Let's see.

You start the war which we oppose.

You proceed to call us the enemy.

You mismanage the war.

Now you want us to tell you how to solve all of your problems.

Oleg, are you really that dumb? The reason that the Dems were elected, was for the American people to hear their agenda. If they have none, then they might as well not be there.

Harry Reid is right. Bill Kristol might not like it, but this war is more Kristol's than Reid's.

With the modern Presidency, Congress has traditionally concerned itself with domestic concerns, while the President has conerned himself with foreign affairs. Hence the War Powers Resolution. The Preisent can do ANYTHING HE WANTS for 60 days militarily. All he has to do it explain it to the Congress. Congress makes war, the President wages it. Congress has every right to tell the Preisdent his strategy won't work. If, say, my roommate is dating two women at once, I am within my rights as a fellow man to say "Um, don't do that." If he says, what should I do, I am still within my rights to say "The goal is to find happiness with one partner. We agree there. I don't know how to get you to that point, necessarily. But dating two women at once is NOT a solution."

We can't force the President to run the war a certain way; he's said himself the surge is happening whether Congress approves or not (disregard for a moment Constitutional concerns there). But we can tell him, and Congress must consider it it's duty to do so, that he is wrong. Did Senator Fullbright have to know how to fix Vietnam to tell Johnson that he was wrong? No. If Harry Reid knew how to solve Iraq, by god HE should be President. No one knows how to solve Iraq; we all think we do. But squelching dissent because you don't like to hear it is NOT constructive at all.