Message to Hillary, Edwards, et al: Take your fingers out of the wind cause it isn't working.

But the Sioux City Journal has an article today saying:

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack called Tuesday for Congress to block funding for additional troops in Iraq.

But he said he's leery of using purse strings to shrink the U.S. presence in Iraq. His comments came before President Bush was expected to announce plans to send 20,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq.

Second, We are also supposed to believe that cutting funding is the only option. However, according to legal scholar, David Galove, Congress has many more vast powers to end this war. However, we have been lead to believe that the constitution gives the President exclusive powers as commander-in-chief with the congress being granted only oversight over the purse strings. This is not true, according to Galove.

the Constitution gives vast war powers to Congress. It's very, very explicit in the article of the Constitution which gives Congress powers. Congress has the power to raise money, borrow money to provide for the common defense. It has the power to raise and support armies. It has the power -- these are all explicit powers -- the explicit power to make rules for the government of the land and naval forces. It has the power to define offenses against the law of nations, which includes the laws of war. It has, most famously of all, of course, the power to declare war, as well as the power to issue letters of mark and reprisal, which is a kind of archaic practice now, but dealt with privateers during the 18th and the 19th century, which was a very important form of limited warfare. It has the power to make rules for captures on land and sea. All of these powers and others are very explicitly granted to Congress, and it should be very clear that the Commander-in-Chief power is not the only clause in the Constitution which deals with war powers. I'm going to add one other thing, which is that the administration is very myopic even about executive powers, because although the President is made Commander-in-Chief, he's also, very explicitly in the Constitution, enjoined faithfully to execute the laws, and that does not mean disregarding the laws that Congress chooses to pass. So I think it's important to bring a fuller view of what the Constitution itself says, let alone the history of its interpretation, to the public and to public officials in Congress...Congress has plenary authority, virtually, to pass laws that restrict the scope of war and conflict in which the President engages. So it's not a question of constitutional power at all. And when some senators or congressmen suggest that the reason they might not be able to adopt measures which block or limit the President's ability to escalate the war in Iraq, and they try to place that on constitutional grounds, I think they're without any foundation for their constitutional argument.

Let's just say they cut it off.  Even our biased media will not that an abrudt end to the war without finishing the job will lead to even more civilians deaths and who knows what else.  

We all know or should know what happened in Vietnam after we ran out of there.  Millions died in the killing feilds etc... and there was no 24hr news to cover that.

The democrats frankly would rather complain about the war then end it and politically that's a better move then cutting off funding and having to take responsibility for what happens next.