Iraq War Funding

I was outraged when I found that my congress critter, Dennis Moore, the man who is supposed to represent my interests in Congress, though a Democrat who professes that he is unhappy about the war still voted for the supplemental appropriations bill to give the Idiot in Chief enough money for another year of mass murder.

Here is what I sent him immediately after the vote:

Dear Congressman, I am terribly disappointed that you voted for the Iraq Supplemental money bill. Besides the pork included as a sweetener which is a terrible waste of the people's money you allowed the mass murder to go on for many more months.
At the rate that deaths have been occuring, you probably signed on for at least 20,000 more deaths (if you count Iraqis as human beings, that is).

Since money is the only lever that congress has to stop the war, with an evil man in the White House, you gave up the opportunity to stop the slaughter till this pile of money is used up.
Can you explain why you did this other than some cynical vote calculus? end

Today, I received his answer. It is a three page letter but I shall distill it down to three paragraphs that actually answered the question and we shall see what it all means.

Dennis Moore wrote:
"This passage of this legislation marks the beginning of the end of the Iraq war. H.R. 2206 brings accountability to the war for the first time and ends the previous policy of blank checks and open ended commitments.

I understand and share your frustration with the continued U.S. military involvement in Iraq, but to cut off all funding for the troops by voting against this bill would have been irresponsible and unrealistic. In early May, Congress sent the President an emergency supplemental spending bill for Iraq that provided every dollar President Bush requested for military operations in Iraq. It also provided a plan to bring this war to a responsible end, including language to start to redeploy our troops in four months, and to have the majority of them out by 2008, apart from a small number that would remain to continue training Iraqi Security.Forces. I supported this legislation, but President Bush vetoed this bill on May 1, 2007, and repeatedly stated his intention to veto any future bill containing a timeline for withdrawal. Due to the unwillingness of the Administration to compromise on this matter, Congress was forced to alter portions of the original bill in order to ensure our troops currently serving in Iraq have the equipment and supplies they need. While President Bush may be willing to play political games with this issue, I am not. As long as U.S. military personnel will remain in Iraq, I will do everything I can to ensure they, and their families back home, have the protection and support they deserve.

My support for the supplemental to ensure our troops have necessary funding does not mean I support the current strategy in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group (ISG) report, which was published in December 2006, contains several key strategies that I believe need to be implemented in Iraq as soon as possible. As you may know, the most important recommendations from the ISG call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the U.S. to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly." end of letter

So, when 50% of congress could cut off money and end the war, they passed that opportunity by and gave Bush enough money for another year. Now it will take 2/3 to take the money back or otherwise force the end of the war (needed to over ride the expected veto). What do we do now?