I'm happy that Senator Clinton has not backed off. My only hope is that the netroots will support this direction without demanding that Congress de-fund the war.

We are an ex-military family and my husband is a combat vet. The situation for the military is very complicated, but de-funding a war after it has been authorized is not the best idea, especially with a President who is going to find a way to do what he is going to do.

Last time around in this debate, Clinton suggested legislation that asked for a sunset to the current Iraq war resolution, and new resolutions that would specifically define the current mission in Iraq, the current mission against Al Quada for 9/11, and the current mission regarding violent extremism.

I support that.
I think it's time to un-bundle "The Global War on Terrorism" and find out who we are at war with, where, and why.

Thank God she's paying attention. Most Democrats seem to have fallen for Bush's considerable skills as a necromancer and concluded that the surge HAS worked because the phony statistics show that there's been some improvement in Anbar. Hillary's stock just went WAY up in my book, simply for noticing and remembering the only reason for the surge: to give the Iraqi government some "breathing room". They got their breathing room, alright. And how did they use it? Vacation.

Now, more than ever, it's time to bring the troops home.

"Defunding, or tying funding to a withdrawal timetable, is the only option available."

That's two options :)

I like the plan of continuing to send the same bill back to the president. That's always been my preferred solution.

De-funding is scary to me because I don't believe that will force Bush to withdraw troops. I think he'll just continue to deploy them, with rocks and baseball bats if necessary, just to let them die while he says "See? Congress's lack of funding is killing these soldiers."

Much better to keep sending him the same bill so that he's the one refusing to take the money.

Better late than never I suppose, but it's a pretty tepid, cautious leadership she's showing at best, in my opinion.

Hillary's continuing refusal to admit her vote for the war was a mistake, combined with this sort of timidity on ending it makes me think that ultimately she doesn't really think the illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq was a mistake, but that Bush's unbridled incompetence screwed up what could have been a success. While his incompetence is not in doubt, the main mistake was entering into this foolhardy and imperialistic venture at all. That she doesn't clearly see this concerns me.

The whole thing was wrong. It was wrong to invade, wrong to stay, and wrong to think we can ever "win" as there is no winning a war of occupation in the midst of a civil war in a land whose people understand more clearly than ours do that the US is only there to secure the oil supply.

re: "But if Congress isn't willing to de-fund this war, this war will continue to hollow out our military forces, kill and maim our troops, and bleed us financially, all at full throttle until at least January 2009."

If 11 Republican Senators ARE willing to have this war "hollow out our military forces, etc." then they will have to pay the price in November 2009.

However, the horrible reality is that Bush has A MILITARY PERSON telling YOU that if HE had more time WE could win.

(Not yelling; just wanting to make sure you realize who the face of your opposition is in this unfortunate PR war)

Seriously, without emotion, give it some thought.
My family had a shipmate killed aboard the USS Cole and I have never been for this invasion.

BUT...
You are defending the military and Gen Petraus is REPRESENTING the military -- which obviously negates your defense of the military.

The best thing we can do for our honorable military, under a runaway idiot of a C-in-C and his brainwashed General, is to require them to define the mission; the training needed, the downtime needed, the budget needed, and the time in-theatre in a hazzardous duty zone needed to accomplish that mission.

Bush declared that the March 2002 mission was accomplished in May 2002.

Forcing him to define this next mission -- and, again, I want him to define all THREE missions for the sake of the next President (Iraq, AQ-9/11, and "violent extremism") -- can be accomplished (imo) by:
(1) sunsetting the October 11, 2001 war resolution
(2) making Bush put a price on what comes out of his mouth from now on, in terms of his ability to bring about "Victory" in "The Global War on Terror" before he leaves office
(3) maybe even asking him to apologize for his failure to bring OBL to justice, as he promised the American people just after we were attacked on 9/11

btw, under this new resolution, I would expect the adminstration to explain why any agreed-upon benchmarks weren't met, and designate someone from the adminstration to be held accountable and fired for failing to meet their promises.
If troop lives are at stake, Loyal Bushie jobs should be at stake.

Again, I just think there are more meaningful ways to get our way (those of us who want out of Iraq) than by starkly de-funding the military servicemembers deployed into combat under the war resolution that was (unfortunately) passed by Congress.

The best way to fight is to get 11 Republicans to give us a pathway to something Bush can't politically avoid.
Most Republicans are never going to just starkly de-fund the war (nevermind many Democrats).
If they will lose their office anyway (and many would) they have nothing to gain by supporting a politically weak solution, like de-funding the troops.
And if I remember the polls correctly, even the nation itself is in quite a lot of accord over getting out of Iraq, but they are split down the middle over de-funding the troops.