Starting at 5:30. Rahmbo is pathetic and dissembling, just like Pelosi. Transcript here. The key parts, via andgarden:

In an interview with Wolf Blitzer this morning, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi demonstrated she has no intention of doing anything to end the war in Iraq:

BLITZER: Let's talk about the war in Iraq. When you became speaker, you said, "Bringing the war to an end is my highest priority as speaker."

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER: It is.

. . . BLITZER: The war, if anything, is not only continuing, but it's expanding. There's more troops now in Iraq than there were when you became the speaker. What are you going to do about that?

PELOSI: Well, we did, when we took office, we took the majority here. We changed the debate on the war. We put a bill on the president's desk that said that we wanted the redeployment of troops out of Iraq to begin in a timely fashion and to end within a year. The president vetoed that bill.

He got quite a response to that veto, and the Republicans in the Senate then decided he was never going to get a bill on his desk again. So we have a barrier and it's important for the American people to know that while I can bring a bill to the floor in the House, it cannot be brought up in the Senate unless there's a 60 vote, now 60 votes.

He got quite a response? What the heck is Pelosi talking about? He got, FROM HER, a bill with no timetables! Who does Speaker Pelosi think she is fooling? Blitzer is not fooled:

Via the Out Of Iraq Blogger Caucus, Alex, a "phony soldier", at his site Army of Dude. A great post. Make sure you read it.

This is an Open Thread.

Senator Chris Dodd:

. . . Congress has an obligation here. . . . The Constitution gives the Congress of the United States a unique power, and that is the power of the purse. As long as we continue drafting these lengthy resolutions and amendments here, talking about timelines and dates, we're not getting to the fundamental power that exists in the Congress. And that is to terminate the funding of this effort here, give us a new direction.

Senator Barack Obama:

I hope and will work diligently in the Senate to bring an end to this war before I take office. And I think that it is very important at this stage, understanding how badly the president's strategy has failed, that we not vote for funding without some timetable for this war.

Senator Hillary Clinton:

I have voted against funding this war, and I will vote against funding this war as long as it takes.

MR. RUSSERT: If, in fact, the president does not accept a firm withdrawal date, will you vote to cut off funding? SEN. BIDEN: . . . I will vote, as long as there’s a single troop in there that we are taking out or maintaining, either way I will vote for the money necessary to protect them, period.

Joe Biden can not stand up to George Bush and the Republicans. He will not vote to end the war. He can not be the Democratic nominee.

Senator Chris Dodd: I happen to believe very strongly that this policy of ours, military involvement in Iraq, is counterproductive. We're less safe, less secure, more vulnerable and more isolated today as a result of the policy. So I believe that we ought to begin that process of redeployment here.

. . . Congress has an obligation here. It's not enough that we just draft timetables. The Constitution gives the Congress of the United States a unique power, and that is the power of the purse. As long as we continue drafting these lengthy resolutions and amendments here, talking about timelines and dates, we're not getting to the fundamental power that exists in the Congress.

And that is to terminate the funding of this effort here, give us a new direction. As everyone who's looked at this issue over the last two or three years have concluded, there is no military solution here, and we need to do far more to protect our interests not only in that region, but throughout the world. We're not doing it with this policy.

to this:

The Defense Department is seeking an additional $42.3 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing the total request for 2008 to nearly $190 billion, according to prepared testimony Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is to present to Congress this afternoon.

No funding past a date certain. The Iraq Debacle must end. Only the Congress can do it. By NOT funding the Iraq Debacle.

Just say no.

A very silly line of argument has developed today in the Left blogs. This post by MJ Rosenberg is an example:

I agree with reader JE who wrote: "the Democrats should make them filibuster, and use the term "filibuster" whenever they describe what the Republicans have done, not idiotic characterizations like "we don't have the votes." . . . Make them filibuster. Make it a true filibuster, which stops all other business until a cloture vote occurs. . . ." . . . Why not force the GOP to stay up all night reading the Bible and The Collected Works of Ann Coulter. Let the electorate see them blocking the will off the people. Why would Dems be afraid of that.

Um, how exactly would the Senate Leader be able to do that? The point of a cloture vote is to end debate. The lack of cloture does not mean that debate will occur on the Senate floor.

More.

Good riddance!. This article is false:

The Senate rejected legislation Friday that would have ordered most U.S. troops home from Iraq in nine months, culminating a losing week for Democrats who failed to push through any anti-war proposal. The vote, 47-47, fell 13 votes short of the 60 needed to pass.

(Emphasis supplied.) The bill would NOT have ordered any troops out of Iraq. It was not binding on the President. Only funding restrictions bind the President

Senator Dodd voted against the bill for the right reasons:

This bill (Levin-Reed) will not stop this President from continuing to wage this war. While a firm deadline is necessary, it is not sufficient without it also being enforceable through the power of the purse. Given this President's loyalty to his own failed policy, it is clear to me that anything short of firm, enforceable deadline that forces his hand will only serve to perpetuate our involvement in this civil war. I will only vote to fully fund the complete redeployment of our troops out of Iraq."

(Emphasis supplied.) I repeat my question, is Chris Dodd the only person in the Senate who understands this? Oh by the way, the Democrats have lost NOTHING yet on Iraq. They will only lose if they PASS a bill that funds the war without establishing a date certain for ending funding.

In an editorial today The New York Times writes about the Republican filibusters and recommends:

There were votes, of course, but not on the bills. They were cloture votes, which require 60 or more Senators to agree to cut off debate, eliminating the possibility of a filibuster, so Senators can vote on the actual law. In both cases, Democrats were four votes short, with six Republicans daring to defy the White House. We support the filibuster as the only way to ensure a minority in the Senate can be heard. When the cloture votes failed this week, the Democrats should have let the Republicans filibuster. Democratic leaders think that’s too risky, since Congress could look like it’s not doing anything. But it’s not doing a lot now.

(Emphasis supplied.) The highlighted passage is indicative of the profound misunderstanding of what the Democrats can do on Iraq. From the NYTimes to Move On (I would have censured them for their idiotic political strategy on Iraq), there seems to be no understanding that Congress can end the Iraq Debacle BY DOING NOTHING!!

How hard is it to understand - Democrats need only say and do one thing - NO funding of the Debacle after a date certain. No funding without a timeline. Filibusters and vetoes are powerless against the Spending Power on this. Will anyone on our side ever get it? Besides Chris Dodd?

The Senate today found time in its busy schedule to pass a resolution by Sen. John Cornyn condemning the Move-On ad regarding Gen. Petraeus.

It couldn't pass habeas reform or the Webb Amendment but could rally behind a stupid, toothless resolution?

The roll call vote is here.

And Obama can't be bothered to show up and vote against it? When he voted an hour earlier on Boxer's alternative resolution and also on Russ Feingold's amendment to begin immediate troop withdrawal?

At least Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd voted against the Cornyn Amendment condemning the ad. For more:

• MyDD

• Taylor Marsh

• Open Left

• Firedoglake

Last June, Frank Rich wrote:

As General Odom says, the endgame will start "when a senior senator from the president's party says no," much as William Fulbright did to L.B.J. during Vietnam. That's why in Washington this fall, eyes will turn once again to John Warner, the senior Republican with the clout to give political cover to other members of his party who want to leave Iraq before they're forced to evacuate Congress. . .

I wrote:

Not again. We wait for the Godot Republicans. John Warner will do NOTHING. John Warner will bring along few if ANY Republicans. As I wrote before, John Warner has undercut the drive to end the Debacle at every turn.

Today, Dana Milbank writes:

"I endorsed it," Warner said. "I intend now to cast a vote against it." With those dozen words, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee put a surprise end to the latest efforts in Congress to limit the Iraq war.

Hey Frank! Told you so. More.

Like other progresssive blogs, I support the Webb Amendment, but I think for reasons different than they do. For example, Matt Stoller writes:

If there is still any chance for the 110th Congress to draw down the war in Iraq, it probably rests on the fight over this amendment. Already, Bush will be forced to end the escalation next summer because there are not enough fresh troops to keep it going, and this measure would restrict the amount of troops that can be used in Iraq far more. Of course, 60 votes is still not 67, and there is not word on how much Republican support this bill would have in the House. Still, this is a major step forward, and makes me think that as long as there is another funding fight in a few months time, this might be one piece of legislation where a veto-proof majority is possible.

A veto proof majority is a pipe dream. The Webb Amendment will be useful in making clear to the entire country that the only way to end the Iraq Debacle is to not fund it after a date certain.