The Senate Democrats have been foiled again in their effort to decide whether or not to fund the troops.

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. Of the 67 senators who opposed Feingold’s proposal, there were 19 Democrats, 47 Republicans and Connecticut Independent Joseph Lieberman. Of the 29 supporting, 28 were Democrats and Vermont Independent Bernard Sanders.

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.”

The proposal had been expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed to advance under Senate rules, but was intended to gauge the tolerance of members on anti-war legislation. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid staged a series of war votes Wednesday to inform negotiations with the House on a war spending bill.

“We stand united…. in our belief that troops are enmeshed in an intractable civil war,” said Reid, D-Nev.

Feingold’s measure, co-sponsored by Reid and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., proved divisive for Democrats.

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he opposes any measure that cuts off money for the war.

“We don’t want to send the message to the troops” that Congress does not support them, said Levin, D-Mich. “We’re going to support those troops.”

But other Democrats said the move was necessary.

“I’m not crazy about the language in the Feingold amendment, but I am crazy about the idea that we have to keep the pressure on,” said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., who also wants the Democratic presidential nomination.

They’re all dancing on the head of a pin saying they support the troops and then trying to justify a vote against the emergency funding bill.

Disgraceful.

51 year old Yolanda Denise King died late Tuesday in Santa Monica, CA.

The cause of death is unknown, but the family believes it was from some sort of heart condition.

Her death comes just a little over a year after the death of her mother, Coretta Scott King.

Our prayers and condolences go out to her brothers, sister and extended family.

As usual, we welcome the readers who visited us via the Anchoress. Take a look around and maybe come back sometime soon.

I just read this post by the Anchoress in which she references this post on Newsbusters.org talking about a reporter for Newsweek saying President Bush is mentally ill.

I have to admit my cheeks are flaming red and hot right now after reading this piece of trash.

No one, and I mean no one can possibly diagnose someone as being mentally ill just from watching him and not talking to him.

I’ve been to a psychiatrist for treatment of depression. I still go for med checks every six months and I can tell you a diagnosis was not made in my case until several visits.

Yes, he knew I was depressed after interviewing me the first time, but it took a lot of work on my part as well as his to get to the root of the problem. I am offended by the Newsweek article, and every person with a conscience should be.

I’ll give a quote from the Anchoress:

First, we get an elementary course on “denial:”

Denying the evidence of your eyes is the most extreme form of the coping mechanism called denial. But denial comes in milder forms as well. Parents refuse to believe their child is on drugs; that baggie under his bed contained oregano. A husband maintains his wife cannot be cheating; those late nights she spends with a friend are purely platonic.

Yes, insisting that someone “lied” about intelligence, no matter how many times you’re reminded that the same intelligence was was being fully touted by world leadership for almost three years before the man ever got into office…that’s denial.

Let’s see on what Newsweek is basing its quack diagnosis, shall we?

Bush could, of course, know full well that the United States cannot achieve its goals in Iraq. If so, then he is lying not to himself but to us (for reasons scientists would have a field day with, but that’s another story). But while it’s always risky to psychoanalyze a politician from afar, a few things in his past are consistent with the capacity for denial. When he was 7, his baby sister died of leukemia. Bush, while certainly not denying her death, tried to cheer up his grieving mother, saying everything would be OK. Also, those who abuse alcohol, as Bush has admitted doing, typically need to see the world in black and white in order to stay on the wagon. “It’s how they control their addiction,” says Sulkowicz. “It reflects an inability or refusal to see shades of gray.”

My goodness, that is a masterpiece of ugliness and “nuanced” aggression based on nothing more than someone sitting around musing. In one paragraph - and with the seemingly reluctant admission that all this musing may mean nothing - we get:

1) He might not only be lying to himself (because he must know that his “war is lost,”) but he’s also LYING TO US
(Mr. Subliminal reinforces the “he’s a liar - Bush lied, people died” narrative).

2) When he was 7, he tried to comfort his grieving mother with all the compassion, love and clumsiness of a 7 year old.
(Mr. Subliminal says Bush is mother-hung, traumatized and guilt-stricken by his sister’s death and that’s why he’s retreated into fantasy land!)

When my Elder Son was 7 I lost a baby during pregnancy, and as I wept my son - full of compassion and wanting to do anything to make me feel better - climbed onto my bed and hugged me and told me “it will be alright, Mommy, it will be alright.”

I suppose my son is “mentally ill” too. Either that or Newsweek has made a serious miscalculation, here. Every parent who is honest understands precisely what passed between Dubya and his mother at that moment, and it is nearly obscene to see it painted as anything less than profound and innocent love. It is low, hateful, needlessly spiteful and quite honestly it says much more about the writer than it does about the president.

To me, in my amateur analysis, I can’t help but wonder (as I wondered about Ann Coulter) if there is a humanity gene missing here, or maybe there really is such a thing as a derangement syndrome at work. Either way, that is the sleaziest thing I’ve ever seen. And how horrible for Barbara Bush to read it, to remember that moment and see it dragged so recklessly. mindlessly and spitefully through the muck by such an adolescent mind.

Oh, and don’t forget, the president is a drunk and only sees things in black and white. I wonder how many of our presidents have been secret drunks while in the White House?

I am infuriated and don’t even want to entertain the notion this writer is right. She’s not a psychiatrist and she’s out of her realm in saying the president is mentally ill, but that will be the new battle cry from those with Bush Derangement Syndrome. She fits right in and is leading that battle. She’s disgusting!

I missed the debate live but Fox News has the entire debate in 8 installments here, at least for now, and I listened to all 8 installments and the after show with Greta VanSustern and the USC students from both parties.

I’m not going to give you a blow by blow description of the debate as I watched it to be able to hear it and see the body language of the candidates.

My first impression is that, even though Fox News is perceived as a Republican network, there were no softball questions and when a candidate didn’t address the question Mike Wallace, in particular, brought them back in focus and asked them to answer the question.

There were no stupid questions such as what do you not like about America or do you think America would be better off with Bill Clinton in the White House that were asked in the last debate.

My second impression was it was too short a time frame for ten candidates to really say anything meaningful.

Huckabee did well, but he’s not going to be nominated. I can say the same for Jim Gilmore. Otherwise none of the seven bottom candidates really impressed me and Ron Paul least of all.

John McCain is not a choice in my book, so I discount him immediately.

That leaves Giuliani and Romney.

I know Giuliani’s stand on a lot of the social issues are not conservative, but since my big hot button issue is national security I’m satisfied enough with his answers that, if the primary in South Carolina were held today, I would vote for him.

I was surprised to be as impressed with Mitt Romney as much as I was, although I kept wondering if he had on that weird underwear under his shirt.

Romney certainly has the looks and the voice to look and sound presidential, but his religion bothers me. He has also changed positions on so many issues that I’d really like to know where he really stands on the issues and not just what he says to please the base.

My biggest question for Mitt Romney, and I would love to be able to talk to him personally about it in order to get a real feel for what he’s saying, is because he is a Mormon he is duty-bound to abide by the rulings of the president of the church.

It is my understanding, from what I have read about Mormonism, that if a member disobeys the prophet, the president of the church, he can be excommunicated and lose his place to become a god in the hereafter.

Would he be willing to go against the demand of his church leader, knowing it would condemn him, if the leader told him he had a “vision” and he should do such and such as president, and Romney knew in his heart the such and such would be detrimental to the United States?

I think this is a big problem he is going to have with a lot of evangelicals. Of course, people in 1960 thought if John Kennedy won the presidency, the Pope would govern our country and it didn’t turn out that way.

But Romney’s religion is very personal to him as a Mormon, much different from Kennedy’s Catholicism was to him in 1960. This is what makes his candidacy so troubling to me.

On the other hand, I know Orrin Hatch and Harry Reid are also Mormons and hardly agree on anything, so it’s something I’m going to have to pray about and see where the Lord leads me.

Bottom line is if Fred Thompson doesn’t join the race I will vote for Giuliani. Forget about Newt Gingrich, who may be the best political mind in the country. He carries too much baggage and would be a rallying cry for all liberals to come out and vote for him. I don’t see him as a viable candidate.

That’s my take, and I thought Fox News did an excellent job and can’t imagine why the Democrats are afraid to be questioned by them in a debate forum.

As usual, we welcome the readers who visited us via the Anchoress. Take a look around and maybe come back sometime soon.

Donald Sensing has posed a question which I am struggling to answer.

Must soldiers forgive their enemies?

For someone who professes to follow Jesus Christ, or at least follow his teachings, the subject of forgiveness is probably one of the most vexing. Jesus taught plainly that his followers are obligated to forgive, for example, “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Mt. 6:14-15).

On the face of it, this would seem simple enough because most of the wrongs we suffer are petty enough that it is not worth carrying a grudge. In fact, we tend to think someone odd or a little unbalanced who nurses such grudges and always wants to balance a score, no matter how slight and unimportant the offense by any objective standard.

But hardly any of us suffer wrongs by someone who can realistically be called an “enemy.” An adversary perhaps, even an opponent, more likely a friend of family member, but how many of us have actually enemies, who seek to do us actual, genuine harm? I don’t mean only physical harm. Even so, I’d wager a small minority of people endure the blows, physical or otherwise, of actual enemies.

Except combat soldiers, who face very real and very lethal enemies practically daily. I use “soldiers” in its ancient, generic sense of any member of the armed forces who engages in direct combat or suffers its lethal effects.

Soldiers have actual enemies who really do wish them lethal harm and try to achieve that end. Are soldiers, the ones who profess loyalty to Christ, required to forgive those who try to kill them, or who succeed in killing or harming close friends?

Having seen the effects vicious enemies inflict on not only soldiers but their families, even being a Christian of strong faith, I admit I can come to no logical conclusion on this issue. Perhaps it should be simple given Christian teachings but internal conflicts stop me just short of being able to answer.

Any thoughts?

Please read the rest of this thought provoking essay.