Democrats have voted nearly unanimously every year since 2003 to grant the administration massive war funding that now totals nearly $8.5 billion a month.

And what of the new-found Democratic antiwar fervor supposedly reflected in the nonbinding Senate resolution opposing Bush's "surge"? As the text of this resolution makes clear, the Senate Democrats--together with some Republican allies--begin not from a determination to end the war, but rather a concern that Bush's proposal will provoke mass opposition, making it harder to defeat the Iraqi resistance.

The very first passage of the resolution warns, "United States strategy and presence on the ground in Iraq can only be sustained with the support of the American people and bipartisan support from Congress." ...

The Democrats do not oppose aggressive war or colonial occupation. They backed the invasion of Iraq because they thought it would enable the US to grab the country's oil resources and establish US hegemony in the Middle East. They are critical of Bush's war policy now not because the war is imperialist or illegal or because it has killed hundreds of thousands of people. They are critical because the war has gone badly.

The Democrats, like the Republicans, are controlled by a financial oligarchy that is determined to utilize US military force to offset the decline of American capitalism's economic power. This campaign of military aggression will not end with Iraq. Preparations for war against Iran are already well advanced, and mounting global tensions raise the nightmarish prospects of a global conflagration.

Unlike the protests in the past, the organizers of today's event arranged to have a two-pronged approach, beginning with today's awesome rally followed by one or two days of lobbying Congress and the Senate. Smart approach.

Also, one of the speakers said something very memorable and inspiring. To loosely paraphrase, "The vote did not bring women the right to vote;  the vote did not bring civil rights to oppressed African Americans; the vote did not end the Vietnam war.  It was the struggle, not the vote, that brought about change."

Today's evolution of traditional protest marches into protest marches and lobbying efforts demonstrates that the tools of the past can be adapted to work in tandem with new age tools to achieve political change more effectively than relying one any single approach.

But anyway, let's just address the negotiated truce terms.

Now, what would you be willing to give up?

Freedome of religion? Okay. That would mean  Sharia law and loss of women's rights, death to homosexuals and lesbians, among other things.

He is stationed at Walter Reed Hospital were he is recovering from wounds and had a leg removed in 11/06. He'll be there another year for further medical treatment.

Wow. Spitting on a one-legged war vet. Oh well, they knew he couldn't chase them down.