Trying to stop the war

I'm not sure I understand the thinking behind the Democrats' new move to try to repeal the war authorization.

Senate Democratic leaders intend to unveil a plan next week to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military's role and begins withdrawals of combat troops.

The problem is that a bill like this has to be passed affirmatively. In the very unlikely event that it got through the Senate at all (with Lieberman et al opposing it), it would almost certainly be vetoed by the prez. Or, if he really wanted to give Congress the finger, he might just write a "signing statement" saying he would ignore it.

Limiting funding, on the other hand, is something the Prez couldn't get around. He needs the funding. If the Congress limits his funding, he has only two choices -- sign the bill and get the limited funds or veto the bill and get nothing. Perhaps he would do the latter, but then who would get the blame for shutting off the funds to the troops?

What the Dems need to do in my judgment is stop grovelling in fear about being accused of failing to fund our troops and start stating affirmatively that limiting the funds is not hurtiing the troops. The one's already there will have plenty of money to get home with, and the one's not going won't have to worry about whether or not they'll come home. It's not hurting the troops, it's helping them.