If they cannot force a pell-mell retreat from Iraq because there is actually a victory in sight, the Democrats seem intent upon simply abandoning the troops in the field by cutting off their funding.

The Senate also planned to vote on legislation by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Reid, D-Nev., that would cut off funding for combat next year.

Got that -- the Senate Majority Leader is sponsoring a bill to eliminate funding for soldiers on the field of battle during time of war.

I think that sponsoring of such legislation could legitimately be considered a violation of Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution, and the provisions of Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 would seem to allow charges to be brought against Reid and Feingold for that violation, as that particular offense is specifically exempted from the immunity of legislators under the "Speech or Debate" clause.

Anyone want to tell me again how the Democrats "support the troops"?

NOTE TO ANDREW SULLIVAN: Now you see why the President cannot gather opponents into his cabinet, any more than Lincoln could invite Copperheads into his his inner circle during the Civil War.

H/T Don Surber

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Right Celebrity, Faultline USA, Wake Up America, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Republican National Convention Blog, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.