The Road to 218

If the Democrats manage to pull off a victory with the supplemental bill, it would be a HUGE victory, not only for them, but for voters in general who voted for change last November, even though it allocates more money for a war they want to end.

It is no secret that a majority of Americans want the war in Iraq to end one way or another, and it's no secret that is also true of Congress. However, Congress, like the American people are divided on how to do it. Some say cut the funds, some say cut only some and some say find a way to force the President to bring the troops home without cutting their funds.

I, for one, feel that nothing will coerce this President to bring the troops home and there is nothing Congress can do to force the President to end the war, so therefore Congress needs to take a stand and show the people they are, at the very least, trying to stop the war. They can cut the funds, but will that guarantee the President will bring the troops home? Or will it guarantee that he will leave them there unprotected and unprepared? That is a risk I'm not sure I'd like to take. I don't trust this administration enough to feel comfortable with that. I don't trust them enough to think he won't leave our brothers and sisters in the middle of a civil war without any armor or ammunition, and until I'm convinced otherwise, I will continue to feel that way.

It seems the problems for the Democrats are from the left. Sure, there are a few on the right, namely Jim Marshall of Georgia or Gene Taylor of Mississippi who are probably going to oppose any attempt to end the war, but it seems that the main problem comes from the left. Those anti-war Democrats did not vote for funding the war during the Republican-controlled Congress and do not want to set a date for withdrawal that is a year away and that the President can easily ignore. These Democrats are who Speaker Pelosi are trying to bring to her side this week. So far, she's gotten some. The following Democrats, who initially opposed the bill, are jumping on-board…albeit reluctantly;

Barbara Lee (D-California)

Lynn Woolsey (D-California)

Maxine Waters (D-California)

Diane Watson (D-California)

Zoe Lofgren (D-California)

Lois Capps (D-California)

Jim McGovern (D-Massachusetts)

John Olver (D-Massachusetts)

Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)

Albert Wynn (D-Maryland)

Edolphus Towns (D-New York)

Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)

Jim McDermott (D-Washington)

Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)

Pelosi also scored a victory in convincing some of the new freshman to vote for the bill. Among them are Carol Shea-Porter (D-New Hampshire). Shea-Porter won a shocking victory due mainly to her staunch anti-war stance. She is voting for the bill despite, what she admits, is strong opposition from her constituents.

Nevertheless, the people don't realize exactly how little power Congress had to end this war. They don't realize how dangerous cutting the funding would be for the troops because it wouldn't exactly force Bush to bring them home. They don't 100% realize what the full powers of Congress are. Cutting the funds may be a last resort, but I'm not comfortable with taking my chances on that just yet. The President is going to have to feel the pressure eventually, and if he doesn't…we bite the bullet and cut funding and deal with the consequences should they come about. If anyone can give me a good explanation as to how cutting the funding will bring the troops home, I'll recant my statement and support it 100%.

But first, Pelosi needs to get to 218.