matt - to me this bill looked good in the very short term and bad everywhere else. i don't know that my analysis is correct - and i'm really, really hoping to be wrong.
imo, the discussions (although painful) are good to have, and i again thank you for participating in them - even when (or especially when) there are such strong feelings and disagreements.
and i do believe we're all on the same side here...
We are all on the same side if we act like it. If I had to guess, I'd say that nothing that we do for the next two years will have any effect on the military situation in Iraq, and can only set up a better electoral landscape for progressives in 2008 or an impeachment prior to that.
This bill is important or the precedent it sets, but it's only a small first step.
You have no realistic alternative. Kucinich? Are you kidding? Watch the vote collapse to under 100, and then where would we be?
Stay out of the tent, telling the rest of us we're crazy. Time will tell. If you're right, the Democrats will have moved that way.
When you deal with Democratic Party, the oldest political party in the world, you're not dealing with a revolutionary vanguard.
Remember Murtha's first press conference? Remember how many Democrats voted with him? Kerry got, what, 12 votes? I'd say the change to a winning vote is significant. For a long time now, they've just been quarelling about how long to wait before we leave. Aside from Joltin' Joe, name another Democrat who's with Bush?
