Welcome Rusty! I am but a recent visitor to Ross's fine blog myself and he is a very gracious host indeed. I read your piece and immediately began to wonder, "Why did Ross mention in his introduction that your views only partly meshed with his?" By virtue of your article, I would rather think you guys are birds of a feather and I mean this in a humorous sense, I'm not being sarcastic.

You see, as an Independent, I have to hand it to the Democrats on this one. They are playing their hand on Iraq exactly right. It is a beautiful thing to see actually. What you have to understand is that what we see playing out in front of our eyes between Democrats and the president is a game of chess, this is not a Rambo themed event. This is akin to the long Russian retreat in the face of a furious attack by the German war machine. Russians continuously falling back until the brutal winter weather finally obliterates the German forces in the middle of viciously cold, windswept Russian countryside. This is death by a thousand cuts. It is a most fitting position for the great "decider" to find himself. I am prone to say that because this is the first time he may actually have to take responsibility for something himself. Is that mean to say? Well, perhaps it is, but I always think of the 3,000+ wonderful American troops who have died. The guys who did what they were told, who kept their mouths shut and did their duty, no matter that they had an inept commander in chief. So, no, now is not the time to shirk from letting Bush stew in his own juices. It's been a long, long time in coming. The Democrats have the right recipe too.

Iraq is owned lock, stock and barrel by Bush and his now dwindling Republican partners in the Congress. Bush started Iraq, Bush ran the Iraq campaign, and Bush is the undisputed owner of Iraq and all that ultimately comes of it. Why would the Democrats want to extend any lifeline to the Republicans in general and Bush in particular? And even more important why would they want to engage in a head to head fight with him?

By denying funding for Iraq the Democrats would enable Bush to respond, "Democrats are withholding support from our troops in the face of the enemy! They are traitors to our country!" The odds that that tactic would be fruitful for Democrats is highly doubtful. So the smart move is to simply say, "Mr. President we respectfully disagree with your surge strategy (along with some increasingly fearful Republicans). Please reconsider." There, their position against Iraq is stated but with none of the problems that would arise in 2008 with the dawning presidential election. But you really knew that didn't you?

Is the resolution tantamount to surrender? Not really. Would you follow closely behind a fool who races across busy highways all day? Certainly not. Why should our country continue to follow behind our commander in chief? I thought this thing was going to be wrapped up in six months. Our troops were going to have Iraqis falling at their feet in gratitude, being rained upon by flowers as their liberators. No? Well, I thought that's what they said. Bush launched the invasion on March 19, 2003. Did I say 2003? Why that's almost four years! To beat a third rate military power? At some point this issue has to be decided. It is entirely appropriate for that process to be taken away from Bush. He doesn't want the withdrawal process start under "his watch." Now that sir is what can be called unadultered cowardice. He doesn't have the courage to finish what he started.

President Bush had all the support possible for his Iraq campaign. Let's not start splitting hairs. He got all the funding he asked for as the campaign started and during the campaign. No funds were ever denied. Politically, Democrats were left cowering in the corner. This was Bush's baby right from the start. Why is it that someone who supports Bush can never, and I mean never, concede that he screwed up in Iraq? Let's be honest. If a Democrat had done in Iraq what Bush has done in Iraq Republicans would have tried to impeach him. No, they would have strung him up. If you are a Bush supporter stand up and say so. Accept things for what they are. This is as clear as it can get. Iraq was a mistake. We don't need to wait thirty years for historians to tell us that either. This was a big one baby, mistakes of this magnitude don't happen every day. You guys were certainly with him during the long period of the highs when we had no real idea where we were going. Admit it, let's get past the hand wringing and face up to it.

The bottom line is that Bush miscalculated in Iraq. He alienated all of our international partners, he snubbed Democrats and he snubbed intelligent and wise counsel. How do you protect someone like this from themselves? You couldn't because he was ultimately successful in getting his wish to invade Iraq. So, since he wanted no help to start the war why should Democrats help him now to end it? They shouldn't. Let him sink by himself. Bush will also take another chunk of Republicans with him again as in 2006. The Democrats are playing the hand dealt them very well. Iraq, the issue, will likely ensure that the 2008 elections will be another uncomfortable time for Republicans.