WHAT MORE COULD BE DONE? Like most of us who oppose the war, I'm disappointed with how the vote turned out yesterday. But I'm not exactly sure what more folks would have had the Democrats do. The political invulnerability of President Bush is, I think, a reality that hasn't quite penetrated the punditocracy. Bush is never running for office ever again. He has no political heir to protect, and is clearly uninterested in the future fortunes of the Republican Party. He is massively unpopular, and his agenda is utterly stymied in the Democratic Congress. He can literally veto the spending bills forever -- Congress has absolutely no leverage against him. And the American people, at least as I read the polls, will not support the defunding of the troops. Maybe Congress could have forced a second veto, but the idea that they could continually force Bush's veto and that would result in an eventual win seems wrong. Meanwhile, I'm wary of wrapping opposition to the war in the guise of the troops. I'm certainly in agreement with David Sirota's anger over the political handicapping that has not a word for "how many American troops will be killed or maimed between now and [September]," but it's also true that, as Spencer Ackerman explains, the troops have their own voice on this, and they're not clamoring for withdrawal. So far as continuing the war goes, that's neither here nor there: The war is a bad idea because it's a bad idea, and it must end. But tying that sentiment too closely to the perceived desires of the troops could be dangerous. --Ezra Klein
