The jelly fish of the 110th congress.

Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but I had the idea that after electing this new crop of anti-war Democrats in November and giving them the control of the Congress, they would do something about ending the war in Iraq. What the hell happened? For a brief moment there, the Baker/Hamiliton report was on everyone's lips and after Rummy was unceremoniously dumped it looked like we were finally on our way . . . and then . . . suddenly, there was the Surge. How did that happen?

Back in January we had 132,000 troops in Iraq, now we have 162,000 and by this spring we'll have 171,000. According to icasualies.org, we've lost -- from the beginning of the Surge until this moment -- 704 more troops in Iraq, and for every one of those dead add about 8 more who were wounded. The CBO predicted back in Feb. that, contrary to the White House's estimate of $5.6 billion, the Surge could wind up costing us another $20 to $27 billion if it goes on into next year, which its going to. [CNN]

And yet it goes on and on and on. The Democrats are so afraid of their own shadows, I could actually imagine seeing them fall all over each other to vote for another war resolution, this time to attack Iran, if they thought it would get them into the White House. The resolution, naturally, would have to be post dated, because W. & Co. would attack first and then ask for congressional approval. That's no problem, though, from what we've learned from this Congress, all W. has to do is say 'boo' and they'll do something like turn the fourth amendment to Al Gonzales for safe keeping. It's not such a stretch to figure they'd sign off on another war if it made them look tough on national defense.