Just called my rep (John Hall, NY) and told his office I fully support Murtha on this... we all need to ring the phones off the hooks!

I agree. The Democrats should say that if the President insists on escalating his mistakes than he needs to pay for them. This administration has already run up more debt than any in history. When you are running deficits and you pass "tax cuts" they are really just more loans, piling on more debt for the future tax payers. Republicana don't believe in paying their bills. The Democrats should force this issue, introduce a bill with an up or down vote for a "Bush Iraq War Tax Increase" and force the hypocrits to vote for the war but against paying for it.

Murtha seems to understand what I've been saying for some time now. The only thing Bush understands is a metephorical whack to the side of the head with a 2x4. Anything else is ignored.

A War Surcharge Tax of at least 30% on individuals of incomes over $150k (couples - $300k) and a war surcharge tax of at least 50% on corporations, will do more to end this war than anything else.

Once you hit the Bush supporters in the only place they feel pain - taxes - they will do what millions of Americans couldn't do in November. It will not only get Bush's attention - it will force him to declare 'victory' and get the hell out of Dodge.

I don't know what Rep. Murtha's ultimate objective is. As a practical matter, though, he is establishing grounds for potential impeachment. Few Americans advocate impeachment of Bush at this point. However, if Bush were to start a third war against Iran, many more and may even most Americans would want Bush removed. The problem, of course, is that the Constitution does not provide for the removal of a President whose offense arises principly from his incompetence.

Article 1 of the Constitution gives the Congress the power to establish and provide funding for an Army and Navy and to declare war. The President then is the Commander in Chief. Thus, the Constitution provides for an equally shared power to wage war.

As a practical matter, though, for over a 100 years, Congress has been prevented from exercising its appropriate role in deciding whether to go to war. The only way to stop Bush, if he is determined to go ahead with his reckless war-making, is for Congress to reassert its Constitutionally-endowed role as equal partner in making war.

Once Congress has re-established its rights to control the decision to go to war, the amount spent on war and the way in which those funds are spent, a President that proceeds to war without the genuine consent of Congress is guilty of a high crime. Thus, it is essential for Congress to reassert its equal role in making war as originally articulated in the Constitution.

Rep. Murtha's determination to use the budgeting process to constrain Bush's war-making ability is entirely appropriate and even necessary. Furthemore, his activity has implications far beyond the narrow use of trying to stop the currently proposed escalation of the Iraq war.

Here is the question that I have...

Congress has the power of the purse, no doubt about that. They can choose whether or not to provide funds for the war. Once the funds are provided, however, can they really dictate where the individual dollars and cents are spent? Can they really say, "Here is X amount of $...you cannot spend any of this on additional troops." Wouldn't that interfere with the Presidents powers as Commander in Chief, and be unconstitutional? Wouldn't the current Supreme Court almost certainly see things that way?

I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea what the answer to these questions are. Anybody here have a legal background sufficient to answer? Have there been any historical parallels to this, any precedents set?

I'm of the opinion that Iraq Study Group got it about right when they said we should shoot for getting the troops out by the first quarter of 2008. The only part they got wrong was that it's not the Iraqis we need to notify--it's Bush. Congress should apportion all fund requests from the White House so the money gets paid out quarterly. Then they should inform the president that no funds will be available after the end of March, 2008 unless the redeployment goals set by Congress have been met.

We should also be calling/e-mailing our Senators - all Democrats and the Republicans that are up for re-election in 2008, and tell them we want active leadership to stop the escalation, not just a symbolic resolution.

Here is the letter I sent recently:

Dear Senator Obama,

I write as an early and active supporter of yours to ask you to lead Congressional efforts to stop President Bush from escalating the War in Iraq. As you know, the best option in Iraq now is to begin a phased redeployment of our troops so that the Iraqis can take responsibility for their country. Escalation would delay this necessary solution, trap even more of our troops in the crossfire of a civil war, and divert needed troops and resources from critical operations in Afghanistan. That is why the American public, leading generals, and the troops on the ground oppose escalation.

President Bush has shown himself unwilling to listen to the American people and, therefore, Congress must act to prevent this escalation. Words are not enough. I urge you to sponsor and support legislation that would prevent the Administration from sending any additional troops to Iraq without express authorization from Congress. The American people made clear in the last election that they wanted the Democrats to lead on this and other critical issues facing the country. Now is the time to provide that leadership

I like the 30% War Tax on individual incomes over $150,000 and 50% on incomes over $500,000. I would waive the tax on any family with a child in Iraq or Afghanistan or a veteren of these conflicts.

Also waive it on anyone who opposes the war.