Democrats desperately have to change what they are doing on Iraq.  This surtax idea is clouding the important issue on Iraq which is how do we get our soldiers home from Iraq and so is this idea of threatening not to move the appropriations bill funding the war until President Bush commits to changing his strategy on Iraq (These ideas don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding).  With ideas like this you Democrats are handing the Republicans the club with which they will beat you senseless on the Iraq issue.  If you Democrats are interested in providing the nation worthwhile leadership on this issue, amend the Iraq appropriations bill and don’t give the President the full $190 billion he wants for the war, the funds needed to cover the entire Fiscal Year 2008, rather just give the White House the funds necessary to support the war through March of 2008 when the White House is scheduled to make a decision on whether to continue the troop draw down in Iraq past July 2008.   By doing this you will not only be positioning yourself to fight a suspension of the troop draw down by creating the need for a supplemental Iraq war funding bill to be passed in March 2008 which you can readily attach an amendment mandating a continuation of the draw down for the balance of President Bush’s term; but also, you will be sending the White House the message that there will be hell to pay if this draw down is suspended or dragged out longer than the present rate, you will be sending the White House the message they cannot continue to ignore the American people’s wishes on Iraq without risking being forced to do the American people’s will on Iraq.

                And you media did somebody give all you guys a lobotomy, how can you all be so out to lunch on Iraq coverage.  Is the media’s job only to report stupid ideas of the party not occupying the White House?  The most important issue for the American people on Iraq at the present time is what the hell will the country do if President Bush suspends the draw down after July of 2008 were talking about American lives being lost over such a suspension, what is the average loss of life per month in a brigade doing population security in Iraq it has to be at least two soldiers a month at the current casualty rate – the American people want to see the stopping of U.S. soldiers being killed in Iraq.  Which begs the following questions?

                Why isn’t the media asking members of Congress what in blazes are they going to do if President Bush suspends the draw down after July of 2008 which he should announce in March of 2008?  Why isn’t the media asking members of Congress wouldn’t it help their case to get a major withdrawal from Iraq if the current Iraq appropriation bill only funded the war through March 2008 such a move would create pressure on the White House to continue the draw down past July 2008?  Why isn’t the media asking members of Congress if the President announces in March of 2008 that his “return on success” strategy in Iraq dictates suspending the troop draw down after July 2008 wouldn’t it be helpful to have there be a need for a supplemental Iraq War funding bill to be passed in March of 2008 which would definitely bring about a Congressional debate on Iraq and bring about a great opportunity to have an amendment passed mandating President Bush continue the draw down for the balance of his term?  Why isn’t the media making a big deal of what will happen if in March of 2008 the White House announces a suspension of the troop draw down past July 2008?  Professional political reporters and journalists, ones of quality, ones that bring honor to their profession, ones that bring the admiration and the appreciation of the American people would be focusing on this critically important issue!