To The Rev:

Bush's request to Congress for additional supplemental funding for the war is legislation that Bush wants passed. There are 233 Democrats in the House. They can vote against this legislation. And that kills it. It doesn't pass. And the Senate doesn't matter.

The Senate only matters if Congress is trying to pass legislation Bush doesn't want. For example, legislation that sets a timetable for withdrawing troops.

The House can vote to stop funding Bush's war by voting to reject his request for more money.

It's as simple as that.

The Rev writes: "At the end of the day, the majority Democratic Congress, both Houses, will still have to have a sufficient number of votes in order to defund the war."

Wrong. Bush sends a request to Congress for supplementary funds. The request is in the form of legislation. The House votes on the legislation. With 233 Democrats the House votes it down. Bush doesn't get his money. Period.

The Rev writes: "And in the Senate a small majority would have to get around filabusters, and have a 2/3rd's majority in order to override a predictable Presidential Veto."

Wrong again. Once the House rejects Bush's request for more funds, the Senate doesn't matter. The Senate filibuster rule only matters if Congress is trying to PASS legislation that Bush and Republicans don't want. Ditto the 2/3 majority rule.

The supplemental funding bill is legislation the president DOES want. And if one house of Congress votes it down, he doesn't get it. End of story.

House Democrats can stop funding the war by voting against the president's request for more money. The Senate is irrelevant.

It's as simple as that.

The Rose Garden

God walks into the 'Garden of the Rose' aka 'The Rose Garden' during the cool of the day, year 2007 CE.

God calls out, #43 where art thou?
#43 replies, hiding behind and blaming others (just as me and the boys did on 9/11).

Then God asked, why are you hiding?
#43 replied, because I have been exposed, my cover has been removed, and the 'naked truth' about my international foreign policy screwup is out there for all to see!

God asks, who told you that you had been exposed, or that the 'naked' truth ... is out there for all to see?
#43 replies, you know those women (Nancy, Condoleeza and Hillary) whom thou gavest to be with me! It is their fault that I screwed up, for they gave me money, weapons and the go ahead (from the tree I was strictly forbidden to partake).

And Lord knows (excuse me God), that I don't know what to do now - everyone is fighting, getting nukes, and even worse than that - my allies have turned against me too.

God overlooks the (Lord knows) faux pas and asks, #43, are you really blaming the women for your failures? And, weren't you a cheerleader?

#43 stutters.
God tires of the uncomfortable silence and having waited long enough for a reply says to #43, because you have done this - you will be banned from the Rose Garden forever more.

#43 replies, my punishment is more than I can bear, now every man will be after me! Where can I go?

God says, okay you can change your name to Cain or something more apropos, and go to Crawford. However, you may never return to the Garden of the Rose again.

#43 saddened, grabbed a couple of souvenirs (fruit I think) and left never to return!

Shouldn't someone tell #43 and all of those who blindly support him, that they need to stop being 'girlie men' (hiding behind women's skirtails) and to take personal responsibility for their ineptitude; admit that they don't know how to fix the mess that they created or the the problems that they will leave behind (unresolved) for Hillary to straighten out?

Another 1000 Points of Light?

Hank

At the end of the day, the majority Democratic Congress, both Houses, will still have to have a sufficient number of votes in order to defund the war.

And in the Senate a small majority would have to get around filabusters, and have a 2/3rd's majority in order to override a predictable Presidential Veto.

Right, wrong or indifferent, we are in Iraq - and in Iraq, for the time being, we need to stay. To think otherwise is nothing short of shortsighted idiocy. None of us (generally speaking) wants to continue standing by as our soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens are being killed. But, all the grumbling and handwringing in the world serves absolutely no one at this point, with the exception perhaps of those of whom would like nothing more than to see us in the "free" world be torn apart (inside and out). Abandoning Iraq now would only further to strengthen and galvanize the determination and resolve of those seeking to destroy, through any and all means possible, all resemblances of a free and democratic society - in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Irrespective of our philosophical / political differences, we all need to remain calm, yet resolute in our determination to bring about a better, more peaceful world, for ALL of us to live in and enjoy.

right and I am minnie mouse...

this line here sayz you're a B.S. artist:

"
Bush needs the occupation in Iraq, so as to define his legacy of protecting
America.
"

his legacy of raping AMERICA, would be more accurate.

there are five reason that the United States Military has been deployed to IRAQ y AFGHANISTAN,

and besides fraud,

they all have money in common...

1. BIG OIL MONEY

2. ZIONIST MONEY

3. SAND BROTHERS MONEY

4. WAR PROFITEERING MONEY

5. DRUG TRAFFICKING MONEY

$760 MILLION DOLLARS A DAY IS SPENT ON FRAUD....

producing nothing, as our infrastructure and economy go missing....

we might as well just be putting $760 MILLION DOLLARS A DAY into the shredder...

READ THIS:

another poster, horend wrote:

"
Maverick, I find understanding the markets difficult but will explain some of what I've learned.

GDP growth is not all derived from manufacturing as we are lead to believe.

It is the movement of money from one business transaction - a product is not necessarily created, but fees are generated, mortgages, corporate buyouts, downsizing, transactional legal fees, selling of credit derivatives, etc.

These constitute the movement of money which registers GDP growth although nothing was created.

There is also a report from two leading economics I believe at Harvard which discusses how the Bush administration has incorrectly equated imports as GDP growth.

If oil were sold in Euros and not dollars, the US would lose primary control of the oil markets. There was discussion that prior to our invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein was planning to revalue Iraqi oil in euros, thereby destablizing american markets. Further discussion can be found on line, about the joining of Mexico, Canada and the US - the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America which calls for use of a common currency the Amero. To justify a common currency between our three countries, the dollar must bottom out so this idea can be sold to the American public. Which to me explains the almost intentional devaluation of our currency.

"

IMPORTS are being counted by the bushCO and CRONYs group as GDP...

if anyone else were doing it they would be arrested for fraud.

.

LOOKIE HERE...

Dah grand collusionist center point:

Cheney to the Rescue, KEEPING IRAN CONTRA FROM BREAKING OPEN...

One of the key congressional Republicans fighting this rear-guard action was Rep. Dick Cheney of Wyoming, who became the ranking House Republican on the Iran-contra investigation. Cheney already enjoyed a favorable reputation in Washington as a steady conservative hand.

Cheney smartly exploited his relationship with Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., who was chairman of the Iran-contra panel. Hamilton cared deeply about his reputation for bipartisanship and the Republicans quickly exploited this fact.

A senior committee source said one of Cheney's top priorities was to block Democrats from deposing Vice President Bush about his Iran-contra knowledge. Cheney "kept trying to intimidate Hamilton," the source said. "He kept saying if we go down that road, we won't have bipartisanship."

So, Hamilton gave Bush a pass. The limited investigation also gave little attention to other sensitive areas, such as contra-drug trafficking and the public diplomacy operation. They were pared down or tossed out altogether.

Despite surrendering to Cheney's demands time and again, Hamilton failed, in the end, to get a single House Republican to sign the final report.

Only three moderate Republicans on the Senate side - Warren Rudman, William Cohen and Paul Trible - agreed to sign the report, after extracting more concessions. Cheney and the other Republicans submitted a minority report that denied that any significant wrongdoing had occurred.

The watered-down Iran-contra majority report essentially let Vice President Bush off the hook.

George H.W. Bush's political career was saved.

With the Iran-contra scandal contained, Bush mounted a 1988 presidential campaign that set the modern standard for negativity, race-baiting and a win-at-all-cost ethic. In 1989, Cheney became Bush's defense secretary.

the real sleeper is here:

SEARCH on Gary Webb, Parry, George H.W. Bush, Letter of Understanding...

and read how the CIA has the ability to drug traffick in

AFGHANISTAN and Central and South AMERICA through a Department of Justice Letter of Understanding that says the AGENCY can drug traffick, without keeping a record of transactions or being vulnerable to prosecution....even if they do it in_country....

george w. bush wanted amnesty w/no background check so he could bring in Latino Death Squads to fill the Border Patrol with....to cut down on drug trafficking losses in search and siezure and theft at the border....IRAN CONTRA boyz been trafficking for 30 years....Cubano Mafia in Florida, would have to give it up for the Latino Paramilitary and you AMERICANOs could find out what it

feels like to live in a third world country...right here in the USA, with your own brown shirt goose stepping Latino Paramilitary brown nosers for bushCO und CRONY steppers...

ya wohl mein herr !!!

MIEN GOTT EN HIMMEL !!!!

.

Dear johnny, we won't *want* to wind up decimating them from the air, but since we won't want to be on the ground anymore, we will accept a much higher rate of collateral damage. Them's the facts of war from the air, "smart" weapons and all. Is that clearer for you?

Bush needs the occupation in Iraq, so as to define his legacy of protecting
America. He has shown no interest in ending the occupation, and has continued to justify the occupation as necessary to engage "the enemy" outside U.S. territory. Also, as a thought leader in NEOCON philosophy, Bush has articulated a grand vision for unilateral, world-wide domination. Bush has skillfully accumulated broad powers, political domination, and has successfully radicalized domestic policy. To harness the great power and wealth of this nation has been breathtaking. Bush is not operating a beauty contest, nor a popularity poll. His grand vision for unilateral, world-wide domination has been supported by the wealthy class. Bush gave the wealthy class something they wanted: lower taxes. The wealthy class gave something Bush wanted: unilateral power. With the backing of the wealthy class, Bush has delivered on his promise to make America stronger. Democrats (and I am one) have a huge deficit in this power game.

The analysis that says it all boils down to how much more American blood is shed misses, alas, the facts that 1) even one drop of that blood is by now too much and certain to be resented, and also 2) all those hundreds of billions of dollars going up in smoke. There is no way a drop in U.S. casualties turns the trick here. The reason is: the game isn't worth the candle at any level.

This war marks the end of America's eight decades of petro-imperialism. Soon enough, while Congress still sitteth on its thumb, the locals will bid us take a hike. Some folks will find out that there will be no oil PSA's materializing, and others will discover that contracts they've already signed aren't worth the paper they're written on.

Since officially - and in the face of widespread popular denial about the role of petroleum in our politics - no war for oil ever occured, the whole thing will go down as a glorious and altruistic triumph of good over evil. Actually, the result won't look anything like democracy. But that won't matter much, because we're not really committed to democracy ourselves here at home either. Look how much effort we spend to keep people from voting!

And the ultimate joke is that the oil isn't really as important as people thought anyway, because using it screws up the atmosphere. So in the end we must learn to do with much less of the stuff in any case.

hey fzdybel if we wanted to decimate the populace from the air there would be no iraqi left but you and many ppl that have written comments are just that ignorant

I've been saying this for 3 years or so here...

what should happen is that

the contractors get put under government aegis....they should be conscripted...

Bechtel, KBR/Halliburton/Blackwater, Carlyle Group should be taken over as a national security issue and

bushCO and CRONYs should be seperated immediately from profit making Iraq/Afghanistan enterprises....

that includes the appointees, former IRAN CONTRA thugs, and AEI/PNAC people

all bush appointees...

and the Inspector General of the State Department, and Condoleeza/Chevron Rice...

Gates should be escorted off of the shyyte house premises, Gonzales/Libby/Rove and all of the other "rats," rounded up too...

once that is done,

with the embezzlers out of the books, evaluate.....

and if you could quickly indict, try and convict a couple and execute them as sort of a good will gesture to the world, I think respect would be a more readily available commodity....

don't chew ???

.

Pelosi could stop the OCCUPATION BY REFUSING TO FUND IT...

if she does that,

she should simultaneously arrest George W. Bush for treason...

not impeach him....for collusion with the enemy.

and get pest patrol to bring theking and dick into the pound... a dart for a 25 lb. dawg nicotine freeze dart should take care of them nicely...

heh heh heh...

just throw 'em in the back and bring 'em in...

move 'em to the Guantonamo pound later, bad dawgs... put a collar on 'em, let 'em loose in I_rack...after sun down.

.

The Bush Crime Family: Texas Yankees in the Gulf Emirs' courts: Dubya, Poppy, Neil, Marvin, and Jeb.

February 21, 2006 -- The Houses of Bush, Sabah, and Maktoum. The Bush Crime Family's close business dealings with the royal houses of Kuwait (the Sabah family) and Dubai (the Maktoum family) either borders on or is treason according to information received from U.S. military and Persian Gulf sources by WMR.

The Sabah family and their business cohorts are reportedly skimming hundreds of millions of dollars from the shipping of military materiel through Kuwait to U.S. forces in Iraq. Moreover, much of this money is being used to fund the Sunni insurgency in Iraq that is directed against U.S. troops.....UP TO AND INCLUDING KILLING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S SOLDIERS

bush knows it gets AMERICA EXCITED when some good ole boys get killed, so he's trying to oblige them. OR like fellow bushCO and CRONYs NAZI, Hermann Goering said:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

_W_H_O_ IS EXPOSING THE UNITED STATES TO GREAT DANGER????

his heinieousness, George "I could give a sh*t about U," Bush...

what does he care about?

MONEY....

period endo f story.

he's a gomer, a monkey in love with is pants....

.
people complaining? getting on your nerves ???

you would be too, if you SEARCHED on

BUSH FUNDING SUNNI Al QUEDA

Web SEARCH RESULTS,

1 - 10 of about 759,000 for BUSH FUNDING SUNNI Al QUEDA

SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY-NINE THOUSANDS ENTRIES

saying the SAME FRICKING THING, IT IS ALL A RUSE AND THE PRESIDENTE'

BY FRAUD, electoral fraud and vote fixing,

IS A FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

"airpower is increasingly being employed supplant boots on the ground"

Translation: we have resumed decimating the populace from the air.

Here's an Australian perspective!

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22689634-5007146,00.html

It's open season - let him have it!

Arkin, haven't read your drivel for a few months...nice to know it will be at least that long before I read it again. You don't write well.

The problem is American people, wisely or unwisely kept Bush and Republicans in effective power in 2006 elections by giving them 49 seats in Senate and more than 200 seats in the House. So Democrats are an impotent majority with Bush's veto power and Republicans following their leader blindly. Nothing Pelosi or Reid can do will change that fundamental fact. So American people and news media have to focus their attention on where the blame lies for continuance of this war instead of blaming Democrats.

Iraq War II? Did I miss something? I await that post. I think the publics desire for us to leave comes from Bush, Cheney and Rummy just not coming clean and stating the truth.

The reason the Democrats cannot stop the Iraq War at this point in time is because of the impending 2008 election, the Israeli Government and its US Lobbying arm AIPAC, and the Republicans in the US Senate who are forcing the Senate Democrats to use the 60 vote threshold to pass any withdrawal legislation. All politics and policy will remain status quo in Washington until after the election. Morevover, the chances are excellent that George W. Bush will conduct a few bombing runs from above 15,000 feet over Iran prior to the end of his term. Bet on it!

According to Haaretz and the Jeruselum Post, over seventy percent of the Israeli population believes the US should remain in Iraq. Moreover, a higher percent of the Israeli population believes the US should bomb Iran and wipe out possible nuclear sites.

Last August during the congressional recess, over forty of the top Democrats in Congress and several key Republicans were flown to Israel by AIPAC for consultations with key member of the Israeli Government.

The results of these meetings are obvious, i.e., Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi's public reluctance to push for an immediate withdrawal. Hillery Clinton has the same problem that Hoyer and Pelosi have, that is why she appears at times to struggle with articulating what she actually stands for regarding Iraq. She cannot risk offending these groups until after the 2008 election.

If Americans truly want to understand their Middle East policy, they should read the daily online news reports from the two largest Israeli newspapers, the Jeruselum Post and Haaretz. The information has been there for all to read.

To cj210, who writes: "Excuse or no excuse, Democrats do not have a big enough majority to be able to get anything past a Bush veto, and he has threatened to veto everything."

He can't veto something that never gets out of the House ... like his request for supplemental Iraq funding.

How can Bush veto something that Congress hasn't passed?

We have a lazy, irresponsible government that cares not a whit for the common person's quality of life. Whether its Republicans or Democrats they are congenitally unable to understand the grounding principles of why this country was founded. Liberty. We want liberty from being oppressed by the rich and wealthy, we want liberty from having our wealth allocated to endless war; we want liberty to tell elected officials what to do and not vice-versa. They don't get it; they think they can rationalize the "great wars" or trivial tax cuts to spoonfeed us reality. Truth is that Pelosi and the Demcorats are potted plants not worth the price of plant food.

Do Democrats have enough votes to be able to stop funding the war? Republicans can stop them from having an up or down vote as they have done on just about every issue. Then there is Bush veto power. (That he only just discovered). Could he veto this type of bill and if so we are right back where we are on the SCHIP bill. Not enough votes without Republican votes to override it. As long as Republicans continue to be "loyal to Bush" nothing can get done because there is no sense in passing bills Bush approves of because the past 6-1/2 years have shown us what his "best judgment" gets us. Excuse or no excuse, Democrats do not have a big enough majority to be able to get anything past a Bush veto, and he has threatened to veto everything.

"But what can Congress do?" Ah...

How about its job as the Legislative branch of our system of checks and balances?

Of course I am ASSUMING that they have read the Constitution of the United States of America...

Maybe something like High Crimes and Treason just might have some relevancy to the current situation? Of course the Constitution only works if you actually decide to use and enforce its provisions when and where applicable!

In another Washington Post column today: "Nancy's Committee of One" -- Robert D. Novak bemoans that Pelosi; "... the 67-year-old grandmother from San Francisco is referred to as the "Committee of One" who rules the House;" and, "Ruling absolutely does not mean all Democrats think she rules well."

Just what is the relevance of the Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi's Age and fact that she is a Grandmother has to do with Novak's diatribe is beyond me...

Perhaps this perspective derives from some sort of personal Anxiety over Dominant Mothers or some form of Androcentrism.

"Androcentrism takes male values or practices as the norm, and then explains female values or practices as deviations from, or unsuccessful aspirations towards male ways of doing things." - Charlotte Perkins Gilman.

Interestingly Novak characterizes the resolution on the 1915 Armenian genocide as an; "episode [that] suggests a Pelosi decision has to approach the brink of disaster before Democrats speak out" when the current Administration is on the eve of launching another war of questionable legality, this time against Iran...

Which would pose the disaster, condemning genocide or starting another military conflict with the potential to result in another world war?

But perhaps Robert Novak has in fact unwittingly hit upon a real concern among many Democrats today...

"... animals [that] have been relatively well protected by their dominant mothers, and when they get to the chaotic outside world and have to fend for themselves, reading the situation and deciding whether or not to be aggressive, and how to handle many other problems, they probably just don't know what to do." - Ned Kalin, MD, Department of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine, Health Emotions Research Institute.

Maybe this actually explains the inability of the Democratic majority in Congress to effectively take on the current Administration who thinks they are above the law like Robert D. Novak? The coddled Democrats just don't know what to do...

It's pretty clear the Democrats who tell us our young men and women are dying for a failed policy don't have the guts to vote against funding that policy because the political consequences of doing so are more important to them than the young Americans dying for nothing in Iraq.

If they believe their own rhetoric about the war, they should act like it. If they don't believe it, they should shut up.

Why did the US invade, conquer, and occupy Iraq? Why didn't the congress raise taxes to pay for the war? Bin Laden and Saddam Hussien did not threaten me or my family. Cui bono? Bush is Commander in Chief of the Army of Occupation of Iraq. It is obvious that he has not read the history of Iraq. That nation is more than 233 generations old. The US is about 13 generations old. Iraqi's have lived and expelled invaders at least 7 times during this period. What makes Bush think he can murder a million people to force them to kiss his boots? It ain't gonna happen, I guarantee.

The focus on Senate rules and the inability of the majority to 'pass' something is a smokescreen for the Democrats' gutlessness.

The House has the numbers to reject Bush's request for supplemental funding with a simple majority vote.

Bush is then forced to either (a) return with an amended request that meets the Dems' conditions for a timetable or (b) continue to fight the war with funding from existing DoD accounts.

If Bush goes for (b) the resulting E-Ring uprising will make the Shinseki episode look like a game of patty-cake. The only thing keeping the senior Pentagon brass in line on this failed war policy is the supplemental funding. And Bush knows it.

Whatever happened to those "benchmarks"? And why is there no accountability toward reaching them?

Obviously we have created an untenable situation in Iraq that will breed hatred and extremism for generations to come. The was has failed because Bush and Cheney heaped the entire job onto military. As family and friends serving in Iraq regularly complain about, they are on their own with almost no support from State and USAID. We are finally nearing the end of this phase of our joke of a "War On Terror" and are understandably confused as to where to go from here. Obviously there are no good options so we must consider the bad ones. The reality is that our troops are going to be coming home sooner rather than later, either because of congressional action or troop shortages caused by deployment stresses and general discontent within the military. So Iraq will be left to sink deeper into factionalism and civil war, and we will, in the case of western Iraq, have created another ungovernable area similar to western Pakistan. It is a pipe dream that Iraqis will somehow be able to control the country anytime in the near future. We have broken it and we have no intention of buying. What is actually needed is an understanding by Americans that terrorism is inevitable when we are, rightly so in my opinion, economically raping most of the world. Until we all begin to reason as adults and cast off the denial inherent in this entire debate, expect more of the same. I am quite enjoying the show, i can only hope you all are as well.

And for the record, if you guys are going to blindly insult each other, please be smart enough to spell "ridiculous" correctly.

Chaotician:

I dont understand why there is the animosity toward large weapons systems. In case you havent noticed, weapons are about the only thing that we manufacture in this country.

Also, basic training for the Army is currently 9 weeks, Marines have 12 weeks, and Air Force and Navy are less. The follow on school is generally longer that basic, but 6 months of basic training would be.. umm.. overkill..

My suggestion is, the next time we are at War and having an election, try electing a president who actually served in the military, or atleast has worked in a capacity to be knowledgable about what is really required in a war. The problem with this war, more than most, more than the numbers of troops, armor, money, etc is the fact that we are playing this war for TV.

In the past when this country has been comitted to winning a war, we have not yet lost. But being committed to winning a war means doing things that are not politically acceptable and dont play well on TV. If your answer to that is, the reason we are there isnt worth doing those things, then guess what, it isnt worth being involved in this war in we should cut our loses now.

What I am saying is, if we dont believe in what we are fighting for enough to do WHATEVER is necessary to win, i.e. if Quds is providing weapons in Iraq, attack them in Iran, if Syria is sheltering fighters, attack them in Syria. If we are not willing to do those things, then obviously the rationale for going to war doesnt hold up (I think thats already been established) so we need to call it a day.. honestly, if we started pulling out of Iraq in 180 days, what terrible thing would happen?

Comment to Druvas:
Sorry, but you need to look a little deeper. If you're going to talk about gassing Kurds, at least mention that the gas used to kill them came from the United States and so did the satellite photos that showed exactly where to use it. We were helping Iraq, (and S.H.), at the time. If you're going to read history, read the fine print too.
And by the way, there are brutal despots all over the world. We only seam to care about the ones who have something we want. We are NOT in Iraq because of any high sounding words or ideals. We are there for profit. Period.

The Democrats never intended to stop the war in the first place. They are profitting too, unless you believe that every oil company and defense contractor are headed by Republicans, which I can assure you that this is not the case. If it were not so sad and detrimental to our country, it would be laughable to see how ignorant these liberals are. It's almost like they were too busy smoking pot in high school to study history. Could we possibly be in Iraq right now doing the tough job of rebuiliding after deposing a brutal despot that used WMD's on Iran and his own civilian population? Is that not a crime deserving forcable ejection from office? You people that like to say "we never actually found WMD's, Bush lied" are rediculous. Here is some evidence for you. Go to www.google.com, click on "images", type in "Gassed Kurds" and then tell me what you see. Surely, it is a big mess, but a timetable for withdrawal will do nothing to actually fix the situation. Only time, money, and death will do the job. That is what happens in a war. People die. It is sad, but that is the present method by which humanity solves its' otherwise unsolvable problems. Iraq will be over when it is over, not one minute before. The Dem's have the majority. If they really wanted the war to end, it would be winding down right now. But it isn't now, is it...?

I offer a compromise solution!

Namely, do not fund the wars as separate measures; merely give the Pentagon the ability to shift expenditures from useless Cold war weapons systems and George's ridicules Missile defense system to the war as needed. I am sure the Generals will find the war in Iraq is not nearly as much "fun" if they have to give up some of their pretty toys!

Also, let's institute a general public service draft for all youths from the age of 18 to 20; require 6 months basic training for all draftees, and allow the government to use whatever it needs on a random basis while the remainder do public service. Forbid the use of private contractors for KP, supply, maintenance, and other "traditional" military activities. Certainly forbid the use of private contractors for any combat or guard activities for any government officials or offices.

Finally, sublet the monstrosity built in Bagdad, I can not conceive of any real use for the "largest" embassy in the world! I imagine that a single officer could handle the needs quite easy; after all, the Iraqi government will be aligned with Iran, our supposed enemy!

It isn't about Pelosi.

It's not even about the Democrats. And the ongoing "democrats can't force pullout" narative is both misleading and correct.

They can't. Don't have nearly the democratic votes. So why that ongoing narative - it's just a distraction.

It's really about the 'moderate' republican congressmen who are marching in lock-step w/ Bush. They haven't yet peeled away.

Lots of hand-wringing and worry about what Bush and the Iraq war are doing to the republican party, but when pushed, rather than changing direction, they keep marching w/ Bush.

That's the story line which should be pursued.

And as far as the "no good answers" line for why we stay in Iraq ... we can add this to the mix: Just how long do we tolerate the steady drip of US casualties?

Is there any possible outcome there worth that price?

The reality is that the House can easily end the war by refusing to pass a budget for operations in Iraq.

That's all it takes.

Can't veto that, King George!

Why doesn't Bush end the war? Why did he start the war? Why is Nancy Pelosi's fault?

The reason they can't stop the war is that they can't get enough votes. Not all the Democrats agree that defunding the war is the way to go, Republicans fillibuster and Bush vetoes. Why is that the Democrats fault?

Only a Republican could blame the Democrats for the mess that this war is.

Not having the votes to overide a veto is just a lame excuse to drag out the war, because all of the polititians corporate sponsers are stuffing their bank accounts with the profits from this war. The majority of americans want out, now. That is why we put the democrats in the majority, to end the war. They don't need votes, all they need is the guts to represent the will of the majority, and stop signing the friggin checks. No money, no war, but they are so afraid someone will say somthing bad about them, that they won't do what's right for fear of not getting elected again. Bottom line is, if they wanted the war over, it would be over. They don't, so it's not. There is still way too much tax money to be funneled to the corporations that are funding the polititions.

The Presidential Veto, and the leftover Republican filabusterers are the real problem, not Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid.

It is amazing how many Americans continue to place the blame, as they have done (looking back for about 15 years now), for what has resulted in today's 'Republican Party Debacle In The Middle-East', on the Dems.

I haven't heard of anything like it, since Adam blamed Eve for his own failure - when he willfully partook of the forbidden fruit in the Garden. Poor Eve, Nancy, and we might as well add Hillary to the list! Listening to the debate the other night, it would appear that it is her fault that the U.S.A. ever attacked Iraq and she will apparently get the blame for whatever action #43 and Cheney take in Iran.

Who is the real snake/deceiver in all of this? Unfortunately, Nancy and company do not have the votes required to override #43's vetoes. And, #43 still has a sufficient number of 'insouciant rubber-stampers' left in Congress to keep up the facade of eliminating terrorism, and threats to America - when the major terrorists of the world are really homegrown in Washington DC (see American foreign policy).

The tratiors of the American people who hold seats in Congress, care very little about America or the will of the majority of the American majority. Their objectives are to simply get themselves re-elected, that is when they are not too busy trying to get themselves laid in airport restrooms. And in order to get re-elected, they have to appease the hardliners on the so-called Right!

Folks, the Rev is thinking about saying what he means <(-: for once! Neither Tehran, Seoul, Damascus or the city of Baghdad are the problems that should most concern the planet's nations the most.

Americans and most nations of the world ought to be more concerned with what is going on in appropriately named, Dodge City, USA! Someone had better keep an ear open and an eye on Washington. WE ARE IN THE HANDS OF FOOLS!

And BTW how come we haven't heard anything lately from the South Korean American puppet who is in control of the United Nation's lately? How come he never tries to stop the U.S.A. from its malfeasance?

Hmm!!

The essential point of several commentors upthread is right: the basic premise of this column is faulty, its reasoning is sloppy, and as a result it is more a symptom of the problem than a contribution to a solution.

There is a lot of "why doesn't somebody DO something?" hand-wringing going on these days. But as any observer can see, the options for actually accomplishing anything -- whether ending the war, mandating deadlines, or even imposing "accountability -- are thin indeed, given an electorally immunized White House and a phalanx of goose-stepping Republican Congressional and media loyalists.

Perhaps media representatives of said hand-wringers -- present company included -- might ask themselves what they MIGHT have done when people WERE trying to oppose this war, and there was still a chance to stop it, other than voice vague encouragement and/or mutter confusedly on the sidelines.

Can't never could:

Win the war.
End the war.
Expalin the war.
Explain the legislation.
Explain anything.

Arkin thinks they can't end the war. I think they don't want to run home then find the war was ours to win.

So they stall.

The time line is as smart as tying a string to a tooth and a door s someone else can do the pulling. Mindless is the best I can say for it.

The Congress, and President Hillary Clinton, will not force a withdrawal for fear of being blamed for "losing Iraq." These folks need to make it clear that the Bush/Chency government has already 'lost Iraq." Since the war is already lost, there is no point at continuing this pointless deadly fiasco.

Aside from completely defunding the military operations in Iraq, there is nothing Congress can do until Democrats get the majorities needed to override a veto from Bush the Lesser.

Completely defunding (or refusing to fund, actually) military operations in Iraq will be seen by 99% of the electorate as abandoning the troops, and will therefore work against the only alternative with any hope -- electing more Democrats.

It's "Hello rock. Meet hard place." And drivel like this column doesn't help explain that to the electorate.

I agree that taking impeachment off the table, though, was a bad move. Just starting hearings to impeach President Cheney would allow some good investigations to be covered on TV.

Grounds for impeachment? Treason, in outing Valerie Plame for starters.

Since a "good" time to leave Iraq is never going to happen--we can never defeat an insurgency that spawns a new generation of fighters every year--what we really need here is an excuse to declare victory, to declare some sort of bogus "mission actually accomplished," and then leave. The Paris accords gave Nixon an excuse in 1972-73, and I'm guessing some similar event will occur right after the 2008 election--on Bush's watch, so he can take credit for it, while leaving the mess of actually removing the troops to his successor.

The Democrats know they cannot force Bush to leave Iraq. They could make a draconian move to cut off funding, but Bush still wouldn't end the war--he'd just shift around funds from somewhere else and claim it's his prerogative as part of the "unitary executive."

The American people will just have to live with our frustration, and hope that the next president will have the cojones to undo Georgie's mistakes. Congress's approval ratings will continue to be low, but Republicans shouldn't take heart--their cataclysm is coming, and it's coming quickly, to the point where in 2009 there won't be any opportunities for filibusters or substantive challenges to president Hillarack Obamwards.

America-at-large has always been willing it accept the idea of US forces in Iraq for a very very long time ... much as they are willing to accept US forces stationed overseas in Japan, South Korea, and Kosovo.

(That assumes, of course, the host nation Iraq wants us there. I'm also confident that we would leave if Iraq didn't want us there - recall how we left the Philippines in a relatively quick fashion after that nation failed to ratified a US/PI host-nation agreement).

Rather, what raises the average American's ire is not so much the idea of US forces in Iraq as the continued shedding of US blood for a dubious cause. (To be clear, the problem is US casualties. "Out now" is one of the many possible solutions to that problem.)

If, in fact, the trend Arkin alludes to regarding decreases in US casualties is sustained, the "out now" movement will undoubtably lose it's momentum and slowly abate into political meaninglessness. And the issue-de-jour will shift back ... health care .. public education ... graft and spending ... etc ... etc ... take your pick.

And that's my punditry for the day!

I never got the sense that the American people elected a Democratic Congress simply to get us out -- rather it was, at least at first, to force a change in strategy. That at least appears to have happened. The question is whether it has a chance to work, and whether we can really trust Bush, Petraeus, and Crocker to tell us the truth.

At this point, I wouldn't trust George Bush to tell me my own name.

So really what we need is new leadership in this country. That's the grand irony of it all -- to save Bush's grand plan to Japanize Iraq, Americans need to de-Bushize America.

http://scorpionbowl.blogspot.com

If the "war in Iraq" is a "catastrophic mistake" then ending it would be the honorable thing to do, regardless of the consequenses. However, proposing legislation that would end the "war in Iraq" would be political suicide because of the fall out that (perhaps unjustly) result. Our representatives (on both sides of the aisle), to include Speaker Pelosi, are not going to give up the control, prestige and power they've obtained, regardless of the moralities involed.

You people still don't get it. When the media talks about "getting out of Iraq", they never mention the real people we need to get out of Iraq. If the American corporations who currently own everything in Iraq were to give they're holdings back
to the Iraqi people, our troops could leave the next day. Never forget that this was an ECONOMIC invasion. This government, (of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy), will never, never, NEVER, bring our troops home until the American tax payers give them enough money to replace those troops with private troops. Ones who serve only they're corporate masters. All branches of "our" government are now in the hands of these corporate masters. The white house works for them. So does congress. The fact that this is ruining this country doesn't bother these ultra wealthy people at all. They will simply move they're headquarters to Iraq! After, of course, we tax payers buy it for them. Are you starting to feel like a fool yet?

Announce our leaving in 5 months. We have wasted billions of our money -- and that of our children -- and too many lives on something that benefits a few. No more politics. Just exit.

What Iraq needs is an announcement of exit in say, 5 months. Too many politicians have played politics with this war for much too long. People are dying. Billions of our money and the money of our children are being spend and stolen.

De-funding the troops is truly a bad idea.

But de-funding the Whithouse is a clear alternative. No money for electricity, heat oil, staff, ... They can find their own housing somewhere and they can recieve ambassadors in a pair of broom closets in the basement of the Pentagon.

OK, I admit this is a little extreme, but we have to do something.

Oh come on! All she has to do is refuse to allow bills funding this fiasco to come to the floor for a vote.

The politicians keep treating us like children and we are not. Nancy Pelosi can end this war now, if she chooses.

Glad to see you're willing to put your name behind those America-bashing comments.

The main problem in Iraq is not al Qaeda, they can be and are being defeated. The main problem is Iraq right now is that the moment we draw down forces, it becomes a satellite of Iran. The Maliki government is not as helpless as it appears, it is merely playing duck and cover until the U.S. deals with al Qaeda. As soon as that is over Maliki's true allegiance to Iran will show through.

sorry about the double comment.

I've thought of this....

...but it doesn't explain spinelessness on wiretapping and other issues.

Congress needs to impeach Bush and Cheney in order to hold them accountable.Only new leadership can lead us out of this mess.We really can't wait another year. Pelosi took impeachment of the table--BAD MOVE-- if she is not capable to be president then she should remove herself as Speaker.

I've thought of this.....but this doesn't explain some of the other capitulations.

wiretapping, torture....etc.

Out NOW!.

An orderly retreat to the border of... Well there ARE no countries truly friendly to us in the region any more, at least not any willing to host our troops... so I guess that orderly retreat will be in helicopters from the rooftop of that white elephant embassy.