Catch up, son. I’m tired of explaining the same damn thing 20 times a day.

You and Big Tent assume that not-funding will force Bush’s hand to end the war. I think you’re both utterly and disastrously wrong on that point. Bush will not end the war under any circumstances. I’m certain he won’t end it if funding is cut off; he’ll just move funds around from other parts of the budget. I doubt he will end it even if a veto-proof majority votes to end it. I think the only way the war will end before 2009 is if Bush and Cheney are removed from office.

Think. You sit on appropriations, yet the war goes on and on. What’s your next move? Do you have a next move?

Think. Removing Bush from office requires either a two-thirds vote in the Senate or armed rebellion.

I say the only possible hope is to aim for that two-thirds vote. Make Bush either UNLAWFULLY defy the will of the Senate or end the war.

As for the Republicans “getting away with it” — they do to the extent that the Dems let them, which is GG’s point, and also mine. The Dems now are in a stronger position than they have been for years, but they have been functioning in a weak position for so long they don’t know how to use strength. They’re still operating under the old rules that helped them survive when they were weak.

See GG. They got away with it repeatedly already. Honestly, I’m with Big Tent over at Talk Left … funding requires positive action. The MAJORITY truly has the upper hand here … a filibuster or veto doesn’t get you funding. I’m sorry. They didn’t seem to act like that was the case. They assumed failure. See also GG re Levin/Obama.

Anyway, good discussion overall. One thought that came to me …they didn’t HAVE to take Memorial Day off. Apropos to Grant, they could have fought the line all Summer. Oh, and why the mention of Webb and other newbie senators by some quarters? He was JUST ELECTED. He comes up in ‘12!

In fact, it’s possible that Bush would refuse to comply even if a veto-proof majority voted to end the war. We’ve been in constitutional crisis for a while, and Congress has pretended not to see it, but that might force them to have to acknowledge it and deal with it.

I don’t think what Gen. Petraeus is going to say in September will make any difference, one way or another. The real deadline Republicans are looking at is a little matter called an “election,” to be held in 2008. A whopping huge majority of the public hates the war and hates Bush, and this is increasingly true even in many “red” districts. A whole lot of GOP congress critters are going to have to make a public break with Mr. Bush and his war before serious campaigning begins early next year or face certain defeat. That’s one reality even a wingnut can’t ignore.

I’ve been predicting a stampede of Republicans away from Bush and his war for awhile; the wonder to me is that it hasn’t happened already. The “surge” business wasn’t really about “winning” in Iraq as it was about keeping Republicans in the corral, as it were. The Republicans were caught in their own spin; they couldn’t abandon the war just as Bush was making a big public show of doing something “new,” or the GOP Noise Machine might lump them together with the “Defeat-o-crats.”

The White House is already making noises about the glorious new “post-surge” strategy that will lead us to victory, and we’ll see if that’ll do the trick one more time. If current trends in Iraq (and the polls) continue through the summer, I don’t think Bush will get away with that trick so easily next time.

First, by framing it as, “If Bush vetoes funds for the troops, we’ll get blamed for not providing funds for the troops,” the Dems have conceded: ending the war will now take 67 votes, not 51. This seems like tragically bad legislative strategy. Am Ii missing something?

Second, why do people like Tester and Webb have to reinforce the Bush frame and undermine the party’s national message? Dems in red or reddish states can vote how they need to, but there’s no need to gratuitously undermine the national party.

And, finally, what would Gen. Petraeus possibly say in September that would peel off significant Republican votes? He’ll say the surge is just taking hold, there are some good signs, some problems, we should keep it up. What Republican (or waffling Dem) — directly in the face of Gen. Petraeus recommendation — is going to say no? Nothing will be different in September, or October, except that many more dead, that much more money wasted.

I think, far from moving the ball forward, we’ve taken our cleats off and walked off the field.

Direct hit, Maha. He wouldn’t. He won’t. We should all probably sit back and relax as we wait for January ‘09.

Doesn’t anyone else think that one individual in a republic should not have the power to wage war all by himself? That power began with WWII; it was aided and abetted by way of the Cold War; it will continue LEGALLY through the endless years of the so-called war on terror.

It’s time to call a Constitutional Convention ala 1787.

Gosh, watching this phenomenon of turmoil and blame-throwing, and frustration with and turning against one’s own side, sensing the despair underneath, makes me imagine how severe the knee-jerking must be for, say, the Israelis and Palestinians citizens, or for that matter, the Iraqi citizens.

Are we w

Well, see, there’s a catch. I’m not at all sure Bush would bring the troops home if funding were cut off.