First step seems to get a consensus on defunding vs de-authorisation vs mandated withdrawal.  Even before it comes to discussing the merits of any particular bill it would make sense for Democrats to align with at least one of these strategies.  I would like to email my representative and senators and ask them to support something, but what?

While I realize it still probably would not reach 60 votes, it would, at the very least, put us in a situation where we know how many more votes we need to reach, which Senators we need to target. It would also provide us with a concrete plan and sense of shared purpose--insiders and outsiders, establishment and grassroots, House and Senate.

I think you answered your own question, Chris. The reason there are so many different plans, each trying just to impress the voters, is that the alternative isn't anything that different. It's one set of symbols for another, and no end to the war.

Moreover, seeing as we can't even get the votes to debate Iraq, why not have the debate occur in the form of legislation? It gets press at least.

Matt Yglesias has a good post on this.

First of all it has to be brought up as a bill after the introduction.  Second, you have to have the votes.  couldn't get a bitty non binding thru so how are we suppose to pass anything with teeth right now.

The oil factor probably makes this 'war' a bigger mess than Vietnam. Not to mention the civil wars. Not to mention the Saudi quicksand. Not to mention the Iran, Russia, China team. Not to mention the loose Pakistani nukes. Not to mention Etc!

The invasion of Iraq was the stupidest blunder in all of history. They fixed the data, but now they cannot fix the damn war.

I keep saying it. Don't scavenge those old auto alternators for their copper. We will be needing them for windmills.

As Harry said last week,

"The answer is no," Reid said when asked whether there are any legally binding measures he's prepared to support.

Given that there's no real chance of passing anything binding, the extent of Harry's influence over his guys (not exactly a rule of iron at the best of times) will be not much at all on this matter.

And, when you say,

If we are all working together, we can all but end this thing over the next twenty months.

Except if we get US casualties in one incident on the scale of the Beirut barracks bombing in 1983, or some other event of similar shocking scale - in that case, all bets are off, and the I'd expect the numbers to shift in Congress such as to make a Congress-driven end to the war feasible.

But, failing that - I can't see it happening.

I agree that they should call a major leadership summit and come up with a joint resolution that they all sign onto.   Something signed onto by Clinton, Obama, Biden, Dodd, Kennedy and Kerry would have MAJOR media play.  It would show a united front and would have tremendous star-power that the MSM would go wild over for a few newscycles.  

On the other hand, if we all agree that we simply don't have the 60 votes to get anywhere with any resolution, it is largely symbolic anyway.  However, a joint resolution signed on by all those heavyweights would carry a lot of "symbolism" punch.   That is indeed missing, although I do like the drip-drip-drip MSM discussion of the various proposals to continually embarass the GOP.  Unless things change in regards to people's perception of the Iraq war, that should pay dividends in 2008.

One more thing about defunding the war:  It is  possible to simply not pass Bush's budget demands for the war and then the war would run out of funds.   I know it would be sold as "Democrats are against troops," but it seems to be the only way remaining to stop the war, as that can be done by simple majority vote.  Of course, defunding is not very popular, according to polls, and some of the good-will Democrats have received could evaporate.  But, since that is the only real option Democrats have it should not just be wiped off the table as politically unpopular.  It should be used as a bargaining chip, if nothing else.  

Work with funding bills. The Republicans won't block debate or votes on those.

At this point for the anything to happen the Democrats are going to have to sway 4 more Republican senators.

     They don't call him Senate majority leader for nothing.  I've been disappointed with his leadership.  So far he has refused to use hard-knuckled tactics against Senate Republicans.  If there ever were an issue where hard-knuckled tactics were necessary, it is the Iraq War.  Reid has been good at blaming Republicans and calling them on their obstructionism and deservedly so.  But it won't work forever.

Maybe the question is how do we elevate this so that Harry Reid and ALL the senators seeking to be President understand that what all of us really want is PROGRESS.  I'm not interested in which of them has the best individual idea or even which of them can make the Republicans look more hypocritical.  Teamwork and actually getting something positive accomplished is the key now.  Democrats need to show that we can govern.  

Do we mount an email or phone campaign or what?  What gets their attention?

There seem to be two issues fighting for prevalence in the Senate: the Iraqi occupation, and 2008 Presidential politics.   Which one will prevail?

Well, let's say that a certain Senate Leader agrees with one of the presidential contenders, that voting for Bush's War was not a mistake?

Has the destination of this Democratic Senate train become a little more clear?

I think it's slowly becoming quite clear that unless you have 60 votes in the senate and the house you aren't on an equal footing with the president

You don't need 60 votes to PASS a bill that comes to a vote.  Putting stipulations (as per Murtha) in a military approriations bill that the Republicans don't dare block means they pass with a simple majority.

I think they might this is about power

The most important thing is not ending the war, but taking actions that secure our national security and provide SOLID groundwork for future Iraqi security.  That's what so many miss

Chris Bowers said:

"...instead of a Democratic Party whose most visible leaders are more willing to one-up each other in an ongoing attempt to burnish their anti-war credentials to the primary electorate."\

So true.  That's why it's not about 'ending the war'.  So we pull out.  And Shia vs. Sunni violence goes well beyond what we see today.  Maybe Iran gets strenghtened.  Maybe western Iraq becomes a haven for al Queda.  Maybe we see an al Queda insurgency directed at a Shia dominated and Iranian-allied governmnet that goes well beyond what we see today.  This drives other Sunni Arab countries in.  Iran battles back and there's more chaos in Lebanon as a result.  Which affects Israel.  Maybe Arabs resent the Kurds successes.  Maybe the Kurds want independence.  Maybe the Turks want to stop the Kurds from having that independence.  Maybe we've spent so much time with Iraq, the Taliban really do make a comback in Afghanistan.

Those are the risks that Bush & Co. have brought us.  I'd like to someone on the Dem side talk big picture and not rely on quick soundbites about dates for withdrawal.

There is simply no possible way that the Senate can pass any sort of binding resolution or legislation to end the war even if the Democratic party is totally unified and all the presidential candidate were willing to give up their posturing. The votes just are not there. They are not even close to being there. What they can do is to prevent future funding from being spent to expand the war, and restrict future funding to uses that diminish our involvement. That only becomes possible when those appropriation bills are considered sometime in the future. So I think we need to work on convincing the Democrats and a few reasonable Repugs that that is the thing to do rather than complaining about their not doing enough now.

There is much truth in what you just said, jptrenn, and up-thread, I have begun addressing the consequences of a US withdrawal. They are probably not very pretty. On the other hand, no one has much of a clue as to what they might be. Not to mention that there is probably not that much we could do about them if we did.

The reality is that the US of A is rapidly going bankrupt while the Bush cabal, which plans to move to Paraguay, is getting filthy rich. There is a clock running on this occupation, and our collective wealth is its spring.

I think the ONLY opportunity is going to be the Budget.  Budgets cannot be filibustered so a budget only needs 50 votes.

Murtha has the right idea.  The only power Congress has is the purse.  This was never going to be easy to drag Bush kicking and screaming out of Iraq.  The Bush enablers in the Senate will fight delaying tactics.

The Senate Battle, rather than ending, is just taking shape.
Senate Leader Reid's son, endorses Hillary.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/1 9/ap/politics/mainD8NCGQHO0.shtml

Its not about the Senate, its about the House, which controls funding. That's where the real battle will be, especially in the next war appropriation.

Here's a chance for the House to have a real effect on the war by deciding how funds can be used and real limits and constraints. Republicans will be forced into either voting for no funding at all or funding on Democratic terms

And however the House appropriation comes to the Senate, a fillibuster won't happen or if it did would be disastrous for Republicans. Republicans and Democrats alike will be forced to make a vote. And Bush's veto options are pretty limited. He'd rather have something than nothing at all.