Michael Corleone: My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator.

Kay Adams: Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed!

Michael Corleone: Oh. Who's being naive, Kay?

That should be enough ships, for a start.

The fact that you think that Bush would be brought to heel if funds for his war are cut off tells me you have no idea what you're dealing with. The man's a psychopath. I think he would just move monies around, in ways both legal and illegal, to keep the war going. If he's as sick as I think he is he'll see every soldier in Iraq stranded without food or bullets before he brings them home.

"Move monies around" is quite the phrase. What monies? Move how? 100 billion dollars in "monies" susceptible to being "moved around" lies where?

I've lived long enough to remember Iran-Contra. The problem of "moving monies around" is why Iran-Contra happened. Congress cut off funding to the Contras and to raise relatively paltry amounts Reagan had to sell missiles to Iran and ask for money from the Sultan of Brunei. Are you actually suggesting Bush can a sell 100 billion dollars of missiles to fund the Iraq Debacle? This is not reasoning on your part, this is just assertion without reference to the facts.

You write:

I'm perfectly aware of the numbers. You assume that because something doesn't exist right now it can never exist in the future. If you are privileged to live long enough you figure out that events and institutions do change, and sometimes quickly and significantly, when the people in those institutions figure out it's in their best interest to change.

The institution in question here is the Republican Party. THEIR BASE is adamant in support of Bush. The Republican Party's reality has always been defined by what the base says. And the base says what the authoritarian Leader says. That leader is Bush.

I ask my question to you again - which 15 Republican Senators do you expect will "turn" on Bush? Please name them. They do not exist.

To believe they do is naive.

You write:

To beat Bush, the game has to be changed from "Republicans versus Democrats" to "Congress versus the White House." The current effort is about forcing Republicans to take a stand for or against Bush and his war. I don't expect enough Republicans to switch on this bill to make a significant difference, but the current vote is only one of a series of votes on Iraq that Congress will be making this year. I think there's a real possibility that by September or so enough of them will switch, so that a Bush veto could be overridden. I think that's true because enough of them face re-election next year (about 20 GOP Senators and all Congresspersons), and they've got to realize they're on the Titanic and it's their last chance to jump into a lifeboat.

Suuuure they will. Name them. Name the ones up for reelection that you think will switch. Add them up. Do they add up to 15?

Finally, you simply do not understand the Reid-Feingold framework. You write:

Cutting off funds would play into Bush's hands, in other words. Trust me when I say you can't beat a psychopath at his own game.

I realize it's frustrating not to be able to do something right now. I have a nephew in Baghdad right now, and I'm worried sick about him. But I don't believe anything at all can change without two-thirds of Congress.

The Reid-Feingold framework does not cut off funding now. It cuts it off 11 months from now. The American People overwhelmingly support this. The Reid-Feingold framework calls for ANNOUNCING NOW the intention to NOT fund after March 31, 2008.

The Reid-Feingold framework does not require passage of any bills nor any signatures from the President nor any defections from Republicans. It is easily the most PRAGMATIC approach that is out there.

Frankly, there is a logical disconnect in what you appear to be advocating; to wit, Bush is crazy therefore let's ratchet up the pressure on him. It is reminiscent of Rudy's approach on Iran, he is a madman therefore he must understand we will strike him.

I think in the end, you are arguing for impeachment:

It may be necessary to remove the Creature and the Dick from office if troop withdrawals are going to begin before 2009. But, again, before that can happen you have to have a whole mess o' Republicans willing to go along with it.

But as anyone old enough to remember 1974 can tell you, it's happened before.

every soldier in Iraq stranded without food or bullets

To beat Bush, the game has to be changed from "Republicans versus Democrats" to "Congress versus the White House"

As if the average person identifies with Congress.

Haven't you noticed how the WH sets this up?:

Bush: "It didn't make any sense to impose the will of politicians over the recommendations of our military commanders in the field."

Only left bloggers are identifying with Dems in Congress and their fight against incipient dictatorship. And that's a stretch.

As long as it's that instead of in fact "the people versus the White House," forget it, it's hopeless. And American Idol seems to be much more important to the American people. Look at this and tell me anybody cares.

To put it into context I am responding to a poster who thinks that the currenent back room talks going on between Dem's and repubs regarding benchmarks are a farce. Here is my reply:

Well we are a little off from each other on this.

I don't see them as a farce on the Dem's part. As I said in my original post that you responded to I see them as a way to put non-political progress in Iraq "On the Record". Bush won't put zero progress on the record or even talk about it in a straight forward manner. So it is important that someone does so the public has a way of measuring of political progress there. As I said in my post I think that measurement will further win public sentiment to our side which is what we need.

As for the Repubs yeah it is a bit of a farce as they do not at this point want to put any consequences behind the missed benchmarks to actually make them mean something. But on the political side we need to 'inch' them along with us and any benchmarks they back is a statement on their part that they believe that political progress should be made. Once they are on record voting for that and the benchmarks are not met then they are painted into a corner about what they are willing to do about it.

If the answer is nothing then we simply show the public that they voted for progress but like Bush are unwilling to enforce progress. Politically we win there (think '08).

But if they do wake up and say we must do something about no progress then they just might move another 'inch' in our direction and sign on to something with teeth in it.

So either way as long as we get them to accept benchmarks - even without consequences for not meeting them - we win something in the end.

Do benchmarks at this point end the war? No. But what are our other legitimate options?

Without the Repubs we will never get Bush to sign anything so we must attempt to 'inch' them along and I believe that we can make progress on that. Already additional Repubs like Snowe are presenting their own bills to end the war. More will follow. We just need to take their hand and lead them one step at a time.

That is why at this point I endorse short term funding with benchmarks. And then in another 60 days the surge will have reached a point where everyone who said we will measure it's effectiveness in September will have to admit what is going on there which will likely be chaos. Then some more Repubs should be ready to move more in our direction.

If we slowly lead them maybe by March '08 we can actually have a veto proof majority. March '08 was a goal anyway. If we can't get there in one big jump then we should strive to get there in increments. It's more painful that way but in the end result could be the same - Out in March '08.