Please read: Dems abandon war authority provision, in Yahoo News and tell me if the Dems did the right thing.?

The President absolutely should be held answerable to the will of the American people--which is what Democrats (and some decent Republicans) are trying to do.

But this is a tactical move by the Democrats--they are in a difficult position. Bush has made it clear that he has nothing but contempt for the views of the American people--or Congress--and that he has no intention of listening to those views. In other circumstances that would not be as big a problem. But Bush is Commander-in-Cheif.

Consequently, both Democrats and Republicans are in the difficult position of trying to deal with a president who is behaving like a dictator--but under the Constitution their options are limited. They will not limit funds in any way that will harm the troops--which is to their credit (and as the scandel at Walter Reed proves, shows them to have more concern for our soldiers' welfare than Bush does). So they are struggling to find a way to rein Bush in without forcing a constitutional crisis.

Or--to put it in a sentance--Bush is holding our troops hostage to prevent the Congress from exercising their fiscal powers. No one is under any illusions: he will make sure the brunt of any cut-off of funds will be borne by our soldiers--and he would leave them to die rather than yeild to the will of the American people.

Allowing President Bush to stick his foot in the mud is the best approach to his decision making. Iran does have American Tom Cat F-14's with sidewinder missiles in their armory. Reagan and Rumsfeld saw to that situation. They also have an arsenal of MIG 23's and MIG 29's, and would be a formidable adversary.

Of course it's a good idea. Unlike Iraq, Iran has a sizeable Army, decent equipment, good anti-air defenses. Bush would have to be completely insane to go after Iran. (If he does, the civil unrest would amount to nothing less than social collapse) So the dems figure, "Let King George stand up and saber rattle, because that's really all he can do on this issue" and we'll concentrate on getting our troops out of "Iraq: Vietnam redux (Look how stupid our president is)." Looks to be the sleeper hit of the year.

Evidently the Democrats don't feel like the President should be held to a Congressional vote since they backed away from the provision. I, as a point of fact, believe the President should get new authority if he plans on increasing the scope of the war.

I did not expect any thing would change since the Democrats took control of the house or the senate..

its not that i am for them or against them..i am taking a realistic approach and saying that President G.W. Bush is our commander in chief (even though i did not vote for him in 02 or 04.) this is our commander and we must follow him until he leaves office until 09 Jan.

The Democrats have not came up with anything positive and this just proves they are just blowing smoke..this war on terrorism will never end in one hundred years..period..that's not my wish..but it is my views..sorry ..thats what i think

The President is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and must act in what he perceives as the best way to defend the country. Congressional authority is limited to deciding whether to appropriate money.

He is the Commander in Cheif. The US Congress does not get to dictate to the military how we fight wars. It is in the Constitution, look it up. We tried this in Vietnam, and look how well that worked.

With that being said, I wish they would have stuck to their guns because the American people really need to learn what these people are all about.