No. But it could get a lot of soldiers killed.

Putting in timetables and hard benchmarks is another issue. That would only be a problem if Bush vetoed the spending bill so often that funds started to run out.

There are more contractors in Iraq than US military. The military is dependent on these contractors in several ways. Meanwhile, contractors have contributed to the deterioration of US image in Iraq, taking part in the abuse and torture of prisoners, arrogant treatment of civilians, even the murder of Iraqi civilians…

Billions and Billions of US taxpayer dollars wasted on reconstruction with nothing to show for it. Do you think Bush wants a spotlight on this?

No accounting.
Little or no oversight.
Hundreds of million$ finding its way to Al Qaeda
Fraud.
Overbilling.
Halliburton.
Corruption in the Iraqi government.
Cronyism.
Mercenaries gone wild.

The list goes on, and this is totally seperate from the way he’s screwed up the military aspects of the war.

And it can be applied to how the Iraqi government has failed to step up and develop into a ruling body. Take reconstruction, I believe the figure is something like the Iraqi government has refused to take control of 90+% of completed US projects, and I think, they have accepted Zero in the last 2 years, leaving us to continue to fund, man, operate, guard or simply abandon the work we have completed.

Fund the military. Defund the contractors. Include in spending bills funding to appoint inspectors and auditors to pour over the contracts, root out abuse, fraud and corruption, cancel contracts, stop paying for mercenaries, revoke immunity of these contractors from US laws. All little things the public at large could support, would think is fair and at the same time is so far within the powers and duties of the US congress that when Bush vetoes the bills his complaints about usurping his authority as commander-in-chief would make little to no sense to the US population.

And this is why that can’t defund the war.

I truly believe that Bush would rather see 100,000 American troops die that admit he made a mistake. Not only that, but he would be able to keep those troops there and honestly believe a.) he was doing the right thing and b.) the Democrats were responsible for the troops deaths.

He could do it and not lose a minute of sleep.

The public may want the war to be over and the troops to come home, but they sure don’t want them stuck in a war zone with no bullets.

Just cut funding for the contractors instead. After 4 years of stories of fraud and waste, recent stories of abuse and murder by mercenaries, coupled with the Bush administration’s complicitness in wasting tens of billions of dollars with nothing to show for it, the public could understand cutting the money for reconstruction and mercenaries.

Bush would be forced to veto anything that doesn’t fund his army of crows.

Midderpidge, how much support does it need before 41 Democrats will take a stand for it? 80% maybe?

I honestly believe that George W. Bush would rather leave the troops their without enough equipment and watch them die in huge numbers than admit he made a mistake.

The only way to get the troops home early is to impeach him.

What they should do instead is seize the money and apportion it out in a way that puts the onus on Bush and the Republicans for not accepting it. For instance, if the military needs $46 billion? Ok. Take it. But cut out all money for the contractors. Tack on another $50 million to have inspectors audit and check on existing contracts with an eye toward rooting out fraud and failure to deliver. Pull Blackwater out, and then refuse money for hiring new mercenary contractors. Etc. Make Bush veto that bill.

And yet Congress, the Democrat-controlled Congress, continues to do nothing to bring about either of those goals.

Why shouldn’t we yell and bitch about that? Does anybody seriously think they’ll start showing some spine if we ask nicely?

A majority of those polled going back to the start of this year* says, “the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there”. We’ve got 45% saying they want most troops out in less than a year, with the “one to two years” group bringing the total to 72%. When asked, “Based on General Petraeus’s new report, do you think the United States should pull out all troops immediately, pull out all troops gradually over the next year, pull out after Iraqi troops are capable of taking over, or, send more troops?”
a total of 64% said to leave either immediately or gradually over the next year. The balder question, “Do you support or oppose legislation that would set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq by next spring?” gets 55% support. And of course, you have to go back to 2004 before the number saying this war was not worth fighting goes as low as half.

*The Democrats approved funding after this point.

Oh. My. God.

By all means, let’s not say anything that would hurt their feelings. Let’s not point out how they are royally fucking up what should be an easy opportunity to lead.

No, no, no. Let’s just bury our heads in the sand and keep saying everything is all right.

Actually, for as little as I’ve enjoyed the surrender of the Democrats, this is overstating the nature of legislative power even if you don’t consider that Cheney considers the legislature to be an irrelevant body that must bow at the feet of the All-Powerful Executive and his own, mysterious, 4th Branch.

They have a majority in the House and Senate, yes. They do not, however, have a veto-proof majority.

What sickens me, though, is how often they refuse to make George use that veto. Rather than taking a principled stand on a bill that Bush and the GOP would surely deny–thereby putting the onus and the political consequences of the decision on Bush and the GOP, they simply avoid starting the fight.

They were elected to throw punches even if they can’t score the knockout. Right now they’re staying in the corner and absorbing body blows. Boo on them.

They have the House. They have the Senate. They have the power to end the war in Iraq.

First of all, I’m going to need a source for that, you pathological liar.

Secondly, that means for roughly 60% of the people, Bush was a factor. That’s a big chunk o’ voters.

Sure, but that was only a major factor for hard core Democratic and Republican voters. Nearly 40% of all voters said that support or opposition to Bush was not a factor in their voting.

While this is all true, Jay, I think you’re forgetting that wee matter of Bush policy and the GOP lockstep with that policy being a factor in those elections.

At the same time you could say things like the Republicans are too lock-step with the president to cause a break and end the war. Or the president and his congressional puppets still have too strong a hold for the narrow Democratic majority to cause a new direction in policy.

All you do is weaken support for the democratic party by claiming they are weak. That plays into Republican hands, when, face it, these guys are lockstepping the country to hell. Rephrase, not strong enough to overcome the Republican lockstep puppets. Make a case that democrats need more support to end the war not that they are unworthy of the support.