If resistant Senators and Representatives were quietly reminded that NO votes would entail pain, such as an embargo on their earmarks and a sudden inability to find funding for their lobbyists interesting projects, changes of heart might spontaneously occur.

Disagree. Bush is only playing for time with his phony “surge”, and the clock is running out on him. His surge fails, and it will be amazing to watch the Congresional Republican turn on him (they have to win the next election, not Dumbya). As time goes on, more and more people, including Republicans, will be convinced that the war is a failure, and will do all they can to distance themselves from it. Truly the surge is Bush’s last chance.

The Dems will have problems voting together as a united group, but this will be counterbalanced by 1) more people willing to throw in the towel on Iraq, and 2) the Dawning Realization that no Democrat wants to own this war, should they win the 2008 Presidential race. There will be enormous pressure to make sure the war hangs firmly around the Republicans’ necks.

Of course, the troops are going to bear all of this, but at least the Dems are on the right side of history, and ultimately on the side of the troops.

I think maha’s idea is a great idea. I just think it is too time-consuming. The only way to save time is to get tough. W says he will meet with Congress and negotiate. Okay, Congress go do that. But, if he truly does not negotiate, then every one who attended should be on TV telling the American people that the commander guy is NOT negotiating, that he met with them in bad faith. Keep the sword swinging above his head, don’t give any thing except to show that you are willing to give up something for something given by the commander guy. That is negotiation.

I’m skeptical that enough Dems would hold together to carry out that kind of grandstanding — you’d need darn near all of them — but let’s pretend they would. What do you think would happen next? Do you think the Republicans would frantically throw together a bill with out-of-Iraq conditions to keep money flowing to the troops? Or would they all show up on Faux Snooze to complain about obstructionist Democrats?

I’d bet on the latter. I don’t think Bush would be compelled to bring the troops home even if he didn’t get his money, and I think Republicans would jump at the chance to turn the public debate against Democrats rather than against Bush.

And troops would still die, possibly in larger numbers.

Again, ultimately I don’t think Bush would end the war even if 100 percent of Congress ordered him to do it. I suspect the only way this game will end before January 2009 is if Bush is removed from office. But it will take a two-thirds vote of the Senate to do that, meaning we’d need the same 57 Republicans we need for a veto-proof majority.

The safer (both for the Democrats and the troops) and smarter way to go is to slog it out bill by bill and vote by vote, forcing Republicans to take a firm stand for or against Bush and his war. I think enough of them will bail by the end of summer/early fall that we’ll have our veto-proof majority. Then if Bush defies the will of Congress, we’d be able to get some momentum toward impeachment.

Maybe I’m dreaming, but as I see it Congress( the Democratic portion) has the power to change the entire dynamic. Not by what they can accomplish through a veto proof majority, but what they can achieve by preventing the passage of any bill that is contrary to their will. They have power at their disposal if they choose to utilize it to their advantage. By applying heat they can change the chemistry. Bush has purposely created an air of urgency and near desperation over the Iraq funding to rattle the Congress and force them into compliance with his will.
If the members of Congress who want to stop Bush’s antics would turn his bullying tactics back on him by refusing to be cowered and hold fast to their obligations to the majority of the American people..I believe Bush and his Republican minions would fold, or at least fragment to the point where Bush’s stranglehold on power would collapse. I know nobody wants to look ugly by touching the sacred cow, our troops,but as long as Bush can use them as a buffer/hostage, that’s how long he will retain control.
Again, just my armchair nobody living in obscurity analysis.. the closer it approaches critical mass, the more favorable it will be for those who want to bring the Iraq debacle to an end. Turn up the heat, you turn the political consequences for them comfy repubs.

And God bless our troops…

I think the pressure ought to be kept up till the point where the polls start saying it’s far enough.

That Paul Krugman column with the ‘military held hostage’ frame a couple weeks back seemed to be picked up enthusiastically, then was dropped, to my disappointment. Glad to see it re-emerge.

Congress does have that power, but only if a veto-proof majority chooses to exercise that power. The current effort is not about negotiating with Bush, but negotiating with Republicans in Congress, in the hopes that we’ll have a veto-proof majority by the end of summer.

Without a veto-proof majority, Congress can do nothing.

I also think ‘pork’ like proper troop training, equipment and inter-tour rest periods, veteran’s benefits and Katrina relief should remain in the bill.

I know it appears naive and mindless to suggest toughness when dialog and reasonableness seem the path to pursue, but Bush is using both of those elements as barriers to protect his failures. He has to be confronted and broken and that won’t happen until Congress stands against him. It doesn’t need to be a Congress united…just enough to stop Bush’s progression forward.

I do understand your point and reasoning ,Maha, But to my mind an encapsulation of what I trying to convey in a round about way, would be..You don’t negotiate with terrorist.. and the same concept would apply to dealing with Bush. Only direct confrontation will bring result.