Chicken-hearted Dems too weak even to sell out when they try

If you ever wondered why the Democratic Congress hasn't ended the Iraq war — or even successfully made the tiniest step in that direction — it's all been laid out clearly in the last 24 hours.

1. The Democrats cave — again. The AP reports:

WASHINGTON (AP) — After weeks of tough talk, Democrats appear resigned to back down again on providing money for the Iraq war.

What happened?

''Republicans, Republicans, Republicans,'' said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. ''The real problem here is the president and his Republican backers'' who have ''staked out an increasingly hard-lined position.''

(Wonder if Democrats have ever thought of that tactic? Nah, not nice.)

2. Next we get some details from the Washington Post via Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. House of Representatives Democratic leaders are contemplating legislation that would give President George W. Bush $70 billion in new funds for war but without any timetables for withdrawing troops from Iraq, The Washington Post reported on Saturday.

The deal would also include about $11 billion in additional domestic spending through September 2008 that Bush had opposed, said the Post, quoting House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who met with the paper's editorial board on Friday.

Still unclear, however, is whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a vocal opponent of the Iraq war, would go along with the unconditional money for combat after several attempts in the House to bring the fighting to an end.

3. Then the coup de grace, from the AP again:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House on Saturday threatened to veto a massive spending bill being assembled by congressional Democrats, saying it's unacceptable to add billions of dollars to domestic programs.

The White House has not seen details of the $500 billion-plus measure — which senior Democrats are constructing behind closed doors — but reacted to it based on media accounts.

The bill contains $11 billion above President Bush's February budget, awarding the money to domestic programs such as education and health research. It also may contain several billion dollars in ''emergency'' funding for border security, foreign aid, drought relief and a food program for women and children.

So even when the Democrats — who, we should recall, control both houses of Congress — try to sell out, Bush won't let them. He demands more.

What's worse is that the Dems will probably give more.

Why should Bush or Congressional Republicans think otherwise, based upon their past performance?

The Dems keep saying they'd like to stop the war — or at least throttle it down just a hair — but they just don't have the votes.

As Keith Olbermann said to President Bush the other night, that's a bald faced lie.

They have the votes NOT to pass a spending bill. But they won't do that.

In the Senate, they continue to act as though 60 votes is a majority, and give up every time they come up short of that number, needed to prevent a filibuster.

Why not call the GOP bluff and let them have their filibuster? Let the American public see who's holding everything up because they are so hot to continue the killing in Iraq.

We know what the American people think about that war, and about how Bushhas conducted it.

Congress's rating with the voters is in the toilet, too — but not because they've confronted Bush, but because they haven't.

Democrats were given the reins in Congress a year ago with a mandate to stop the war. But they are too chicken-hearted, or chickenshit, to act.

No wonder Bush feels free to rub their faces in it today. Like the schoolyard bully, he knows the weaklings won't fight back.

The Democratic leadership — or lack thereof — is disgusting.  Whether Pelosi eventually backs it or not, she's clearly allowed the deal to go down. What is going on?