Addendum to previous post

I just want to add that, if the press won't sufficiently report what "de-funding" the war would actually do, the democrats could always show everyone. If they successfully de-funded the war, and people saw that this didn't result in troops running out of ammo, but, rather, resulted in troops coming home, they'd go into the next election as the party that just stopped the opposition's miserably failed war.

Of course, this isn't without its risks. I'm sure some Republicans would argue that the troops' ongoing shortage of proper armor was now the Democrats' fault for cutting funds off. And if the effort failed to pass, and the public continued to fail to grasp what de-funding would actually have done, I suppose Republicans would, in 2008, accuse Democratic opponents of "trying to cut off funds for our troops in the field."

However, no political move is without risks. Overall, I think this is one of those happy occasions when what's right and what's politically smart are the same thing. Congress, move to cut off the funds.