That is a done deal.  While we are debating on a non binding action,  the administration is gearing up for Iran.

Congress needs to be proactive--make a resolution that Bush needs to ask for authorization before going to bomb Iran or come up with an exit strategy signed on by generals and experts and have Congress endorsed it.

If Congress folks cannot support the Feingold and McGovern bills, they should at least support the Kennedy bill to defund the escalation.  

to which side effectively defines the action.

If Republicans are able to define the action as the Democrats are 'cutting off money for the troops and leaving them without needed supplies and reinforcements', we will get killed in the court of public opinion.

If Democrats can define the action as 'we are no longer going to throw more money into Bush's folly when this money is deperately needed at home', then we win.

Rockefeller, head of Senate Intelligence, has said it sounds like Iraq all over again.

Reyes, head of House Intelligence, said Bush Jr was not making a case for backing up serious allegations with any evidence.

David Kay, head of US Weapons Inspection, says Bush Jr has failed to make a case and failed to learn the lessons of Iraq.

Bush Jr has received no support from any quarter on his Iran war push.  He can still preempt them and just bomb Iran on the pretext but you have to wonder if it will have the opposite effect of Bush Jr's Iraq war deception.

Instead of a rally round the Bush Jr, it would be Bush Jr has got to go.

A dangerous gamble for Republicans who are already losing power due to the Iraq war defeat.

long, long ago.

The election just said it out loud.
Don't you wish Congress would listen?

Outgoing Head of the Joint Chief, Gen. Pace has stated there is no evidence of direct Iranian government involvement, totally undercutting the Bush Jr claims by the three anonymous leakers in Iraq.

We won't be getting this kind of honesty from the new head, Gen. Richard Meyers who was Bush Jr's poodle general in Iraq, responsible for the last two years of the Bush Jr disaster in Iraq.

Fortunately, General Pace's dash of cold water, is likely to kill efforts by Bush Jr to create an Iran war as a political diversion for 2008 election.

 Is the media giving Pace an appropriate forum to voice his skepticism?

 Or is Pace just howling into the wind?

 Is the Democratic majority in Congress willing to listen to the outgoing Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and cite him as evidence that Bush is trying to trump up another war under false pretenses?

 Or are they afraid David Broder might not approve?

 THAT'S the key.

"Is the media giving Pace an appropriate forum to voice his skepticism?"

It's front page right now...same as Bush Jr's anonymous sources story yesterday.

I support cutting off the funding.  But those who advocate this approach should be aware that there will be a political price to pay.  This is what the Republicans want.  They will immediately raise the 'stab in the back' charge.  In the short term most people will not be persuaded but as they begin to think of other things this story will remain alive.   Once most have forgotten today's pain they will still be bombarded with how we sold out the Iraqis and are own soldiers.  The impact of those Rambo stories and spitting  upon returning soldiers (a definite urban myth) from an earlier time was very corrosive to our political culture. We got eight  years of Reagan in part because of this.

I really wish someone would put up a poll with a simpler, more pertinent question:

Would you prefer the United States, in Iraq

a) Win

b) Lose

It would be interesting to see the results, broken down by the usual gender, age, occupation, education, income, geographic, and political affiliation demographics.