First the disagreement. It is SO IMPORTANT for our Congress to focus on domestic issues that have been neglected by the Republicans for so long. Not only does it define their agenda, but if they DO get passed by the Senate and get beyond a veto threat, they will actually help Americans in a big way.

Now the agreement. It is still a big "if" what if anything the Dems can do about Bush's worsening Iraq quagmire. The best they can do is refuse to fund it...which opens them up to the accusation that they are abandoning our troops. I hope they do all they can but it is still Bush's war.

What is encouraging is so far I have seen statements by Edwards, Vilsack, Feingold, Kennedy, Dean and some other prominent Dems opposing the surge and urging Congress to withhold funding.

I personally have a slightly different strategy. I think Dems should withhold funding until a.) veterans benefits are restored, b.) combat pay is increased, c.) there is a real investigation into war profiteering including a restoration of the oversight body Bush eliminated, and d.) Bush outlines a CLEAR exit strategy with a CLEAR definition of what circumstances are required for our exit.

I want us out. We never should have been there in the first place. But disengagement can't be done in a heartbeat. It's his war, let him define what his goal is in a clear way. Then that exit strategy will be out in the open for discussion by the voters. That is my personal view, not what anyone else is advocating as far as I know.