As you say, the Legislative branch does not run foreign policy and can only influence it indirectly. A more rational explanation of what I’m saying above is that I hope the new Congress and Senate will do everything they can to influence new approaches to the war in Iraq.

You write as though an impeachment conviction were even a theoretical possibility. Consider: Article I of the Constitution: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

2/3 of the Senate is 67. Democrats now number 51 in that chamber. What other possible Senators could comprise that number?

Also: article II states: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It’s not a parliamentary vote of no confidence. It calls for criminal charges, like treason, perjury, obstruction of justice, accepting bribes, etc.

“Instead, I want the new Congress and Senate to quickly pass legislation withdrawing past Congressional support for our current Iraq war, and to set a firm timetable for the fastest exit possible.” As one of your commenters writes, the “support” you mention is the first clause is financial. Congress can cut off funding. They can’t “set a firm timetable” or otherwise command the army (although they could effectively defund the war whenever they want).

“The new Congress and Senate will have to work hard to establish new diplomatic channels that do not fall under the influence of the Executive office.” Congress can open whatever channels they want. Those channels don’t constitute U. S. foreign policy. The Constitution explicitly grants the Executive control of the military and vests it with the responsibility for receiving foreign ambassadors. Aside from the ability to declare war, I see no Constitutional mandate for Congress conducting U.S. foreign policy. Do you?

What struck me as uniquely pathetic about the whole ordeal was that Congressmen have no Constitutional authority to directly involve themselves in foreign policy - that is the province of the Executive. To even attempt this, borders on treason - an effort to overturn the Constitutional authority of the US government. People should be aware of this when they vote for a president. Morons like Reagan and Bush, get to decide our planet-wide policies. They don’t just cut federal taxes - causing states and municipalities to raise their taxes to make up for the shortfall.

The only thing a new Congress can do is - control the money. Congress has the authority to decide how tax dollars are spent, i.e., to fund a useless war or not. And traditionally Congressmen have no spine. They won’t demand a balanced budget wherein monies wasted on war would have to come from cuts in Social Security or Medicare. Nor will they reform Congress by ending the contemptible practice of running the nation through elitist Committee Chairmanships.

On the bright side, a Democratic Congress will halt the Nazi-style authoritarianism of the current Executive; which I think is a far more serious issue than our current Vietnam-like war. Good people are willing to die for Bush/Cheney in this war - that is a personal choice that their children will have to live with. Or as Sgt. Dudley told me when we were stationed in Italy - when the Russians attack, my ass is heading for the hills.

(Just an aside - to focus your thoughts on US politics, check out how our government works - via firstgov.org.)