The danger that the Democrats face in their struggle with Bush

is that all polls show that cutting funding has little support 29% while 63% oppose sending more troops, which pretty well hog ties the Democratic controlled House from exercising their power of the purse. Perhaps Clinton's statement to start bringing them home in 3 months would please voters, but would not pass the 60 vote rule in the Senate and in any case it would get vetoed by Bush. The power of the purse only requires the House to not pass the part of the budget that deals with funding the war. Many Democrats would like using the power of the purse, but it stinks like abandoning the troops over there. So chances are that it would cause loss of support among voters

If they choose to use it politically....letting the troops in Iraq suffer to score political points for the Republicans, I think the majority of Americans will understand this. I think they'd be held accountable in a big way for that kind reckless endangerment.

Not wanting to fund an increase in this debacle in no way means we want to let the troops be exposed to increased risks. It means the American people want a new direction that leads to disengagement from this mess that the Bush administration created.

the troops, so the soldiers will still get paid, but they are going to attach some strings to the money. Namely, they are going to require that no batallion be sent into combat unless the troops ae adequately trained and equipped for combat, and that every soldier has at least a year respite between tours of duty in Iraq. This will hamper Bush because right now the US Army doesn't have a single batallion that is adequately trained and adequately equipped for combat in Iraq that isn't already over there.

so that the status quo is considered adequately trained. Add some voodoo BS math regarding deployment time and *poof* they just sidestepped that proposal. That isn't the way.
Cut off funding. Withdraw troops. Show some spine.
Even if it will get voted down, stand up for what is right.

of the repugs...

Tet offensive and accompanying casualty rates.

funding for VA, body armor.

for Democrats right now.

It is going to require some patience on the part of Congress and
Activists. IMO, we will have to wait to see how things develop
on the ground in Iraq. Everyone (from the Generals to thePresidents
to many vocal Republicans) has assured us we should know within
a few months if this Surge is working or going to work. They
cannot suddenly change their tune and have an ounce of credibilty.

If Hilary has called for beginning drawdown in 3 months, this
certainly falls into line with the Great Republican Promise(described
above). I am guessing here. I must say I am pleasantly
impressed. Looks like she has "out Roved" Bush and Rove.

You must understand I have watched the Bush/Rove tactics
so long that I have very little trust. I see this Bush Surge
and the immediate Scream.... "The Congress cannot cut off funds
for the troops " as a direct act of defiance to congress and the
American People. Starting the Surge is their way of keeping
the war going until Bush leaves office. Just before time
is up for results on Surge, they will have initiated something
else which will put anyone who disagrees with his actions on
the defensive. No matter what else you think of them, these
two Bush/Rove are extremely accomplished politicians. They know
how and do their best to keep the opposition on the offensive.

IMO, Hilary is stepping out in front of their political train
and saying-- Not so fast guys. Our agreement was for a few
months not the rest of your term. This is really gutsy.
My observations of Hilary have been that she is a very
careful person --not given to foolish mistakes. I have
to say Big Move based on some kind of knowlege she holds.

Watch the Propaganda arm of WH start coming down on her.

With the Dems in House and Senate in Dilemma of Cutting
funds for troops, this may be a way out.

When it comes to politics, the Clintons are no slouches either.

This analysis is my opinion.

any day and Bill is in Hillary's corner.

Senate Republics: "We won't discuss the troop surge unless you fund it first so Chimpy can do it while we're sitting here jawboning it to death".

for himself and the Repukes. And it is politically risky to help him out by cutting out funds. So, after seeing the Dems in action for the past six years (need I say more).

the first time I heard someone say the Dems lost Vietnam by insisting on ending the war I laughed thinking the speaker an idiot with no sense of history. But now many (most? all?) republicans say we could have won Vietnam had it not been for the peacenick Democrats. Insane BUT it is gaining traction.

The most dishonest use of that lie is the Republican who says Dems lost us Vietnam costing the lives of millions blah blah because the dems are weak and have no guts while in the next breath they say the dems won't vote to cut funding or stop Iraq because they are weak and have no guts. It's impossible to win with those types (Pat Buchanon comes to mind as saying exactly that...on different days...and no one calls him on it even though dems appear opposite him on Joe's show.)

Of course, I don't know what the answer is.

Maybe bring it up again in 3-6 months saying "you've had your surge, now what?" fund the war incrementally....6 months at a time....saying we want to see progress or at least a freaking plan!

We should not, as good Democrats, encourage notions that will make this happen.