Or it would be if we weren't dealing with a very serious subject, war:
After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi carefully detailed the Democrats' suggested benchmarks and requirements for President Bush to ensure that U.S. troops are fully ready before being sent to Iraq, reporters peppered her with questions to try and get the point.Here they're trying to do there best, to get us out of Iraq, knowing that they don't have the votes to de-fund the war and what does their base do? Harass them! Don't you feel sorry for them that they have to put up with their constituents?
"I'm confused," one reporter told the speaker.
"OK, well, let's try again," the California Democrat responded. "If the president cannot demonstrate that progress has been made in reaching the benchmarks which he, President Bush, has established by July 1 of 2007, we begin -- the 180-day period of redeployment begins, to be finished in 180 days."
But, what happens between July 1 and Oct. 1? the scribe asked.
"If the president shows that progress is being made on July 1, say he can certify that, then we ..."
"All he has to do is say progress is being made?" the perplexed reporter interrupted.
"Well, he has to certify and demonstrate that it has been. If he cannot -- if he does that, that takes us to October 1, where we want to see the completion of those benchmarks. If that is not achieved, the 180 days begins."
Some in the room giggled.
Exasperated, she concluded: "No matter what, by March 2008, the redeployment begins."
The proposal is "very, very complex" said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, Texas Democrat. "It has waivers, exceptions, ands, ifs, ors and buts, all of which appear to leave the determination over our future in Iraq exclusively in the hands of the decider or the misleader," he said, referring to Mr. Bush.
Adding to the confusion is a competing Senate plan to revise the 2002 resolution that authorized the Iraq war and require troops to leave by March 31, 2008.
Michelle Maken has the transcript of this video and when you read it you're struck by how out of it these protesters are and how much contempt the Congress probably feels toward them. I thought it was so funny that he called them "idiot liberals" (I'm laughing just thinking about it :-)
Man: But if you pass a resolution, isn't he still the commander-in-chief?
OBEY: (Gesturing wildly again) WE DON'T HAVE THE VOTES TO PASS IT! WE COULDN'T EVEN GET THE VOTES TO PASS A NON-BINDING RESOLUTION ONE WEEK AGO! How the hell do you think we're gonna get the votes to cut off the war?!
Man: You stop the funding.
OBEY: (Shouting) HOW IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE VOTES?! It takes...
Man: Filibuster his supplemental request.
OBEY: There is no filibuster in the House!
Man: Well, in the Senate they could do it.
OBEY: I'm sorry...No, I'm not gonna vote for it [Lee amendment].
(Pointing finger) I’m the sponsor of the bill that’s going to be on floor. And that bill ends the war. IF THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU, YOU'RE SMOKING SOMETHING ILLEGAL!
So funny!!! He wants a House member to filibuster in the House (hahahahaha). Now, if you had to deal with people like this, wouldn't you be cranky too? And you know this guy just bought himself a primary opponent from the netroots.