discourse on political matters. The format of blogging is very well suited to that. However, at some point one's tolerance for amateur hour gets tested. Sorry about the harsh post.

When Tom Delay pushed through his unprecedented non-census year redistricting of the state of Texas, the entire Democratic caucus left the state depriving Republicans of a quorum in the statehouse.  It was great theater; it wasn't surrender.  But in the end, it was futile.

The reality is that the Democrats do not have a unified caucus to defund the war.  They had a tough enough time pulling the votes together to get this bill out of the House as evidenced by all of the pork you spoke of.  They have the smallest of margins in the Senate.  And if they delay this, they hand Republicans a get out of jail free card.  Because it will be so easy to spin a litany of negative sound bites about Democrats blocking funding for troops.

I'm not saying give up.  I'm saying be patient and do not waste time on fruitless endeavors.  That is not defeatism.  What you and Gordie speak to is idealism, and that is wonderful for rallying the base, but it is not an effective way to govern.

Finally, if you have to apologize at the end of your post, perhaps you should have gone back edited.  I do not appreciate being belittled, nor is it ever necessary to make your point in that manner.  In fact, you lose a lot of credence when you need to rely on belittling someone else to forward your own position.