On a related note, anyone who can come up with the phrase collapses of its own weightlessness is someone whos opinion on language usage is worth considering.

I write quickly online eand generally don't edit except for obvious typos, and upon re-reading this phrase it occured to me that it's kind of absurd, actually. I think you know what I was trying to say, but obviously, something cannot collapse of its own weighlessness. It can dissolve or fade away, or come apart, but collapse implies implosion, and that wouldn't make sense for something that is weightless. So how about "dissolves of its own weightlessness"?

To the extent that Dems can end the war and impeach Bush, Cheney et al--and I believe that there is a significant minority if not actual majority of Dems who want to do this, even if they don't always say so publically (at least about impeachment)--it's going to come down to their ability and willingness to pit the Repubs against each other, and against the administration.

Only such continuous cleaving and splitting of the GOP--which has proven to be remarkably cohesive despite the existance of significant and growing divisions withins its ranks--is likely to accomplish either goal. So long as Repubs can hold together and remain loyal to Bush and their cause, they will have the upper hand as the spoiler for either effort--which the constitution intentionally granted the minority party, and for good reason.

It's all about politics--smart, tough, clever, ruthless, determined politics, and the will to engage in it until it yields results. That's how things have always gotten done in DC, and that's how this will get done, if it gets done. And in this instance, it comes down to continuing to make the GOP look bad and force it to choose between two inevitable and unavoidable options--support Bush and the occupation against the will of the people and risk likely massive electoral defeat in '08 and thus political relevancy as a party thereafter, or else cut him off and minimize your electoral and political losses. It's as simple as that.

Repubs might be able to stave off making their final choice in this dilemma for a little while longer, but not much longer, and come fall it will become increasingly difficult for them to put it off any longer--let alone chose to side with Bush and the occupation. This is the 800lb gorilla in the room that they want to pretend isn't there, but which those of us who can get out of the weeds for a moment can see. And it also applies, to a somewhat lesser extent, to conservative Dems who made this past week's "Capitulation Bill" happen. They will all have to deal with the consequences of continuing to support Bush and the occupation, if they don't tack left soon.

Once this reality really begins to sink in and become impossible to deny, I expect many of them--but certainly not all of them, especially those in very safe red districts and states--to run as far away from Bush as they can, and start voting with us. Not for principled reasons, but for political ones. At which point it may well become possible, if not probable, that serious action is finally taken to end the occupation and perhaps even impeach Bush & Co.--although, of course, neither of these is a shoo-in. And, given that this has yet to happen, and that at present more principled Dems--and the rest of us--do not yet have the ability to make this happen, what I think they and we should instead be focusing on is applying maximal political pressure on the GOP and weak-kneed and/or complicit Dems to break with Bush and the occupation.

This needs to be a summer and fall of change--political change, just as last summer and fall were about electoral change. The electoral successes of last year need to be followed up by political change in DC. And the way to do that is to apply political pressure to the politicians who continue to resist such change. FORCE them to change, or else risk defeat. That is the ONLY language that most of them will listen to. And the way to do that, I think, is through a combination of organized mass protests, vigils and other public media events, and letter, email and call-in campaigns to the media and politicians.

Plus--and I think this would help a LOT--congress should hold a major joint hearing on the occupation--the causes for and conduct of the war that led to it, the conduct, purpose and prognosis of the occupation, and what can and needs to be done now. Call in all the people responsible for it in to testify under oath, along with lots of military, political and other experts, currently employed with the government and no longer, to give congress and the public a full account of how we got here, where we are, and where we go from here: namely, should we stay or should we go? If congress really wants to end the war, it has to take over responsibility for it. As do we the people. Enough carping and whining. We need to start making things happen.

These are my suggestions for how.