One letter writer is quite clear on what the response should be:

To the Editor:

"The Road Home" makes good sense in every respect but one: for Congress and the president to take the action recommended would constitute an admission that the Iraq war was a mistake, or at the least, that the lack of any real planning was a fatal error that doomed the effort.

Most Democrats in Congress reached both conclusions long ago. President Bush and many Republicans have never been willing to admit either or both of these basic facts, nor, in my view, will they now.

Only if Congress uses its sole real power in the matter -- the purse -- will the action that the editorial says is necessary be taken.

Frederick M. Reed
Vinalhaven, Me., July 8, 2007

I think this is exactly right. I have been saying for weeks now that the power of the purse is paramount in this effort, and, as I said in June, there are a variety of examples why. An important point to highlight is that all parties, even the President, seem to agree on the efficacy of this method.

First there was that move to defund the Vice President's office:

House Democrats are moving forward with a vote on de-funding the office of the vice president, even though it appears that Dick Cheney and his staff are backing off the claim that they are part of the legislative branch. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D) says he will put forward an amendment tomorrow that would strip the $4.7 million funding Cheney's executive branch operations ($4.4 for the office of the VP, $300,000 for his residence at the Naval Observatory).

What's important here? Senior Democrats in the House believe that threatening the use of purse strings will produce results. Apparently, they are quite right. The vote on Emanuel's amendment came several ayes short of passage, but it isn't difficult to imagine that leadership could have whipped a few more if they actually wanted to follow through with the threat. As it happened, Cheney actually gave in earlier, so the vote was little more than a symbol.

Then there's that other example. . .

The Democrats are now aiming for the prison complex at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. According to our friends at the AP,

[Democrats plan to]cut... the budget by half [in order to] keep the prison afloat for part of the year, giving the administration time to transfer the detainees.

It is noted that the administration has already announced plans to close the prison there, but Bush has also constantly given indications that changes are a-coming in Iraq.

There is, of course, only one way to guarantee that those changes go in the direction we want: we need to stop funding the debacle.

Want a final reason why I'm so sure that defending will end the occupation? Fine: The President agrees with me:

WSJ: There's a lot of discussion in Congress about putting caps on troop levels or defunding or saying you can't deploy, as commander in chief, troops in Baghdad. Do you think Congress has the constitutional authority . . .

GWB: I think they have the authority to defund, use their funding power . . .

WSJ: You do?

GWB: Oh yeah, they can say 'We won't fund.' That is a constitutional authority of Congress.

The point is clear: Democrats can end the war in Iraq, and it only takes 218 votes to do so. The question is, do they have the political will? I think we must talk them into doing so, because it is our only way to force a withdrawal during this Congress.

Since I have demanded that those who propose Impeachment count their votes in the Senate, it only seems fair that I should count mine here. Where do we start on the road to 218? At 171; not far at all.

Do go take a look at the roll call on the McGovern bill, because it is really revealing.

On board we have a number of Blue Dogs and the Speaker. We do not, however, have the majority leader (Steny Hoyer), or a number of NDC Democrats (Allyson Schwartz from Philadelphia stands out). I think these votes are very attainable. If Pelosi wants to end the war in the manner the New York Times suggests, and it seems that she does, she had better start working on whipping the votes on this to 218, so that we can stop funding after a date certain. Otherwise, we will be in Iraq for the better part of forever.

As for the Senate, which I think is secondary in spending matters, I strongly support Reid-Feingold Which would provide for essentially the same thing as the McGovern bill.