I'm honestly not sure how much ability Congress has to force a change in thinking on the President; even if they have the power Constitutionally-speaking, they can't do anything without a significant number of Republicans on their side, and that's still a huge question mark.

But ask yourself something: If - and I don't necessarily mean Bush in Iraq, I mean any President in a military situation - if the President is on a dangerously wrong course, and if he cannot or will not change on his own, is full impeachment really the only tool available? Or are there/should there be other ways for Congress to force the issue?

The non-binding resolution is none of those. It has nothing to do with the structure of the military and it certainly is not a 'law' to be passed to help in the execution of congressional powers. It's politics and while it may not be "unconstitutional" it certainly is outside of the enumerated powers set forth by the constitution concerning the armed forces.

Leaving the question of constitutional behind the big question is the wisdom behind such a "feckless" statement. The resolution is a product of our media driven Congress. It is not binding, it emboldens our enemies while hurting the morale of our own soldiers, it serves only to put some senators faces on out television screens. It is all about TV.

Democrats can disagree with war policy and work behind the scenes to enact change if they are serious. But a serious mood is lacking. Re-election drives policy and TV drives re-election.

If fighting the "surge" doesn't count as "interfer[ing] with the ... conduct of campaigns", I cannot imagine what would qualify.

Please stop making sense. Its much easier for me to think of you as just another wingnut whose opinions I can disregard while checking your liveblogging about the Libby trial.

Thank you.

And what the new majority with the complicity of some Republicans are now saying is that they are afraid of a Bush-led victory in Iraq.

I don't think anybody honestly believes that is a possibility. Even if victory in Iraq is possible using the current administration's strategy, there is little chance that it can be realized in the next 2 years.

One of the great mysteries of the world of journalism is how it is that such a fine newspaper - the WSJ, can have such an abysmally retarded editorial page staff.

My theory is that since there is no comics section in the WSJ--aside from the usually brilliant "Pepper and Salt"--the editorials have to fill the role of comic relief since they are consistently laughable.

One of the great mysteries of the world of journalism is how it is that such a fine newspaper - the WSJ, can have such an abysmally retarded editorial page staff.

Indeed, the idea that the chief branch of government was to have no say in the prosecution of a war once they declared it, is anathema to the idea of limited government with checks and balances.

Indeed, the idea that the Wall Street Journal page knows anything about the Constitution is anathema to those of us who value basic common sense and rationality.

I am not sure why you are even taking anything the WSJ editorial page says seriously.

Indeed, the idea that the chief branch of government was to have no say in the prosecution of a war once they declared it, is anathema to the idea of limited government with checks and balances.

I was responding to Steven Plunk in an earlier thread along these lines, but this also sums up a lot of my thoughts. The President may be the CinC, but he can also be wrong. What if he can't see that he's wrong, or refuses to change course even knowing he's wrong?

An important factor in this discussion is the "what if" factor. One of the hallmarks of this administration's disastrous mismanagement of Iraq is their refusal to consider the question "what if this doesn't work" - even to open insults and accusations of supporting our enemies for even bringing up the question. Well, this is what it looks like:
- The American people, in polls and then the recent elections, have told Bush they don't agree with what he's doing. Bush ignores them.
- The polls, the People, and many senior military strategists and diplomats have told Bush his "stay the course" and "get a bigger hammer" plans won't work. Bush ignores them.
- Congress, enacting the will of the people who elected them, make speeches and pass non-binding resolutions underlining these ideas.

What if this doesn't work?
- Congress may start jacking around with the Defense budget, or the "emergency requests" that come in every so often, since Rumsfeld wouldn't let the military put any expenses for Iraq or the GWOT into their regular budget plans.
- Congress can demand accountability and oversight of a wide variety of subjects, such as the honesty (or lack therof) of the intelligence they & the American people were shown to draw support of action in Iraq, the planning & award of contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq & other post-combat activities, and the transparency with which the government engages in this conflict.
- And if the President absolutely refuses to heed the advice of others; if his actions are deemed so unreasonable that they threaten our very country, then the SecDef, and even the President himself, can be removed from office.

_That's_ your checks and balances.

...

The Democratic-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee dismissed President Bush's plans to inc...