The Democrats have the power. PULL THEM OUT NOW

[boolean]

Ok, not yet because they don't have the power until January. But you get my drift.

If they're not going to impeach right away (because they gotta do investigations and all that jazz), can we at least agree that the troops must be brought home IMMEDIATELY? That's pretty much what the people elected them in for. The Iraq war was THE issue and THAT is their mandate. The chimp can't continue the war if it can't be funded. The Democrats can stop the funding. Period.

I want to see this done BEFORE the state of the union. I want to see this done FIRST. I want it to be the absolute no hold barred VERY FIRST THING THEY DO. Stop the madness and bring them home. I think Michael Moore said it best: When you drive drunk and you kill an innocent bystander, there is nothing you can do to bring that bystander back. You fucked up and now there is no solution.

The Iraq war has no solution. It's OVER. Pull out and watch the mess.

If the Democrats do not do what they are mandated to do, I don't know what else to say. It's years that DU and other blogs have fought to get the Democrats back in power. Will it be for nothing? I certainly hope not. I, and many others here, have consistently called for more LIBERALS to take control of the Democratic party (as opposed to the DINOs which some of you still seem to have no problems with). If the Democrats do not end Iraq IMMEDIATELY, we liberals will have (once again!) been proven right. We can't have the same shit from the Democrats that we've had for a while. (Example: Torture bill. How many DEMS voted for it again?) Time for some REAL change.

Pull. Them. Out.

NOW!

[shadowknows69]

1. They won't

enough dems are slaves to the military industrial complex as well. I have very little hope for our troops.

[bullimiami]

2. they dont have that power exactly but they do have the power to cut off funds

come january. but i agree they probably will not. i hope im not dissapointed with them.

[BlueCaliDem]

11. This is the common misconception. Congress *does* have the power to get our troops OUT of Iraq...

...in mere months.

Congress never granted authority under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution (Official declaration of War). The Iraq Resolution was founded on the War Powers Act.

The War Powers Act grants the president authority for "military action" under the supervision of Congress. At any time Congress may withdraw the president's authority.

The War Powers Act was created to allow the president temporary military interventions. It was explicitly created to prevent any president from starting another Viet Nam.

The Congress, in this case, has all the power to STOP the occupation of Iraq any time they so choose, so they don't have to cut off the funding for this war that would look BAD--no matter that the lion-share of the billions are going to private contractors, and not our troops.

One solution is for Congress to warn Bush* that they plan to withdraw their authorization since he's bungled it up as it is, and three and a half years ain't "temporary" no matter how they wanna slice, and dice it, and to give him three months to get our troops ready to leave Iraq while simultaneously, make nice with our alienated allies to help with securing the country to prevent further chaos there.

[GreenArrow]

3. it's not about the power, it's about the will

and sadly, too many Democrats are still arguing that our presence in Iraq, while unfortunate, is necessary to our country's long term power interests; in short, they believe in American exceptionalism, hold visions of American empire, and while perhaps conceding that the means used by Bushinc. were poorly considered, have little disagreement with the ends.

[enough already]

4. This is why we were elected

Couldn't agree more. This should be the first agenda item in Pelosi's First 100 Hours.

[eallen]

5. The Democratic electorate is not as unanimous as you think.

I suspect the vast majority of Democratic voters think Iraq is a bungled war, and suspect pundits are correct when they say the 2006 election was a slap on Dubya's face for Iraq. But that does not imply that they Democratic electorate have similar views of how or why Iraq is a catastrophe, or of what should now be done about that. "Get them out now" is a minority opinion, and there weren't many candidates who ran on that. Given that it takes only small dissension among Democratic ranks to give the GOP side the deciding vote, and that the President has significant say on this, no, there won't be an immediate withdrawal. That's just the political reality.

[crispini]

7. Well said.

Indeed, I myself go back and forth. Right now it's a total mess, and would pulling them out now make it better or worse? I just don't know.

[Monkeyman]

10. If I had my way I would take everyone in the U.S.

To ward 57 at Walter Reed and show them the real cost of this war

[LeftCoast]

6. All they can do is stop the funding. That's not quite the same thing.

I'm sure *those* headlines would be interesting...

[noamnety]

8. They want to end the war. Really.

(Unfortunately, they will have to continue to vote for funding the war, because cutting off funds might actually end it.)

2 years from now, we'll be having the same discussion. And we'll have lost another thousand or so troops, maybe more. Another 10,000 - 20,000 troops will be seriously wounded. 100,000 - 200,000 more Iraqis will be dead. Another 1,000,000 or so Iraqis will be seriously injured, or poisoned by DU dust.

So that all kind of sucks, granted, but at least it won't hurt the congresspeople's chances for re-election. :)

[Oleladylib]

9. Totally Agree..Pull them out...If we lose in '08 at least we would be doing the

honorable thing...Voters are slow to get it..Look it took 6 years for people to get what GW has been throwing their way and many still couldn't vote against him...Let's just do it...Life is too short to fence sit.

[elocs]

12. Is everybody absolutely sure that Bush would withdraw the troops,

or might he just leave them there and point out to the American people that it is the Democrats who are really the ones making the troops suffer? Or might this be a way for Bush to have his cake and eat it too? He withdraws the troops and then blames the Democrats for not letting him complete the mission. There is a mandate for getting out of Iraq, but I don't think there is a mandate for putting a hammerlock on Bush and forcing the troops home in months, if Bush does it.

People need to keep their emotions from running away with them and keep in touch with common sense and reality. The reality is that the Democrats now control the Congress. But what kind of control? A majority in the House, but not an overwhelming veto-proof majority. Then a 1 vote majority in the Senate. That being said, there is no reason for us to strut around like we are so bad and think that we can do whatever we want to do for the next 2 years with impunity. There will be an election in 2008 and all of these congressional representatives are going to have to run again. The Democratic presidential candidate, whoever that may be, will be either blessed or burden with what the Democrats do in the next 2 years. None of this happens in a vacuum and many of us would like to see the Democrats stay in power for many years and accomplish many good things for the American people rather than giving into all of the noble and self righteous sentiments. What happens in the next 2 years is important, but so is what happens in the next 10 years.

[Kelly Rupert]

13. Man, do we have to pull the Democrats out ALREADY?

But they haven't even gotten in yet!