That is the only question that matters right now. Dennis Kucinich (yes I know he's too short to be President, but look what happened to John Kerry) sez:

"The new Democratic Congress must stop the President from escalating the war. We must not appropriate any new funding. Up to $160 billion for the war will be asked for in the spring. That would bring the total for the war for FY 2007 to $230 billion. This amount is almost double the $117 billion spent in all of FY 2006.

"The news reports that up to 50,000 more troops could be sent to Iraq, together with a request to double the funding for the war, clearly points to an escalation of the Iraq war at a time when it is widely stated by military and policy experts that the war cannot be won militarily.

"The Democratic Congress has a mandate from the people to stop the war, bring the troops home, and help Iraq take a new direction. We cannot do that if we appropriate more funds which set the stage for a sharp escalation of the war.”

Why not?

Will it be a repeat of the Alito hearings, the bankruptcy bill, the Estate Tax where Dems told us they "feel our pain" but [insert excuse here] they HAVE to give Bush what he wants in the end?

Why not #1: Funding Bush's Surge is good strategery

Robert Scheer says what I'm feeling right now:

... This is a Republican war, goes the thinking, and the Dems will give the Republicans all the rope they need to hang themselves in '08. This seems a deeply cynical position, when you consider that the Pentagon just announced that attacks on American and Iraqi targets are at their highest levels, with a 22 percent leap from just this summer. The difference between taking a position and positioning oneself is what determines leadership; if the Dems fail to provide real leadership on ending this war, they will deservedly lose the next election.

Is it riskier to stand up to Bush now or is it more of a risk to spit in the face of everyone who voted in this Democratic Congress on the premise they would do something to end the war?

Why not #2: "Dems don't support the troops" canard will be trotted out.

It's high time the Dems destroy this talking point. "We support not getting more troops getting maimed and killed".

They can make the case that this is the only way to stop the stubborn child Bush from escalating the war.

Why not #3: the Bushies will find another revenue stream like the Reaganites did with Iran-Contra.

If I understand this point that Lambert has brought up correctly, the Dem congress at the time blocked funding for activities in Central America so the Reaganites found a way around it by selling missiles to the Iranians.

I would really like to see the Bushies find a way to secretly keep 100,000+ US troops in Iraq and come up with a criminal scheme to generate $230 Billion a year to fund them. They would have to take over the Cali Cocaine cartel or something.

Even if they theoretically could achieve this, at least the blood wouldn't be on the Democrats' (and our) hands.