Yeah, right. This isn't about "oversight." It's about political warfare.

The Democrats don't have the balls to simply raise legislation that could stop the war, so they do what they do best: set up investigations, committees, and "non-binding" resolutions that allow them to get face time and make their loud speeches without actually putting their necks on the line.

It's going to be funny as hell to see someone from the radical end of the party actually drop a "stop the funding" bill onto the table, just to see the Democrats jumping out the windows.

They're trying to figure out a way to insure a loss in Iraq without leaving any Democratic fingerprints on it. On the face of it, that seems like a ludicrous concept--how could there be any fingerprints other than Republican ones on an Iraqi loss, deemed by the Current Wisdom to be inevitable? And yet, the Democrats are walking very carefully.

Hillary is sweating blood on this issue. She stands a good chance of losing her base and opening the door for more consistent anti-war candidates. Back during the famous Vote, she told constituents she not only took the word of the Bush administration, but did her own research on the issue. Edwards said the same thing. So now, she either has to paint herself as two-faced, or a complete dupe.