How do you filibuster a bill in the Senate that was passed and vetoed by the President? Is that how John thinks things work in Congress??

Ditto, Breck Boy. With Senator Warner and Generals Casey and Pace talking about a drawdown of forces, it's time to keep the heat on Bush to do it by using all available tools, including sending him the same bill to veto repeatedly, and serious action on defunding.

I have a hard time believing anything this man says because a few days after he says it, "it is untrue, or distorted".

Let him go back to lawyering. He's really good at that

Does anybody take this guy serious?

Jeeze - it's about time someone got the message the voters sent!

I have a better idea, how about the politicians start working for the good of this nation. If they do that fillibuster would never be necessary. But I am probably asking too much expecting politicians to do their jobs.

This is what the American People WANT! We voted in 2006 for a change in course!!! This is the only way to achieve it! This is why the approval ratings for congress are in the tank! Duh! They have done nothing to bring our troops home! Of course, it is not as simple to bring them home tomorrow, and we do have a responsibility to try to reach a good outcome over there, but let's be realistic. There will be no good outcomes in Iraqi. Bush, Rove, and Chaney have made a terrible mess that we will be trying to mitigate for generations to come. It's time for a new way.

How convenient for Edwards, not being in the Senate, not having to risk his legacy on a partisan fillibuster for a timetable, to push for just that. It was politically convenient for him and Clinton to vote for the war when they did, and oppose it as they do now.

Obama wasn't in the U.S. Senate, but in the Illinois legislature, about to run for Senate when he couragously came out against what was a popular war

Peter, why don't you go over there and fight in this war since you feel so passionately about it?

In a word, "Bravo."

The American people DID speak very clearly at the last election — we want this war brought to a close, and we want it done quickly. The Democratic Congress MUST stop allowing the Bush administration to define what is and is not patriotic and supportive of our troops. The Democratic leaders (Reid, Pelosi) are so afraid of the Bush Administration saying "if you don't give us a funding bill that we can sign, you are putting the troops in harm's way by not giving them the equipment they need" that they forget the shoe just as easily fits on the other foot — THEY can say "Mr. President, we are prepared to give the troops every bit of funding and equipment they need, but in return YOU have to give us a timetable for bringing them home." If he insists on vetoing the bill, then HE, not the Congress, is responsible for a lack of support to our troops.

Congress, quite simply, needs to do what they promised to do. They need to put forward a spending bill that is directly tied to a clear and firm timetable, and should it be necessary, they need to filibuster until it gets through. Their job is not to give the President a bill he will deign to sign, it is to do what they were mandated to do by the American people. And if President Bush vetoes (which he will) then they need to do it again, and again, and again.

This war is the Bush Administration's war. Most of America gets that — either they were never in favor of it to begin with, or they feel that their support was gotten in an underhanded way. We haven't forgotten, and the Democratic Congress needs to give us just a little bit of credit, and do the heavy lifting we elected them to do.

It's tragic, in my opinion, that a politician would favor taking our military out of Iraq and leaving the people of that country to suffer from widespread terrorism. It's especially bad that said politician would do so just to win an election…