Mahablog fails to quote the portion of Scott Lilly's piece that I objected to. Here is what I was arguing about, from Lilly's piece:

There is one decisive action that the Congress could theoretically take with respect to Iraq given Bush’s Constitutional authorities. [. . .] Congress could simply refuse to pass any legislation providing further funding for the war. That sounds both simple and effective. But there are serious downsides to such a strategy that devoted opponents of this war should reflect upon. . . . Well-meaning people can argue about whether or not such a strategy would be good policy or whether or not it would be good politics. But there is little room for argument as to whether such a stance is a viable legislative strategy.

My response:

"One decisive action" says Lilly. We can't do it says Lilly. What other actions does Lilly suggest? Call your Congressperson says Lilly. And say what I ask? Ask them to do what I ask? There is "one decisive action" dear. That is exactly my point dear.

As I understand Lilly, Mahablog, Stoller, Sirota and just about everyone in the Left blogs, they are urging that activists NOT agitate for the "one decisive action" that can end the war.

That, Lilly, Stoller and Mahablog tell me, is stupid activism. That sounds familiar to me. The DLC, circa 2005, 'don't oppose the war in Iraq.' Thank Gawd we didn't listen then. I sure as hell will not listen to such Beltway infected nonsense now.

But Mahablog protests it is not letting Pelosi off the hook:

I’m not going to let Pelosi and Obey off the hook entirely. I think they could be doing more to keep us informed of what they are up to. T