Is there no battle that the Democrats won't concede?

They've been proving that daily since about September 12, 2001.

You call it "caving" but I'm not sure what you'd want the Democrats to do in this case, Paul? It was pretty obvious after several attempts that the votes just weren't there to over ride the veto -- polls or no polls.

The Democrats were funding the war *with the qualifications that the public support.* If they ever went unfunded it would have been BUSH'S FAULT. I will admit that the public is easily deceived but this was one the Dems could have won if they had just kept the pressure on.

But they caved. And every time the Dems cave it just makes Bush feel more invulnerable than ever.

It's not going to be easy to stop this war. It will take moral courage and political determination and I'm beginning to believe that the Democats lack both.

i don't remember the specifics, but back in the 90's there was a showdown between Clinton and the republican congress very similar to this. Clinton ordered non-essential government agencies closed, and the republicans lost. for some reason, the executive branch has the upper hand in these situations.

personally, i'm torn on this issue. i would love to see some benchmarks and accountability in Iraq, especially with the Iraqi government. On the other hand 1) i don't want to have any set in stone deadlines because they just don't work in situations like this, 2) the surge has not even been fully manned yet, and already people are calling it a failure, when in fact there are some serious signs of improvement in some areas (Anbar Provence for one.) and 3) i honestly think it's going to take longer than the time we have invested for the situation in Iraq to get better. Especially with Iran stirring the pot.

Historically, look how long it took post WW2 Europe and Japan to recover. Or post WWI? that was so bad we had to have another war. Looking further back, the US Civil War and reconstruction, the Napoleonic Wars, etc. To argue that a year or two should be enough to get a country devastated by mismanagement, economic sanctions, and then war to recover into any kind of semblance of stability is just plain laughable.

and i think that leaving before there is some kind of democratically elected, stable, constitutional government would be morally wrong on our part because of the chaos that it would leave behind and cause more long term problems for the US as those countries and individuals who we come into conflict(diplomatic, economic, or military) with or are allied with see that we don't have staying power when it's needed.

There was nothing following WW2 which remotely resembles the kind of uprising we are facing in Iraq. Of course our operations during that war were planned and executed competently, which is more than you can say for this debacle.

We failed to recognize the political realities of the situation -- "They'll throw flowers at us and put up statues of Bush." -- and that sort of stupidity is at the root of the problems we have today. The surge won't fix it because the die was cast right after the invasion when we allowed the opposing forces to arm themselves from Saddam's arsenals and when we failed to act swiftly and decisively to stop the first signs of trouble.