But as far as I know, this Congress has already demonstrated it has no intention of ending the war. The Senate voted 80-14 and the House, 280-142 on the Iraq Supplemental Funding Bill, and a good number of Dems supported it. So much for being a party of opposition. I thought that's what voters wanted in the 2006 election?

What could help move Congress would be the same thing that helped a previous Congress end the Vietnam War and convinced Nixon not to veto the cut-off in funding: impeachment. In this case, even more so than Nixon's, impeachment would drive the war debate in the right direction, because impeachment would be for offenses either directly connected to the war or offenses that have been justified by "war on terror" propaganda.

In addition, should Congress actually cut off the funding and end the war, it is very likely that Bush and Cheney would misappropriate funds from the Pentagon to keep the occupation going. If memory serves me, they already did that when they secretly began the war in Iraq, and have never been held accountable for it. So, removing them from office is not only needed in order to give Congress the nerve to end the war, but is also needed if the war is ever to actually end.

On a side note, it's amazing how much damage the GOP did to impeachment. It's gotten to a point now that people see it as if it's the third rail of politics.

It isn't.

Instead of sullying the GOP for what they did to Clinton in 1999, the Dems sullied the process of impeachment. At first, I thought impeachment was a knee-jerk reactionary feel good thing for extremists, and I learned the hard way, it wasn't. I had to re-learn everything I was tought about impeachment and now I understand why at this time and place, it's the necessary and  appropriate solution to our political crisis and I think in due time, more and more will also come around and consider the same.

But, as evidenced by the Iraq supplemental vote, they haven't DEMONSTRATED any willingness to do so.  And the Goppers will always come up with some justification or create some situation whereby the Dems have to give them the money or else face lots of mean criticisms from the media and such.  And to date, the Democrats have crumbled every g-subject expletive d-action expletive f-adjective emphasis expletive time when confronted with that possibility.

Evidenced by the fact that Bush would have a couple more vetoes to tack up on his ersatz cowboy cabin wall.

Which leaves us with Impeachment as the only other and equally unlikely action.  Impeachment with all of the negative connotations that would be associated with the impeached and his supporters.  The relevant effect would be that stigma that goes with it.  Not the stigma that would attach to George Bush of course, lacking any basic humanity stigma doesn't stick, you might say.  No, but for the bad vibes that would attach itself to the whole Bush Administration and their ACTIONS.

Impeachment for the benefit of two audiences.  One, those who worked hand in bloddy glove with Bush/Cheney and might consider the consequences of their activities a litle more closely, and two, the American People who might consider how bad a bunch Bush/Cheney was, to be impeached and convicted I add, and for really serious and deadly ACTIONS, not a freaking blown job.

i see a flaw in odom's argument.

some have stated above that it would never get to the impeachment stage.  which is a good thing, cause impeachment would still take a few months while the troops are sitting there in iraq without funding.