It actuallly takes on 41 US Senators not 60

Fillibuster the whole appropriationss bill.

Demand an exit strategy (put teeth in the Lugar-Warner concept)

Demand an exit (refuse to allow the bill to proceed without the Levin language)

Hold the whole defense bill hostage.

but the dem leadership is not in favor of really ending the occupation. only reconfiguring it.

by *an action which would have directed Bush to do NOTHING as he presses our troops forward.

Besides, there is no coalition of 41 Senators who favor the course of merely sitting on their hands. The majority of legislators favor crafting and advancing legislation to Bush's desk instead of participating in dubious defunding schemes that fail to confront Bush with the force of law.

It only tells us that a number of people don't want to do it, not that it might be an effective way to bring Bush's war machine to a halt.

As long as they're at it why don't they cut the money hose to Justice? I believe they already funded DHS, and although that agency should be eliminated (along with the Patriot Act) immediately, there's not a lot to be done about it now.

and doomed to fail because it supposes he'd notice or care enough about some funding shortfall to end his occupation.

In the limited term the supplemental bill covered, there really was no real pressure that could be applied because there are still short-term sources of money outside of the normal appropriations process available to Bush to continue. The GAO had said during the previous debate that he has money to continue into next year. So, we haven't come to the point where the legislative effort has any less potential for moving Bush than some partisan funding protest effort (which may still be necessary). I just don't think the predictable resistance from the WH right now should be cause for us to completely abandon the effort. I do think we will inevitably move to that position if Bush persists.

It would be an active strategy to deprive funds for the war's operation. Yes, Bush would try to circumvent that, but, eventually, funds would dry up.

Fiscal year ends 9/30 and they won't reconvene until 9/15, IIRC.

I think Reid may be planning to call of the August recess... :shrug:

Edit: My mistake--looks like they reconvene on 9/4.

supplement bill. bush would never sign it, and the war would go on. Blocking funds is not realistic, because no matter how many times the funds are blocked bush will still keep it going and authorize funds from some place else. Unless the get rid of bush and again with not enough votes to REMOVE him from office it will never happen. Remember impeachment is easy they only need to vote on it in the house, approve it, and they have the votes. Then they send it to the senate. Getting enough votes in the senate to convict and remove him from office won't happen.

The best time to do that was the Iraq "Emergency" Appropriations bill - but ANY military funding measure will do.