Merlin – your spin doesn’t square with what the American people were told when the Dems took the Congress.

This is an overly broad statement that is way to vague to comment on. You would have to be specific for me to research my answer. I don’t memorize details but instead look them up before I comment. I don’t like to shoot from the hip. It does neither of us any good.
That said, there is enough “politics” and backroom stuff going on, (that we don’t know about,) that you probably could make the case both ways in both camps. Unless there is a serious pattern of deceit etc., I find the usual arguments between us folks observing the scene, is rather like the parable of the cave. There, the people could only see the shadows of things passing in front of the cave opening, and had great discussions about what was making those shadows on the wall. To me, it is all “time consuming” pastime fun and not much more. You, no doubt, have noticed I never take part in these kind of detailed discussions. My emphasis is on the big picture.

Is your apologizing for American foreign policy…
I am not apologizing for anything. Do you believe I need to apologize for something? If so, what? If any apologizing is to be done it should come from BushCo. The responsibility rests with them for this invasion and current occupation.

…code
I don’t speak or write in code. If you have read my serious posts here you know that I am as straight and clear as I can be in what I say. I say what I feel, think and believe at the moment. If I find I am wrong I have no trouble “flip flopping” and admitting that I was wrong and that I have made a mistake. I must be convinced of that, however. Emerson said it well in his essay on self reliance. I try to follow that approach.

…for “None of this would be happening if the US didn’t support Israel?” Just curious……

I did not mention Israel and did not think it was pertinent to my answer. What I said in my post was it, nothing hidden or implied. Reread my post, it is very clear. If you do not find it so, tell me where I have been vague or misleading and I will do what I can to be more clear.

“I realize Mort Zuckerman is far more important ….but I can hardly wait to read how “TP and gang” spin the CRUSHING defeat of Russ Feingold’s latest legilative masterpiece???”

OK Valient, here is a serious response (spin if you prefer.) as opposed to playing the game.

You talk as if Reid-Feingold was expected to pass or come close to passing. This is not the case at all. It was expected to fail by everyone, and you know that. It was clearly understood that no Republican votes would be “yes”. The question from progressives was how many votes would it get on the Democratic side. There are many Dems that need to be convinced that we need to leave Iraq now. This bill was part of that effort. As opposed to the current Republican senators, party loyalty does not trump personal belief and duty to constituancy. Democrats always appear, and often are, divided. This is natural and is the nature of the Democratic (and democratic) beast.
The number of yes votes was more than the 11 cosponsors it had, reaching 29. Considering that this bill was considered extreme by just about everybody, when it was first proposed, the vote today is not even close to the “crushing” defeat you would like to believe it was. It achieved its purpose to push toward the goal. That purpose is to leave Iraq, and one way or the other we will leave. (It is even remotely possible, though 99% doubtful, that Bush will do it, if it is politically expedient.) This bill is just one part of the effort to bring our troops home sooner rather than later. Sadly, there is much work to be done yet to stop the carnage, pain and suffering our foreign policy has created.

“The Senate on Wednesday rejected legislation that would cut off money for combat operations in Iraq after March 31, 2008.

The vote was a loss for Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and other Democrats who want to end the war. But the effort picked up support from members, including presidential hopefuls previously reluctant to limit war funding, an indication of the conflict’s unpopularity among voters.

The proposal lost 29-67 on a procedural vote, falling 31 votes short of the necessary votes to advance. (emphasis added)

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democratic presidential front-runner, previously opposed setting a deadline on the war. But she said she agreed to back the measure “because we, as a united party, must work together with clarity of purpose and mission to begin bringing our troops home and end this war.”

Sen. Barack Obama, another leading 2008 prospect, said he would prefer a plan that offers more flexibility but wanted “to send a strong statement to the Iraqi government, the president and my Republican colleagues that it’s long past time to change course.”

Get your ass over there warmonger. You talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?

- Tom

Yes, he lays it out rather bluntly but he uses it as a rhetorical prop to buttress his argument that the US shouldn’t leave Iraq. Take this paragraph, for example:

It might be argued that my sketch is overdrawn, that Iraqis will learn to live together and deal in their own way with alien terrorists. But if they can’t do that when supported by the world’s most powerful military, what chances are there when they are left on their own? And even if there is a smaller probability of the horrific consequences I have suggested, it still remains a chance that can’t be taken. The concern to bring the troops home and reduce our casualties is wholly understandable, but the risks make it impossible right now.

The rest of the comment is not much different because it is actually an argument in favor of continuing the occupation of Iraq. In a nutshell, what Zuckerman says is: If you think Iraq is in a bad shape now, wait until we withdraw.

Really, you should have kept reading beyond the paragraphs that seemed to agree with whatever point you wanted to make. Defending the people who got it wrong -and still get it wrong- doesn’t quite speak well of you.

Ideas for a bumper sticker: “Dude, I voted to invade Iraq and all I got was this lousy Shiite theocracy”

This should, of course, read ‘in’ and not ‘on’…. er, obviously.

Mr Zuckerman, the position of Captain Obvious is not to be cheapened by imitations. Oh and take some responsibility for your own part as a cheerleader and stop blaming the victims…

Actually, Zuckerman lays out quite bluntly how bad the situation is in Iraq now:

“[W]e thought we would create the conditions for a viable state, even a democratic one. In a troubled region, it would be a state that would not be a threat to us or our friends. What we have instead is a failed state. It cannot protect its people or apply the rule of law. Its lamentable leadership is powerless to govern. We now face the possibility of an even greater danger from Iraq than existed when Saddam Hussein was its ruler. We have removed a terrible dictator but replaced him with the tyranny of the Shiites.”

“You’ll never guess what I just cleaned up with my hanky”