GATOR90: I don't think the Democrats should have capitulated to the threat of that scenario, but isn't that what they did? In other words, the notion that de-funding would harm the troops is sad and twisted, but given the character of the man who occupies the White House, not necessarily irrational.

GLENN: Everyone including even people like John Yoo admit that the Constitution gives the Congress the power to stop the war by defunding it. If Democrats are afraid of a scenario that absurd - where they de-fund in ordre to stop an unpopular war but Bush says he will keep the troops there anyway without funds - then what aren't they afraid of?

ME NOW: Does "everyone" include George W. Bush? Given your stellar work about Bush's indifference to the Constitution, I'm surprised by your certainty that it would constrain him in the scenario under discussion. Yes, in some senses, it is an "absurd" scenario, but many, many things have happened in the last 6 years that I would have scornfully dismissed as

"absurd" right up until they in fact materialized. Paul Krugman recently described the current mess as a "hostage situation" wherein Bush is holding the troops hostage. Are you really sure Bush wouldn't do it?

I agree 100% with those who say the Dems should have de-funded the war irrespective of any concerns that Bush might keep the troops in Iraq anyway. As Scientician said, let's get our on-going constituional crisis out in the open, and try to end the goddamn war while we're at it.

But Glenn, your dismissal of those concerns as fantastically outlandish is unpersuasive. It is not enough to insist that "everyone" (even John Yoo!!) agrees with you, unless "everyone" includes George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and you have yet to say that it does. I'm not talking constitutional theory; I'm talking about what George Bush would actually do, in his capacity as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, if Congress told him he had to end his beloved war.

You acknowledge (correctly) that Bush has no limits, which I take as a recognition that he would not be restrained by anyone's view of the Constitution, even John Yoo's. But you still argue that he would be restrained by political considerations (defying Congress on de-funding would, you say, be "politically impossible"). Well, maybe, and I hope so. But that is not self-evident, either. Bush and Cheney do not face re-election. Perhaps they would be impeached, but I wouldn't count on it; there have only been two impeachments in our history, and the media have been steadfastly aghast at even the mention of the possibility of impeaching Bush. More saliently, if impeached, would they be convicted? Assuming every Senate Democrat voted to convict (a tall assumption), do you really think 17 or 18 Republican senators (including Joe Lieberman) would cross party lines to convict a Republican president for "defending America"? I think that is much more imlausible than the notion of George Bush breaking the law and defying public opinion to continue his war.

When Glenn wrote of the killing of "tens of thousands" of Iraqis, I believe he was referring to Iraqis killed directly by U.S. and British (and Polish, of course) forces, as distinguished from those killed in the civil wa... sectarian violence. I think GG was conceding (for purposes of this post only) Blair's point about all the Muslims who've been killed by other Muslims, and sticking to those deaths for which the "liberators" were exclusively, directly responsible (as distinguished from indirectly or morally responsible).

I usually just say "many thousands" to avoid getting bogged down in statistical debates. To the war's architects, supporters and enablers, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions, it makes no difference. They just don't care.

Years ago, I was renting a little apartment when the AC stopped working properly. This was in Florida in the summer, so I really wanted my landlord to fix it. My landlord, though, would come into the apartment, proclaim it perfectly comfortable, and suggest that I was some sort of maladaptive Eskimo demanding impossibly frigid conditions. So I bought a couple wall thermometers to objectively determine the temperature in the place. Look, I crowed triumphantly to my landlord, one says 86 degrees and the other says 84! See, it's hot in herrrre. Thoroughly unimpressed, my landlord pointed out that the thermometers did not show the same temperature, meaning both were unreliable, and my display proved nothing. I argued that it had to be at least 84 degrees, which is pretty darn hot, but he insisted that my study was invalidated by the inconsistency.

That's what I sometimes think about when war-lovers attack the Lancet study. Suppose the study is waaaay off, so wildly off, in fact, that the LOW end of the range (let's say it's 300,000, though I don't know for sure) is TWICE the actual number of deaths. That's still one hundred fifty thousand human beings dead before their time as a result of the liberation for which the bloody wogs are expected to be grateful. Or about fifty 9/11's, right?

BTW, Glenn, wasn't that me rather than Crust who so helpfully explained your rationale for saying "tens of thousands"? C'mon man, throw me a bone!

My thanks to Pudgenet for explaining that a claim that is right is just as wrong as a claim that is wrong. Right?

The mind reels.