"...with a Democrat Senate."

--Shooter

What's a "Democrat Senatate", Shooter? Is that supposed to be the opposite of a Repulic Senate? Or is that just ignorant and or derisive language on your part?

... he's stated that Congress has the right to defund the war. It is that action of Congress that is required to stop the war.

Sheer nonsense and sophistry. The Constitution doesn't give Congress plenary power only to fund (or not) wars that the preznit declares. Congress is given plenary power to declare wars, and that decision in firmly in their hands. Why "shooter242" thinks that the only way they may stop a war is by defunding the war (or worse yet, defunding the military as a whole) is beyond me (outside of his desire to invest the Dediderater-In-Chief with uncheckable powers regardless of what the Constitution actually says). I think it incumbent on "shooter242" to explain why, when Congress has the power to declare wars, Congress should be assumed, absent any evidence or argument as to why this should be so, to have no powers to do the inverse.

FWIW, Congress has the power to declare a war but to also not fund a military (or to provide only for a military armed with only plastic knives and forks). Not that they'd do it, but they could. Insisting that the "funding" is inextricably tied to their war-declaring powers (and that the latter is a manifestation of the former) is a total misread of Article I of the Constitution.

Cheers,

I think it incumbent on "shooter242" to explain why, when Congress has the power to declare wars, Congress should be assumed, absent any evidence or argument as to why this should be so, to have no powers to do the inverse.

Cheers,-- Arne Langsetmo

Well let's see. In a war one wins, loses, or draws. Winning is a function of the Commander in Chief. A draw requires a treaty, again the function of the executive to negotiate. Losing, well actually surrendering, isn't something the framers made provision for, as far as I know. I doubt Congress has that power ennumerated somewhere. Does that answer your question?

Arne, you never fail to demonstrate on a regular basis that you have been, are now, and always will be, a dick.

It's worth remembering, however, Gen. Petraeus's recent observation that "the Washington clock is moving more rapidly than the Baghdad clock." --that's because Baghdad's electricity is out so much.

I think this article is exactly right in its perspective.

First, Bush has no intention of leaving Iraq and anything he and his team says are meant to justify it. They don't evaluate real pros and cons; they just give justifications for staying.

Second, the Green Zone, the new embassy, and the bases are not meant to be temporary.

Third, the neocon "team" gains from war. It keeps their consulting, their oil and construction services, their private war machines, their propaganda services, and their lobbyists humming along. Why would they want to stop?

Fourth, it wouldn't surprise me if Bush and the neocons really feel like it serves the best interests of the United States if Iraq becomes one big oil zone without many people around to claim it for their own.

Fifth, the marketing team wants us to think that things are always looking brighter. The most recent example of this is John McCain telling us how safe the Baghdad marketplace he went to is. He saw it with his own eyes, while surrounded by only about 100 American troops and two helicopters.

Sixth, things are not only looking bright but we're always winning, no matter what is actually happening.

Seventh, even if the pressure from home got so great that Bush started thinking of leaving, he still wouldn't do it, because leaving is an acknowledgement of defeat.

Winning is a function of the Commander in Chief

In that case we are well and truly screwed.

The Deciderer wouldn't know stategery if it chomped on his gonads.

Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170 (1804) established that Congress does indeed have the Constitutional authority to "micromanage" the military by passing laws.

Congressional war powers include, but aren't limited to, the power of the purse.

The commander-in-chief is merely the top general and top admiral. If he(she) gives an illegal order, then the generals and admirals under his(her) command are legally obliged to disregard that order.

What might be an illegal order? That's up to Congress (subject to presidential veto, of course).

Congressional "micromanagement" of the military, by passage of laws, might be impractical, but it's absolutely constitutional.

Isn't this about the Saudis, who seem to be in bed with the Bushies, getting *US* to expend our national assets to destablize Iraq instead of the Saudis spending their money for the same goal?

I'd love to see the neocons meet the same fate as the organizers of the Nazi party.

They're cut from the same fabric, and (alas) the public is just as dumbfounded about how to cope with them as the Germans in the 1930's.

I know from experience that this probably will not work, but I will suggest it anyway.

Could we think about picking a day--May Day, say, since we have already missed Patriot's Day--to just plain ignore Shooter242? I'm not talking about censoring his posts. Just about not replying to them. His posts and the gallant replies remind me of an old story about a character whose dream in life is to be a chess champion. One day the devil comes to offer a Faustian bargain. If the guy will agree to spend eternity in hell, then the devil will make him the greatest chess player in the world--for a period of twenty years. The victim is a little bit skeptical, and asks whether there is any catch. The devil explains that the only proviso is that the victim will have to play chess for an eternity with, guess who? The devil himself. Delighted with what seems to be a win-win bargain (triumph in this world, and an eternity of chess with a player who surely must be the grandest of grand masters), the Faustian figure agrees to the bargain. The twenty years pass, and he makes his way dutifully to the inferno, confident that his grand future prospect is nothing less than to play chess forever with a true master. The problem is that after a few moves he realizes the devil is an miserably poor player; suddenly eternity feels like a very, very long time.

Maybe just one fine spring day--if spring ever gets here to New England--without a chess game with an absurdly poor player would be salutary, salubrious, and perhaps not in the least salacious.

I say May Day. Any takers?