I may be suffering from Scooter Libby Memory Syndrome, here, but didn't Bush's top hatchetman Dick Cheney taunt Democrats for having passed a nonbinding resolution, last go-round, and dare them to withhold funding for the war?

Or am I imagining things?

Entitled to their views? How about since they're the legislative branch of the United States government they're entitled to their policy making?

It's quite simple: The Great Decider has decided what Congress must do, and now it's the job of the "Democrat" Congress to do it. But the U.S. corporate media seems to finally be grasping that there is something more important at stake than just the '08 horse race. For example, there was the media question asking Junior if he believes he as "the president" (Cheney notwithstanding) has ANY obligation to respect the wishes of We the People and our duly elected representatives in Congress on an important question of war and peace.

What? That didn't happen? [sigh]

Well at least there was the quick "Democrat" response from Sen. Reid, who responded by pointing out that the Congress HAS "funded the troops" and that Bush-Cheney ought not continue to ignore the failure of their occupation and the wishes of the American people.

What? That didn't happen either? [sigh]

...that Dubya does NOT "fully understand" -- obviously an ever-expanding list.

Here's a novel idea -- why not see what the U.S. Constitution says about the powers of Congress? Here is verbatim text from Section 8, which delineates its powers (excerpted, of course, to provide the most relevant sections):

- - - - -

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

- - - - -

Doesn't take a Constitutional scholar (which is lucky, since they're obviously a scarce commodity in this administration) to realize that CONGRESS *DOES* HAVE ALL THE POWER AND RIGHT TO END THE WAR IN IRAQ THAT IT NEEDS.

End of story.

That reminds me of a certain Russian ambassador who, when confronted by western reporters, replied: "enjoy your stay in our country." This is soooo like a bad gangster film rather than responsible governance.

Bush never had a Congress even attempt anything like actual oversight.

Like a young person on their first night, there are bound to be a few embarrassing moments.