The entire argument against stopping the funding is based not on the harm to Iraq or to our troops, but on the potential damage to the careers of politicians.

They "can't" do anything?? Most of the powers assigned to Congress deal with money.

It is their main duty. If they don't provide the executive with money and he refuses to pull troops or dramatically change tactics then HE is being irresponsible.

To continually hand over billions of dollars and throw their hands up in feigned despair saying "we can't stop him" makes Congress responsible.

Send out the subpoenas. Start the hearings. Turn over every damn rock, starting with that "energy task force."

The power of the purse isn't all that useful with troops already deployed, the presidency is too powerful in that situation. Cutting funding is too ugly and heavy handed.

The investigation powers of congress, on the other hand, are quite powerful. This is the one way to really start putting heat on Bush, and help any (clean) Democrat running in 2008. Maybe there are too many dirty....

Unfortunately, due to collusion between the administration and the sugary beverage industry, one word dominates my every thought:

"SURRRRRRRRGE!"

Now that was sad

After all, it is all marketing to them.

SUUUURRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGEEE!

"Cutting funding is too ugly and heavy handed." Compared to what? Invasion? Four years of war? Tens of thousands of their citizens killed and our soldiers maimed? Thousands of our soldiers killed?

Refusing to continue to pay for the ongoing slaughter for a lie is a bad choice?!?!

"This is the one way to ... help any (clean) Democrat running in 2008."

And THAT, afterall, is the point in all the fuss over stopping the escalation and/or status quo. If it harms the chances of a Democrat winning the Presidency, then don't stop the war.

I thought the Democrats were elected two months ago to change the course of the war, not to bite their nails on the sidelines afraid to look bad. How many elections do they need to win before they stop killing? Are you sure the Presidency will be enough? How do you know? They are backpeddling now on taking action they were supposedly elected to take.

I can't stand to even look at the man any longer.

Every time I see his arrogant face I can't help but call him an asshole idiot or vice versa.

I mostly agree with you. I was just trying to point out what is politically possible. Barring a shutdown of all federal funding, it is virtually impossible for any congress to really cut off funds for a war.

It is far more possible for congress to get Bush and Cheney impeached and thrown from office after invesitgating their gross misbehavior. Rather than sit and whine for the next two years, I'd rather ITMFA.

What could the White House do? Bitch about "the blame game?" Even highly comprimised Democrats (Kerry, Hillary, Reed...) can retort "we keep making bad decisions. Why not figure out why?"

And yes, the *majority* of incumbent democrats own this war too, including the bulk of the leadership. They voted for it, and are complicit in it's continuation. Even if they want to cover their ass, how can they realistically block investigations without really enraging the public?

Ain't
Gonna
Happen.

This makes sense in a vacuum, but see how far that flies in reality.

Look, Clinton got impeached, IMPEACHED!!, for lying about a blowjob. W has a laundary list of impeachable offenses, but no one dares. why? because in this insane fucked up country we live in, people on the right can get away with murder, but if you're on the left you have to be PERFECT 100% of the time.

point is, if the dems cut off funding, they would be tarred & feathered & burned at the stake. Can't you just hear the O'Reilly's & Hannity's? The Dems gotta do something, and it has to be meaningful, but cutting off funding would be suicide and it wouldn't change anything.