Spirit Plants - Discussion of sacred plants and other entheogens

G.O.P. Support for Iraq Policy Erodes Further
By Carl Hulse

Published July 6, 2007 by the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/washi ... nted=print (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/washington/06cong.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1183739087-K0oPyGmvoUDAah3YwAkSNg&pagewanted=print)

WASHINGTON, July 5 â€" Support among Republicans for President Bush’s Iraq policy eroded further on Thursday as another senior lawmaker, Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, broke with the White House just as Congressional Democrats prepared to renew their challenge to the war.

“We cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress,” said Mr. Domenici, a six-term senator who has been a steadfast supporter of the president.

Thus Mr. Domenici joined a growing number of Republican voices in opposition to the war just as Senate Democratic leaders are readying plans to put the political and policy focus back on Iraq next week.

The Democrats intend to use a Pentagon policy measure to force votes on proposals limiting spending on the conflict and setting a timetable for withdrawing most troops by next year â€" an idea Mr. Bush has already vetoed.

Mr. Domenici made it clear Thursday that he did not support such measures either, saying, “I’m not calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops, but I am calling for a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to continuing home.”

Still, within hours after Mr. Domenici spoke to reporters in a conference call, Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and majority leader, called on him to join Democrats and like-minded Republicans to bring the war to a close.

“Beginning with the defense authorization bill next week, Republicans will have the opportunity to not just say the right things on Iraq, but vote the right way, too,” Mr. Reid said, “so that we can bring the responsible end to this war that the American people demand and deserve.”

Mr. Domenici is up for re-election next year, and his views on the war are likely to figure prominently in the campaign. His turnabout followed similar calls for a new Iraq policy last week by Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, and by Senator George V. Voinovich of Ohio, another member of that panel. Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, a respected Republican voice on military issues who is also facing re-election, has also been pressing the administration to shift course.

Despite the mounting Republican criticism, it is by no means certain that Democrats have the votes to impose specific policy changes. Mr. Domenici and the other Republican critics are resisting any cutoff of money for Iraq operations, and they differ among themselves on what the United States should do in Iraq.

On the Democratic side, some lawmakers continue to resist mandatory withdrawal timetables while others suggest that they will support only measures that end spending on the war.

Still, prominent defections could free more Republicans to break ranks, particularly after lawmakers have spent a week at home attending Fourth of July observances and hearing from constituents.

“When you have senior, well-respected Republican senators like Dick Lugar, John Warner and Pete Domenici all calling upon the administration to pursue a new strategy, it is significant,” said Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican also up for re-election next year.

She said her talks with voters convinced her that the war remained the top issue. And she joined Mr. Domenici in saying the patience of many Republicans with the Iraqi government was virtually exhausted. “It is very troubling to many of us that the Iraq government appears to be making little or no progress toward political reconciliation,” she said.

At the White House, which has been urging Republicans to be patient, officials tried to play down the significance of Mr. Domenici’s remarks. Tony Fratto, the deputy press secretary, said calls for a new strategy would not necessarily help Democrats in a quest for change.

Yet Mr. Fratto suggested the president was already thinking about a change. “It should come as no secret to anyone that there are discussions about what is a post-surge strategy,” he said. But he added, “We would counsel a little bit of patience.”

While some Republicans are slipping away, Mr. Bush retains a core of support among conservatives in the House and Senate. And even some of the others who face tough campaigns next year, like Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota, have indicated they intend to wait until September to decide on their continued support for administration policy. A first report on the progress of a troop buildup in Iraq is due July 15, followed by others in September.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, a strong supporter of the war, has spent some of the Independence Day recess in Iraq with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. They are expected to share their observations, though aides said that major changes in their positions were not expected.

Speaking to reporters on a conference call from Albuquerque, Mr. Domenici said his change of heart came after conversations with the families of New Mexico soldiers killed in Iraq who asked him to do more to save those still serving there.

“I heard nothing like that a couple of years ago,” he said. “I think that’s the result of this war dragging on almost indefinitely.”

Mr. Domenici said he would push for legislation that essentially enacted the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which called for military operations to be shifted more to counterterrorism, training of Iraqi forces and protection of American personnel and facilities. The goal would be to allow most combat troops to be withdrawn by March.

The Iraq Study Group proposal does not go as far as many Democrats would like. The leadership is planning to move ahead with as many as four proposals, including a retooled plan by the Democratic senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island that would require a withdrawal to begin within 120 days, with most troops ordered out by next spring.

No decision has been made yet on whether the study group’s plan will be considered by the Senate. Democrats are expecting votes on a plan by Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, to impose new troop-readiness requirements, another to eliminate spending on combat operations next spring, and perhaps a proposal to rescind the original 2002 authority for the war.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting.

I've heard it said that when congress people traveled home for Independence Day, they got an earful on the Occupation. I think they got two earfuls.

I don't know what's going to happen, but it needs to stay atop the list of vital issues of the day. Nothing calms down while the Occupation goes on. 100,000+ US troops in the Middle East is too fucking scary.

I know nobody wants to hear this question but if shrub's poll numbers are in the toilet, the repubs are splintered and the demos are solidly against the war, why is it they still can't stop the war?

No one will admit to being in favor of keeping it going but it keeps going. The majority demos can't even get their own people to stay on board. What the hey is going on?

As far as I can tell, the problem is creating a veto-proof majority in Congress. The Dems need 2/3 to do this. That means a bi-partisan effort.

Now it's a valid argument, and there are more and more Repugs getting on board. However, as many have pointed out, a more radical approach would be to simply stop the funding. Or de-authorize Bush's authority to be there, given that the original authorization is no longer what's going on. Saddam is out, dead, feeding worms. The Occupation was never in itself authorized, as far as I can tell.

So it's partly a governmental thing, partly cowardice, partly a question of what the fuck we're still there for and what the end of that is. I think it's for the oil sharing agreement, which is still not passed the Iraqi parliament. From what I can tell, it may never pass, lots of clerical opposition.

Is my answer tangled and incoherent enough? What an ugly mess.

QuoteAs far as I can tell, the problem is creating a veto-proof majority in Congress. The Dems need 2/3 to do this. That means a bi-partisan effort.

Yeah, well, that's true for some things but not for cutting off funding for the war which the demos have wimped out on and that we have already discussed. Bush's veto does him no good if the demo controlled congress fails to pass his spending bill. That's one bill he will not veto. No, the demos have run out of excuses and I'm not going to accept any made on their behalf.

The majority of the country  wants the war stopped, the voters put the demos in to stop it, and Bush's polls are in the bottom of the toilet. So what do the demos do? They step up to the plate and lay down and play dead giving Bush everything he wanted and everything the public doesn't want. Now you say wait till the fall and keep voting democratic.

I say bullshit. Maybe you will swallow every piece of treachery they dish out but I won't. What happens in the fall when they still do nothing or pass yet another blank check to Bush to continue the war? Will you finally admit they are no good then? No, you will make another excuse for them and say wait another year or two. You will say wait until a demo is in the white house and then maybe they will stop the war. Hah!

Then when the demo gets in and the war goes on you will say it's the nasty repubs fault again. And if they have the white house and the senate and house controlled and still the war goes on, you'll say "that's politics"

Vote green or libertarian if you want to make a difference. The two majors are tweedle dee and tweedle dumb.

look man i dont give one flying fucking shit who it is, it could be bush, it could be gore, ron paul, lindon larouche, ralph nader, it could be fucking mickey mouse, my priority is ending the Occupation...it is a genocide and we cannot stop it because we are causing it...

we have to get out...i don't belong to any party, i don't care who it is who does it, i just want the troops out...i can't stand what's being done by this country to the world...

Amen!!!

In that case, cen, you must be open to other routes besides your beloved demos. As it becomes more clear that they will do nothing, are you going to shift your support to other candidates and parties?

I suggest setting a deadline. They wimped out on the war funding. That was enough to convince me but you said wait until the fall. If the fall comes and the demos are still dithering and making excuses, will you then admit that supporting them is a dead end?

I saw not a word about Cindy's campaign to impeach shrub. It did not appear in the paper but the daily propaganda for harry potter, american idol, rap crap and other nonsense was there same as every day.

The struggle between R and D has gotten to be like a professional wrestling match with about as much sincerity and realism. They already know who is going to win the election. And if the voters try to go against the propaganda artists and throw off their chains, then Diebold and others do a little work in the back room and voila, the prearranged candidate wins after all. Sound familiar?

Quote from: "Stonehenge"In that case, cen, you must be open to other routes besides your beloved demos. As it becomes more clear that they will do nothing, are you going to shift your support to other candidates and parties?

I do not belong to any party, nor plan on joining one. I am about ending the Occupation. It's simple as that.

I don't believe that parties, but individuals are the ones to do good and bad. I've said this all along. I'm ready to take to the streets now in fact. I see more Dems ready to end the war than Republicans, but I don't see it ending til there are enough votes in Congress to override Bush's inevitable veto of funding bills with time-tables and withdrawal dates. Frankly, I don't like waiting for bi-partisanship to slowly build up. But what else is going on by way of alternative? The War in Vietnam ended when millions were in the streets all the time, and occupying buildings daily on college campuses and shutting down recruiting stations.

As for other parties and candidates, I don't have faith that new ones would be any better or worse. It will be individuals in positions of power, moved by their consciences, or at least the will of the people, who end the Occupation. Whatever brand name they have by way of party affiliation does not interest me. I live in the dirty world of realpolitik, but I go with who I believe in, always have, always will.

Good point about how the vietnam fiasco was ended. That's what it'll probably take to stop this one. Funny how the media always ignores the demonstrations. It's not like we don't have any now, they just don't get covered.

In GOP, Growing Friction On Iraq
Senate Dissenters Chafe at Tactics Of Party Leaders

By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers

Published Wednesday, July 11, 2007 by the Washington Post (//http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071001860.html?hpid=topnews)

Facing crumbling support for the war among their own members, Senate Republican leaders yesterday sought to block bipartisan efforts to force a change in the American military mission in Iraq.

But the GOP leadership's use of a parliamentary tactic requiring at least 60 votes to pass any war legislation only encouraged the growing number of Republican dissenters to rally and seek new ways to force President Bush's hand. They are weighing a series of proposals that would change the troops' mission from combat to counterterrorism, border protection and the training of Iraqi security forces.

"I think we should continue to ratchet up the pressure -- in addition to our words -- to let the White House know we are very sincere," said Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio), who broke with the president last month.

The maneuvering in the Senate came as Bush traveled to Voinovich's home state to appeal for more time on the war, and as presidential candidates in Iowa and on the Senate floor escalated their rhetoric in a debate that once seemed headed for culmination in September but now appears to be fully engaged. House leaders announced last night that the chamber will vote tomorrow on legislation to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days, with complete withdrawal by April 1, 2008, unless the president reports to Congress why some troops must remain to fight terrorism or train Iraqi forces.

The president appealed to lawmakers yesterday to hold back on legislative responses at least until September, when Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, will deliver a crucial progress report on the military and political efforts there. And last night the White House formally declared that the president would veto virtually any of the war proposals being considered.

"I fully understand that when you watch the violence on TV every night, people are saying, 'Is it worth it, can we accomplish an objective?' " Bush told a Cleveland business group. "Yes, we can accomplish this fight and win in Iraq. And secondly, I want to tell you, we must."

On the campaign trail in Iowa, Sens Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) delivered speeches assailing Bush's war policy, while Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) tussled on the Senate floor.

Speaking at the very moment that his campaign was announcing the departure of two top aides, McCain lashed out at antiwar Democrats who are advocating an immediate troop withdrawal, comparing such a move to when the Senate voted to cut off funding for U.S. troops in Cambodia in 1970.

"I've seen this movie before from the liberal left in America, who share no responsibility for what happened in Cambodia when we said no," said McCain, whose campaign has lost support partly because of his advocacy of the war. He singled out Mike Gravel, a Vietnam War-era senator from Alaska who strongly opposed that mission and is waging a long-shot antiwar candidacy for the 2008 Democratic nomination.

Biden jumped in. "Give me a break! Quoting Gravel as the voice of the left?" he exclaimed. "This is a man who, God love him, nominated himself for vice president. I mean, come on!"

Vice President Cheney attended a closed-door Republican luncheon to appeal for party unity in what Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) called "a vigorous debate." Sen. Ted Stevens (Alaska) said he took Cheney's side, telling his colleagues: "If we leave prematurely, it would be absolute anarchy. We'd be turning over to al-Qaeda one of the largest oil-producing states in the world."

But such sentiments are increasingly in the minority in the Senate. "June and May were among the bloodiest months of any since we've been there, and what has the Maliki government done? Virtually nothing," Collins said after the lunch, referring to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Beyond the war of words are serious legislative efforts to force change -- despite the 60-vote requirement that Republican leaders are banking on as a barrier.

Collins and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) are seeking bipartisan support for an effort to force U.S. troops out of combat roles, restricting them to fighting terrorism, securing Iraq's borders and training Iraqi forces. The amendment would not require troop withdrawals, but because fewer troops would be needed for the new missions, tens of thousands could probably come home, Collins said.

The Maine moderate, who faces reelection next year in her antiwar state, is part of another bipartisan effort that would make last year's Iraq Study Group recommendations the new policy for Iraq, with a goal of removing combat forces by March 31, 2008.

That amendment was offered yesterday by Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), despite the concern of Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) that it could shave Republican support from tougher approaches. Salazar's measure would require Bush to develop a comprehensive plan based on the study group's recommendations. But the White House would be free to adjust the timetables for the removal of U.S. combat forces and the transition of the mission to training and counterterrorism.

Sen. John W. Warner (Va.), a respected GOP voice on war policy, and Sen. Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, are collaborating on an amendment that would meld the bipartisan efforts. Warner said that he will not comment on the initiative until after Bush presents an interim progress report on Iraq, which could come as early as tomorrow. But, according to lawmakers familiar with the deliberations, Warner and Lugar will try to merge some of the Iraq Study Group recommendations, such as a renewed diplomatic push, with forced mission changes similar to those in the Nelson-Collins amendment.

All the measures attracting GOP support are weaker versions of the main Democratic amendments, which tie troop withdrawals to specific dates. But the outcomes could be similar. Even the consensus Democratic amendment could leave tens of thousands of U.S. troops in place.

That proposal, sponsored by Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), would begin troop reductions no later than 120 days after enactment. U.S. forces would then shift their efforts to targeted missions such as counterterrorism. The process would have to be completed by April 30, 2008.

The plan "says that America will no longer be the policeman of a civil war," said Sen. Gordon Smith (Ore.), the sole GOP co-sponsor of the Levin-Reed measure. "But no terrorists in Iraq can ever sleep peacefully because it does not call for a pullout from Iraq, but a responsible way forward."

Apparently, the Republicans are panicking as it becomes obvious no turn around in Iraq is coming. They also went home for the July 4th holiday and got a blistering earful from next year's voters. Still, their solution is questionable. I'm not even sure of the Dems' plan right now. It seems like what you could call a "soft" withdrawal, much like the Korean War, where combat ceased but thousands of troops remained. I don't think it's going to wash with millions of people who want to see the military LEAVE, not sorta kinda leave. There is two weeks of debate going on in DC right now; we'll have to see what happens.

It is gratifying to see Bush's party more bluntly abandon him. Soon he'll be the bitter little rich kid on his birthday, everyone came, ate his cake, then left. Now he's sitting alone in a corner, torturing a mouse and vowing revenge :twisted:

Republican Snowe, Saying `Tide Has Turned,' Backs Withdrawal
by Laura Litvan

Published Wednesday, July 10, 2007 by Yahoo! News (//http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070709/pl_bloomberg/amnff2zaaqqc_1)

July 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, saying the political ``tide has turned'' on the Iraq war, backed forcing President George W. Bush to withdraw U.S. troops and predicted that more Republicans will abandon his war policy.

Snowe, of Maine, said that she is likely to support at least one of several Democratic amendments to a defense policy measure that will demand a reduction in U.S. forces.

``We have to set it in motion,'' she said of a withdrawal.

Snowe's decision, five days after New Mexico Republican Pete Domenici called for a new U.S. military policy in Iraq, reflects the wavering support for Bush's war policy within the president's own party in the Senate.

Until now, Snowe has indicated she would side with a Bush administration request that lawmakers wait until September when Army General David Petraeus, the lead U.S. commander in Iraq, is to give a report to Congress on the war's progress.

Bush administration officials sought today to lower expectations about a report on the Iraq war that Bush is to send to Congress by July 15, saying it was unrealistic to expect the study would show significant progress in meeting military and political goals.

Snowe said she is considering lending her support to an amendment, still being drafted by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, which would require troop withdrawals to begin within 120 days.

Snowe said she changed her stance after seeing few signs of progress in Iraq in recent months, and after learning of the death of another U.S. soldier from her home state.

Lugar, Voinovich

Republican Senators Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, and George Voinovich of Ohio have also recently called for a change in direction in Iraq in recent weeks.

Six Senate Republicans are backing legislation introduced by Democratic Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado and Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee that implements the 79 recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

While it doesn't set a deadline for withdrawal, it aims to create conditions that could lead to a redeployment of U.S. troops as early as the first quarter of next year.

To contact the reporters on this story: Julianna Goldman in Washington at llitvan@bloomberg.net (mailto:llitvan@bloomberg.net)

GOP senators call for Iraq change now
By Anne Flaherty, Associated Press Writer

Published July 11, 2007 by Yahoo! News (//http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070711/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=ApYd_9AQZS1xMEo4pztS.iWs0NUE)

Several Republican senators on Wednesday told President Bush's top national security aide privately Wednesday that they did not want Bush to wait until September to change course in Iraq.

The meeting that lawmakers had with national security adviser Stephen Hadley came as GOP Sens. Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel announced they would back Democratic legislation ordering combat to end next spring.

Republican support for the war has steadily eroded in recent weeks as the White House prepares an interim progress report that finds the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has made little progress in meeting major targets of reform.

Of the GOP lawmakers who say the U.S. should reduce its military role in Iraq, nearly all are up for re-election in 2008.

"I'm hopeful they (the White House) change their minds," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M.

Domenici and at least five other Republicans support a bill by Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., that would adopt as U.S. policy the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group Report.

The bipartisan panel, led by Republican James A. Baker III and Democrat Lee Hamilton, said the U.S. should hand off the combat mission to the Iraqis, bolster diplomatic efforts in the region and pave the way for a drawdown of troops by spring 2008.

Domenici, who is expected to face voters next year, said he and other co-sponsors told Hadley the president shouldn't wait until September to adopt the bipartisan policy.

"The only difference of opinion at the moment is, the president wants to deal with the Baker-Hamilton recommendations in September," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., one of the first GOP co-sponsors.

"I think he should do that today because it develops a long-term strategy for what happens in the surge," added Alexander, who also is up for re-election. "It would put him and Congress on the same path, which is what we definitely need."

Members said Hadley did not indicate the White House would switch gears. Bush this week said he will not reconsider the military strategy in Iraq until Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. military commander there, delivers his progress report in September.

"He was not in a position to do anything other than say 'I hear you,' " Domenici said of Hadley.

Lots of tussle going on in DC right now, but the speculation I'm hearing is that there are still not enough override votes in the Senate to take a Bush veto of withdrawal. 60 votes are needed, right now the Dems have 48 members, one is not present, recovering from a serious illness. There are up to half a dozen Republicans on board, and Independent Bernie Sanders. Not enough yet. I hate how this process in safe DC is profoundly affecting the lives of war-torn Iraq half a world away, but thus is Empire.

As the War Debate Heats Up, Stagnant Air Is in the Forecast
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer

Published Wednesday, July 13, 2007 by the Washington Post (//http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071202368.html?hpid=topnews)

He lamented, in his own way, that he is unloved these days and reflected on the "war fatigue" that has gripped his country. He looked forward to the day, not so long from now, when he will retire to his Texas ranch and tell himself that he did the right thing.

Yet no matter how battered he seems, no matter how unpopular he may be in the polls, President Bush still holds the commanding position in his showdown with Congress over Iraq. Even with Republican defections, as votes in both houses made clear this week, opponents do not have anywhere near the veto-proof majorities needed to wrest leadership of the war.

The almost-certain result, according to strategists in both parties, will be at least two more months of anger and posturing but no change in direction. A weakened president is desperately playing for time while a Democratic opposition mounts its case against him and Republican lawmakers agonize over how long to stick with him. Bush will keep pressing his strategy in Iraq in hopes that it produces more than the meager results his White House reported yesterday while his foes keep scoring political points and not much else.

"The town is gridlocked," said Kenneth M. Duberstein, who served as chief of staff in the Reagan White House. "There is no give at the White House or on the Hill. The Senate doesn't have 60 votes to do anything. So, at least for the foreseeable future, which may be September, the only result is stalemate. That may benefit the president, and if you listen to the Democrats, they think it benefits them."

Both sides have stuck to their familiar positions. Bush has long seen a virtue in refusing to relent to pressure and operating as he sees fit regardless of Congress, while the Democrats, until January, had spent the Bush presidency essentially in the minority, lobbing criticism but with no responsibility for governing. Neither side shows even passing interest in forging a bipartisan consensus, preferring instead to bend the other to its will.

"In many ways, everybody's trapped," said Clinton White House chief of staff Leon E. Panetta, who served on the Iraq Study Group as it produced a bipartisan plan largely discarded at first by both sides. "The president in many ways is trapped in the realities of what's taking place. The Congress is trapped because, while they want to change strategy, they don't have the votes. And both sides are trapped by the fear of the consequences of what happens if they do make a change."

The defections of core Republican senators such as Richard G. Lugar (Ind.) and Pete V. Domenici (N.M.) in the past couple of weeks alarmed the White House and prompted a series of hastily called meetings and strategy sessions to shore up its eroding base. But as the days passed, Bush advisers calmed down and recognized that they can preserve their policy for now. "As long as we can sustain a veto, we have got some leverage on this process," one White House aide said.

That became evident in votes this week. Seven Republican senators abandoned Bush on Wednesday to vote for a measure requiring more rest time for troops between combat deployments, but the bill still fell four votes short of the 60 needed to break a filibuster and 11 short of the 67 needed to override a veto. Just four House Republicans voted yesterday for a timetable for withdrawal, leaving pullout proponents nearly 70 votes from a veto-proof majority.

Still, the clock is ticking for Bush, and it seems to be speeding up. Just two weeks ago, White House aides bemoaned the political missteps that made September a deadline of sorts for demonstrating the success of the president's troop increase. Too soon, they complained. Now September looks like the holy grail as Bush and his team find themselves practically begging fellow Republicans to hang on until then.

The strategy pursued by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is to keep scheduling votes to pressure Republicans, who, in turn, would pressure the White House to change its war policy. "The president hasn't seen the last of these votes," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley. "We'll look forward to additional votes in September."

Patrick Griffin, who was President Bill Clinton's chief lobbyist on Capitol Hill, said the current stalemate is just a step in a process that inexorably will force Bush to change his policy. "This isn't going to go away," he said. "Eventually, something's going to stick, or something's going to change. Either he's going to lean into this, or more people are going to shift positions."

Yet Democrats appear uninterested in reaching out to Republicans, preferring to keep party differences on the war clear heading into the 2008 elections and fearing that any proposal moderate enough to attract GOP support could anger the antiwar wing of their party. "I'm not supportive of where the president is, but they haven't engaged any of us here," said an angry Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.). "They're just trying to score political points."

At the center of this remains Bush, pummeled yet defiant, rejected yet still in charge. From the lectern in the newly reopened White House briefing room yesterday, he alternated between being grim and relaxed, unpopular commander of an unpopular war one moment and light-hearted pol the next.

"Do we ever use 'kinder and gentler'?" he asked after cutting off a reporter. "No," he said, rejecting his father's mantra with a smile.

At another point, he stopped to answer a shouted question after starting to leave the room, something he rarely does. "This is amazing," he declared. "The new me!"

But it did not really seem like a new Bush. Most of his arguments sounded familiar -- the need to persevere in Iraq against the radicals who would spread chaos, the search for signs of progress on the ground in the face of unremitting violence, the faith that success is still in reach. He tried to show he was willing to take on all comers, even calling upon nemesis Helen Thomas for the first question.

Yet, there were moments of reflection for a typically unreflective president. It was hard not to wonder whether he was talking about himself as he mused about the "ugly war" and how the American people have wearied of it. "You know, they're tired of the war," he said. "There is a war fatigue in America. It's affecting our psychology."

And then there was the concession that while he still commands policy, he no longer commands the affection of his nation. "I guess I'm like any other political figure -- everybody wants to be loved," he said. "Just sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't enable you to be loved."

Leaning on the lectern, Bush anticipated the day when the responsibility would no longer be his and expressed his hope for vindication. "When it's all said and done . . . if you ever come down and visit the old, tired me down there in Crawford, I will be able to say, 'I looked in the mirror and made decisions based upon principle, not based upon politics,' " he said. "And that's important to me."

Staff writers Michael Abramowitz and Jonathan Weisman contributed to this report.

I think that tired old criminal should have a long stay in a prison cell to relax and think about his crimes. Too disgusted to say much else.