I'd rather the war be micromanaged than mismanaged

Talking to George W. Bush about something he doesn't want is like holding a summit meeting between two cats who hate each other. A complete waste of time and effort. Pelosi and Reid should have stayed on Capitol Hill, making deliberate efforts toward reconciling the war spending bill so that it reaches the President's desk literally at the eleventh hour. The Republicans would be expected to do the same if the roles were reversed.

Who has the right to declare war or peace with another nation?

Its further tightens the ball and chain of Iraq around Bush's ankle...and his Republican supporters get tangled up in it as well.

Strict politeness is no longer appropriate. All that's called for is due respect for a person and the office he/she temporarily holds, followed by blunt candor and truth-telling.

In the case of the Current Occupant, reasonable people can disagree over exactly how much respect is actually "due" him at this point. It won't be much longer before ANY reason for respect has vanished for a majority of Americans -- many have already reached that point.

Obviously the Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war (which in the case of Iraq never happened btw), but does it also give Congress authority to "declare peace"? How does one declare peace anyway? ;)

Boy, am I glad that Harry Reid is Senate majority leader and not Tom Daschle. It's sad but Thune did the Democrats a big favor.

Come to think of it, I sort of doubt Dick Gephardt would have done as well as Pelosi has.

Not having the Democratic leadership come from Republican majority states where they have to keep the GOP happy is a good thing.

As far as the meeting goes, it really does sound like Bush is certain that it's possible to win in Iraq by killing all of the "evildoers".

So this is the "blunt" rhetoric from shrub's supporters as to what Bush won't accept. What a bunch of asinine nihilists. Surrender? He, being the "Decider", decided to attack an autonomous country based on lies, fear mongering, alteration of fact, continued deceit, vile name-calling and brutal rhetoric. Surrender? His supporters now bring us this crass verbiage aimed at clear thinkers wanting accountability from the same GOP bullies that continue to bring us their "undying support" via non-existant oversight and a delusional lack of accountability for things like Shock and Awe, Abu Grab, extraordinary rendition, torture, carpet bombing of civilians, Tora Bora, and lest we forget, stolen elections. Surrender? Hell no, that would mean accountability, end the carnage, bring the grim reality to a failed policy killing hundreds a day. Surrender? Get real. The USA doesn't surrender. We win...

I keep on hearing the elements of a deal.

The admin has been saying they don't want to extend tours or shorten training, so let them put up or shut up.

Congress drops the timeline requirement, but leaves in all those other Murtha-proposed items, like conditions for training and equipping before deployment. If Bush vetoes that, he's vetoing something he'd demanded. But if he signs it, then both sides win, sort of.

Of course, the need for consistency has never stopped these guys. And Bush wouldn't hesitate to violate any traing/equipment conditions anyway, and there'd undoubtedly be some "signing statement"...

The President's use of Signing Statements is well-known. Couldn't he sign the emergency funding bill as it comes out of Congress, but issue a signing statement saying that he believes the timelines are unconstitutional?

I bet at this point, Bush is rightfully afraid that such a flagrant use of a signing statement to go against Congress and popular sentiment, would trigger a Constitutional challenge to the validity of all his signing statements.

"I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn." - George W. Bush, June 5, 1999

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/28/in-1999-bush-demanded-a-timetable/