i'm also curious as to what constitutes "as decent an end"? would that be "only" another 500 or 1,000 dead U.S. troops? maybe another 5,000 horribly wounded? perhaps another 20 or 30k dead iraqis?

this is deja vu all over again, just lacking jungles and the viet cong: a war with no discernable strategy, and insufficient troops and material to do what's really needed. instead, we're piece-mealing our people in there, and hoping they don't get killed/wounded, before we can figure a way to get them out again.

Nonbinding resolutions????, talk about destroying our troops morale. This is an insult to the troops and the American people.

It really wouldn't matter what you said about the decision to go in back in 2003 - the fact is, defunding would leads to worse chaoas than we have now, and Democrats would get blamed for that.  Reid is a tool, but he's not entirely stupid - he understands that.  Which is why he won't allow a floor vote on defunding.

Iraq is not a well functioning state, but it is not a threat to the US.  If we pull out, the power vacuum will be filled by Iran, Syria, and the Saudis (possibly the Turks in the north).  It's not at all clear who would come out on top of that, or how soon.  In our absence, the chaos could easily lead to the kind of breeding ground that Afghanistan was in the late 90's (and up until the invasion).

That rant probably made you feel better, but it's not an answer.  Here's something I wrote in email earlier today:

In 1991, I was in favor of the gulf war, and in 2003, I was in favor of the Iraq war.  Looking back in hindsight, I think the following now:

-- The best option would have been to not go in at all in 1991 (i.e., which despot pumps the oil doesn't matter that much - they have to sell it regardless)

-- Once we did go in, we ended up in a "you broke it, you bought it" scenario.

Here's what I mean by that.  If we pulled out of Iraq abruptly, it would become a bigger problem than it is now, and likely become the kind of failed state playground that Afghanistan was pre-9/11, and that Somalia was becoming before Ethiopia went in.  That kind of situation is not a good one for the US, even if you presumed that we would not be looking at terror attacks (and I wouldn't make such a presumption - Spain is still uncovering ongoing plots years after having pulled out).  

Why not?  Well, even if we cut our own dependence on oil from that region (not that hard to do, if we were willing to be more aggressive about drilling in the Western Hemisphere), our trading partners would still be dependent, and any chaos in that region would impact prices worldwide - oil from Mexico would cost the same as oil from Kuwait.  If the economies of Europe and China crashed as a result of a regional war in the middle east, then our economy would follow after them.  

Now, I agree with you that the borders in that region are unstable, and are in desperate need of rearrangement - and that regional war is the only thing that will do so in a way that keeps them stable afterwards.  However - the economic hit we would take from that chaos is something that no politician (of any party) would really be willing to countenance.  Let oil go to $100 a barrel, and I'd guess that public support in favor of any number of bad ideas would start to grow.  

Which leaves us with where we are now, holding a bad hand in Iraq, and waiting for the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons.  I have to say that I disagree with you on the efficacy of negotiating with the Iranians - as best as I can tell, their government is in the hands of true believing religious fanatics, who believe that generating chaos hastens the arrival of the hidden imam.  Given that, I don't see any point in talking to them - it will end up being as useful as negotiating with Hitler in 1938 (as opposed to Japan in 1938, who could have been dealt with at the table).  

Which again leaves us with a bad hand.  Probably the best course of action would be to work with the Saudis to keep the price of oil moderate (Iran imports nearly all their gasoline, and pays for that with oil sales), and perhaps justify taking out their handful of gasoline refineries if they continue their forays into Iraq (which does not mean that I think a general war with Iran would be useful - it wouldn't be).  That kind of pressure on Iran might bring about a friendlier regime sooner rather than later, at lower cost than anything else.

It's still risky - but I don't see how an abrupt withdrawal helps us at this point.  We are where we are, and - for good or ill - the regimes we are dealing with there will listen to us a whole lot less if we pull out.  The entire culture there is one of shame/honor, and an abrupt withdrawal would not help our negotiating position.

And not only are we supposed to forget that fact but we're supposed to complain about a piece of legislation that doesn't mean anything?   What is wrong with the democrats?   Do they want the war to end or do they simply want the right to complain as the majority?

stating this simply and clearly and repeatedly  in public forums is the simplest way to cut thru bush's sophistry and, at the same time, collapse  the current right-wing republican congressional resistance.

george bush now uses u.s. troops, and has repeatedly used u.s. troops from spring 2003, as shields to protect himself and administration from scrutiny and criticism.

why can't national leaders (read "democratic senators", journalists and editorialists, and web log sites) point this out

AND POINT IT OUT REPEATEDLY?

it is a simple and powerful and effective antidote to bush's claim, made in perpetuity, that any criticism of his or his administration's plans for the iraq invasion are "attacks on" or "failures to support" u.s. troops.

this claim is transparently self-serving,  transparently false, and  transparently manipulative of ordinary americans' emotions.

UNNECESSARY (?) REMINDER: american troops are in iraq because president bush ordered them there.

(and keeps rotating them - national guard and "regular" troops - into and out of iraq, over and over again.)

are solderers who had been ordered into iraq once (and perhaps again for the second or third time) "not supported" when critics of pres bush and his administration voice "no confidence" in the invasion and he ordered and the incompetent prosecution of war that has followed?

of course not.

and we all know that some of those troops will be killed, many more maimed, and many more still emotionally scarred for life.

(and then there is iraqi life and society - which obviously don't count at all in the president's thinking.)

pres bush is not protecting american troops he condemns to iraq;

he is using them in a vain effort to protect his historical reputation (and cover his past bad judgments).

the president is like a high-stakes gambler on a bad losing streak who cannot accept that he has lost.

in this case the president keeps borrowing solder's lives to use as chips to try to break even against his losses.

this is all that needs to be said in the current debate over iraq policy?

so how come it has not?