Murtha remains an idiot. Saddamn Hussein has no power. Bush's position may have been enhanced a bit since he won't have to deal with an intransigent Republican House. Don't count him out. As for the Dems, a one seat majority in the Senate isn't even close to control. And the House has gotten more conservative with the influx of two dozen Red State Democrats. They're far more likely to compromise with Bush than blindly follow Moonbat Pelosi over a cliff.

I doubt if the Red State Dim's are willing to accept the responsibility for turning some of their large cities into wastelands. People in mid-America own a lot of rope and millions know how to tie a 13 knot loop, trees are still available everywhere.

I tend to agree with John S. and Scrapiron.

It's one thing to let Murtha speak when you're in the minority. But now they are in the majority and I think some Dem's will not want this guy front and center.

I think you will start seeing breaks in the Democratic ranks over the Iraq war. This is going to be fun to watch.

Bottom line: with only a 1 seat advantage in the Senate and Joe Lieberman being a staunch supporter of the war (just not how it's being conducted), there will be no pull out of Iraq.

So much for the talk of bipartisanship, civility

LOL! They haven't even been sworn in yet, and you're already calling them cowards! Nice display of civility ya got going there!

The left lecturing on civility. That's rich.

Brian...Who said the following...Yesterday I heard the same old rhetorical garbage in the President's press conference. America remains a nation at war, but the enemy that attacked us on September 11th is not the enemy we are fighting in Iraq. As of Tuesday, the President can no longer mask an Iraqi civil war as part of the real war on terrorism.

This election was a referendum on the President's disastrous course in Iraq, and the American people clearly had ENOUGH.

No comment on this?????

I am a political moderate who voted for GWB in 2000, Republican congressional candidates in 2002, Kerry in 2004, and Democratic congressional candidates in 2006. I initially supported major combat operations in Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam's murderous and tyrannous regime, but I no longer support the ongoing policing of a civil war with our nation's finest caught between the crosshairs.

Two points need to be made here, one regarding the use of Murtha as a Democratic figurehead, and another on the merits of his claims:

1) Jack Murtha is a rebellious firebrand in the Democratic caucus who often finds himself at odds with the national party. Republicans too have their share of mavericks who strongly oppose a variety of Bush administration policies. Lynn Westmoreland led the fight to defeat the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, but few outside of the extreme left would argue that the national Republican Party stands for depriving minorities of their voting rights, even though the events of Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 could suggest otherwise. Richard Pombo actively fought to repeal the Endangered Species Act and privatize the national park system, but it hardly serves the Republican cause to promote environmental desecration; even evangelical Christians realize that. Tom Tancredo's crusade against Bush-favored amnesty for illegal immigrants exemplifies the deep fissures that still exist within the Republican Party, but which, for political reasons, right-wing commentators sweep under the rug. And I'm not even touching the corruption issue. In other words, one man does not a party make.

Similar divisions exist within Democratic ranks. Indeed, the Democratic Party is transforming itself into the "big tent" of American politics, so severely has the Republican Party alienated those outside of its extreme conservative base, myself included. So why does the right persist in singling out the opinions of individual Democrats like Murtha and Kerry - both of whom are decorated veterans, I might add, yet who hold no leadership positions within the party - as emblematic of party doctrine? Actions speak louder than words.

In the interest of fairness, if you criticize Murtha or Rangel for their incivility, let's not forget Mike Pence, who has pulled no punches in disparaging Democrats as he mounts his House leadership bid. And while many of you rabid conservatives are quick to dismiss Democratic leadership's overtures of civility - which, aside from your president, it appears you have no intention of requiting - I would give the new Democratic congressional majority a chance to earn your trust. Let's face it, Republicans weren't exactly performing miracles in the 109th Congress.

2) By and large, the Islamofascist enemy who attacked on September 11 is not the same enemy our brave soldiers confront on the streets of Baghdad. According to military sources, foreign fighters account for only 2% of all insurgents/jihadists detained over the past year. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-05-detainees-usat_x.htm]

Why are you so quick to dismiss the notion that a gradual and strategically sound withdrawal of our troops out of harm's way could actually stabilize Iraq? Recruitment of new terrorists will likely decline if there is no longer an occupation to vilify and scapegoat for their problems. Nobody is suggesting that the terrorists will disband overnight, but it's a step in the right direction. If that assumption is too naive - not unlike most of the administration's assumptions when planning the war - then a civil war could result in the annihilation of the most militant factions. Regardless, the Iraqis would be doing the work for us, which is what nearly every supporter of the war envisioned in the first place. Besides, leaving the battlefield does not rule out the possibility of a return should circumstances change.

If you support the strategy of "stay the course" indefinitely, with no end in sight, why not enlist or have your sons enlist in the Army tomorrow? I admire those with the conviction and courage to die for a failed policy. But let's do everything in our power to protect those who have little to no say in the prosecution of this war, namely our brave men and women in uniform.

With respect to Murtha's claim that the election has stripped Bush of all power, nothing could be further from the truth, for better or worse. The Democratic Congress will, however, act as a much needed check against abusive, expansive, and usurpatory executive power. Trust me, if a Democratic president is elected in 2008, you'll be glad the legislature is reasserting its constitutional authority and independence.

I have served 2 tours in Iraq. Some of us have talked about Murtha's treason and its consequences. We also have ropes and we know a lot of "Different knots".

Murtha is now an influential leader in the House. He will either be elected Majority Leader or Chairman of Appropriations.

If Democrats had CAMPAIGNED on a "phased withdrawal," it would be one thing. However, in nearly all of the seats they won from Republicans, they pointedly refused to call for this. They instead, almost to a man, called for a "better policy" in Iraq, not a timetable for withdrawal.

There are three major changes to policy being discussed now, all of which would be unmitigated disasters. An early withdrawal is a defeat and encourages the Islamic fascists, as did bugging out from Lebanon and Somalia.

Putting MORE troops in another loser of an idea. The concept of American troops "holding territory" in Sadr City in Baghdad is sheer idiocy. If you want MORE casualties, fast, this is your policy choice.

The Booby Prize for Dumbest Iraq Idea goes to Joe Biden's partition idea, which virtually guarantees a war which would not only involve the Iraqi factions (including the several Kurdish and Shi'ite provinces which are currently not experiencing widespread violence), but would be almost guaranteed to become a region-wide conflict as Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Saudi Arabia look to protect/further their own interests and borders.

In life, there are often situations for which there is no solution which is easy, clear, or certain to work. This is one of them. Perhaps the Iraq Study Commission has come up with something new, but I doubt it seriously.

Staying in there until the Iraqis establish a stable government and are able to maintain their own internal security may not be an appetizing prospect, but all the other options put forth thus far are pure poison.

to john s a one vote majority is total control of the senate ,you control the legislative process and chair all committes, i suggest you go back and study high school civics.
The dems have total control of the legislative branch be it 1 vote of 50.All we have is the white house which will just lead to stalemate.
Either Bush caves to the dems or he quacks like a duck and his last 2 years will be hell.