I agree. I'm surprised and saddened Carter backed off. But I think the Iraq Funding vote was a little more complicated.

A veto was assured. They couldn't override it. What then? Would Bush carelessly pull the troops out, in stubborn retribution to the dems? An overnight pull-out? What would have happened then?

I'll tell you what would have happened. The tragedy that is Iraq could be sound-bited into a dem failure. Iraq would no longer be Bush's failure. And that isn't just a political save face for the dems. It's a realistic response to the fact this administration plays only politics. It's a question of...if they play chicken with Bush, does he crash head on and blame it on the other car? Or do you expect Bush to at the last minute concede and compromise and do what is best for America and the Iraqis? You take too many vacations Bill....

P.S. Now I have to logoff and go watch your show. Not that your ego needs any boosting...but your show renews my soul. Stops me from crawling under my covers and not coming out again..again, stop taking so many vacations...

The fact that the dems allowed the funding to be in any way tied to support of the troops is ridiculous....but I think there are other issues at play here....namely Bush's utterly irresponsible decision-making.

Do you think for one minute that Bush would concede and do the right thing i.e., plan a strategic withdrawl, if the dems forced the withdrawl? Of course not. If the past six years have taught us anything, it is they would make the dems pay. At any cost. Bush would pull the troops out in such a way as to ensure a catastrophic bloodbath so he could blame the dems for Iraq forever. They would have the last word. It would be their fault. Their legacy. And it would probably freaking work...

After the debacle of Lebanon and the subsequent pounding Olmert received, do you think Cheney could goad Israel to yet another, even more reckless move? I think the Israeli public's demands for accountability might have saved us from that scenario....if only we would learn from it...

The other possible angle is even more insidious. Implicit in the neoconservative "reasoning" -- if they admit that the President has the power to bring troops home before they "run out of bullets" -- is the premise that, when confronted with the choice of (a) ceasing his misbegotten occupation before appropriated moneys truly do dry up, or (b) petulently continuing the campaign despite the impending removal of funding, Mr. Bush would choose the latter.

____________________________________________________

Rather than petulently continue the campaign until he loses the complete support of Congress, Bush could do something potentially even worse: a reckless pull-out. It boils down to what he values more...the private investments in Iraq or being able to pin the loss of Iraq on the dems. I think the latter might be a lost cause anyways...

Kitt: The Congress defunds the occupation. Generals and other military powers put plan - a plan that has no doubt been studied and developed - into place to move out of Iraq accordingly. All the other stuff you mentioned is just more of the same bullroar of excuses.

_________________________________________

If Bush were forced to pull out the troops, do you think he would try for a successful execution? Or would he want it to be a bloodbath so he could blame the dems? After six years of this, what seems the most likely scenario?

We need to impeach Cheney. You know they removed six Navy commanders, I think it was last month. The story I read did not explore the issue very deeply.

Michmod,

I already told you my opinion. Bush, regardless of what he thinks, isn't king and he isn't three branches of government. __________________________________________

You are right Kitt. But I think Congress would do well to think of all the possible responses he could muster to a defunding measure. And I would hope Congress would not assume, for a minute, Bush would only choose responses that are in the country's and/or the troops interests. They have shown us how petulant they are. And they know they could spin a precepitous withdrawl to be a dem failure if the dems defund the war. Would you put it past them? The dems can't control the withdrawl plans. Tragically, it means more lives must be wasted until the republicans unite with the dems....but in the long-term, I think, sadly, the costs of the alternative could be much higher..

But king? That implies near-absolute power (and even kings typically do not have dictatorial power), that he simply does not have and which the evidence does not support.

_____________________________________________________

King? Maybe a little bit of hyperbole. But the examples you cite are either things Dick Cheney really didn't want or international issues they only wish they could control. How many times have you been shocked at what they've done? What price have they paid thus far?

Granted, the dem majority is changing the equation, but if you think Congress can control the terms of a troop withdrawl or an attack on Iran, you haven't been paying attention. They cannot do anything to prempt either, except by extraordinary means.

Without a major turnaround, we will be done in by our own nationalism and xenophobia. Ironic...America, the land of the immigrants, destroyed by xenophobia and the debt of a war purported to save us all...