Lack of Escalation in Congress

Well, so far Bush (or Shrub, as my mom calls him) has succeeded again in getting the debate in his court. At the exact time we need to be debating withdrawal of troops, he's moved us into debating the increase. Clever. So while we must, let's look at the Democrats (again, do we have to?). Americans elected them with a hope for change -- let's see, Harry Reid has introduced a resolution against the escalation/surge (voted on yesterday), big whup. A resolution is non-binding, although of course it helps to see the way the wind blows. Clinton voted against it. There goes her presidential hopes. Coleman voted against it, despite saying he's against the escalation (in its present form). Klobuchar voted for it, but if you read her editorial yesterday critically, you can see she probably won't vote for a measure with any teeth. See http://www.startribune.com/562/story/947961.html
She sure talks a good line, but so far, in the last eighteen months has been unwilling to step up to the plate and actually commit to voting against cutting off funding for the war. She keeps saying she doesn't want to leave the troops stranded. But that's even more disturbing, because it shows she hasn't even done a micron of homework on how defense/war funding works. There is 20-70 billion (depending on how you count it) in the pipeline for troop supply/procurement, already approved, from previous fiscal years (such funding can carry over from fiscal year to year). The troops are fine, as long as we withdraw now. The big question is, will the Bush administration complete the takeover of the Iraq oil contracts before Americans insist on withdrawal? Dresser and Halliburton's profits depend upon it!