Tonight’s article is brought to you through the courtesy of Doug and the Slugs, a fine Canadian Band who reigned supreme on the old Night Flight Show, bringing forth some remarkably funny music videos.

Drop by their home page to learn how this song goes.

Late night, boozin' oh I'm out of control
Red lights, cruisin', I got no sense of soul
I knew, you knew, hey we both knew the crime
Blacker, bluer, oh I'm back in the line

(Making it work) takes a little longer
(Making it work) takes a little time
(Making it work) takes a little longer
(Making it work) takes a little time

Sometimes the old times, oh they drag onto new
Bad nights, bad wine oh what we made it through
I wonder how I'm still on the case
Help me help you, oh we'll find us a place.

Some people might take heart from this article in today’s WaPo.

The House, with overwhelming, bipartisan support, voted yesterday to give the Bush administration two months to present to Congress its planning for the withdrawal of combat forces in Iraq.

The 377 to 46 vote was the first salvo of a new legislative strategy adopted by House Democratic leaders, away from partisan confrontation and toward a more incremental approach to war policy that can bring Republicans to their side. The withdrawal-planning bill had met fierce opposition this summer from ardent Iraq war foes, who scuttled an earlier vote by saying it would do nothing but give Republicans political cover for their support of President Bush's policies.

Sounds wonderful! “You’ve got 60 days to tell us what you’re going to do about changing course.”

Not exactly.

Under bill, the defense secretary would have 60 days to present to Congress plans for withdrawing combat forces and making a transition from a military mission to one of counterterrorism and the training of Iraqi security forces. But the measure would not specify a withdrawal timeline or require the administration to implement the plan.

The report would have to detail the number of troops necessary for the new missions, the equipment that would have to remain, exactly how troops and materiel would be brought home, and a timeline for the transition. After the initial report, the administration would have to report back every 90 days. Advocates said the continual requirement to report would keep discussions of troop reductions in the forefront of the war debate. [emph added]

So, now we’re saying the Bu$h malAdministration must invent some plans that they know, and the Congress knows, and you know, and I know, will never be used, because our military and foreign policy is held in the fervent scaly grip of people dedicated to keeping US troops fighting in the Middle East until every Arab (and Persian) country has been reduced to the state of social and civic collapse that Iraq now is in.

And notice, please that “Democratic leaders stared down the antiwar left and went forward with the vote.” Well, now, how brave of them! “We’ll show those damned anti-war lefties! We’ll produce another toothless bill.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who has said that any Iraq legislation should ensure troop withdrawals, gave no assurance yesterday that he would give the bill a Senate vote.

No, I suppose not. Not with the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment, which just about begs the Bu$hies to attack Iran, passing 76-23. You couldn’t make Senate Republicans vote for this travesty if you put guns in their ears.

Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), John Tanner (D-Tenn.) insist this is a great moment, a ‘turning point” because it will bring up withdrawal debates every 90 days when the Secretary of Defense must report to Congress. This assumes, of course, that they bother coming back to Congress. I frankly can’t see George Bu$h, who has almost as much contempt for Congress as he has for the Constitution (or you and me, for that point) report anything to Congress.

Nice going Harry, Nancy. Let’s see you “stare us down” when you need some fucking money for the 2008 elections.

On the other hand, there are some Democrats who might actually have taken their testicles out of the escrow vault:

Even as House leaders were pursuing a compromise, three leading House Democrats vowed yesterday that they will not entertain Bush's war funding request until he dramatically changes his Iraq war policy. The lawmakers -- Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (Wis.), defense subcommittee head John P. Murtha (Pa.) and Jim McGovern (Mass.) -- also proposed paying for any further war funding with a temporary surtax that would add 2 to 15 percent to existing income tax bills.

The surtax idea is a nifty one. When Joe Sixpack starts seeing he’s going to have to start paying today for Mr Bu$h’s ego-war, he might not be such a fan of “killin’ them ragheads” although the 27 percenters will probably happily pay up.

Will corporations also have to ante up, Mr Obey? Yes, it’s really important.

Incredibly enough, Speaker Pelosi doesn’t like the idea of paying today for today’s war.

"Some have suggested that shared sacrifice should take the form of a draft; others have suggested a surtax. Those who oppose a tax and the draft also should oppose the President's war. Just as I have opposed the war from the outset, I am opposed to a draft and I am opposed to a war surtax."

But you won’t do any damned thing to stop the war, Ms Pelosi. You’re missing the entire point, of course. Those who oppose the war should be making it as painful as possible for those who like the g_ddamned thing.