After nearly five disastrous years, Americans desperately want to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. Our Democratic leaders, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, say they passionately agree with us. So why can't they do it?

Their pathetic excuse is "we don't have 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster."

The American people don't buy this excuse, which is why Congressional approval ratings are down in the sewer. Americans know the majority party in Congress has the power to impose its will on a President if it wants. All Congress has to do is fully exercise the powers granted by Article I in the Constitution.

In the Senate, Harry Reid has various tools to overcome a filibuster. First he can make Republicans actually stand and talk until they drop. And if that doesn't work he can invoke Bill Frist's famous "nuclear option" to end filibusters altogether.

Nancy Pelosi is even more powerful because the House does not permit filibusters. Americans remember how Newt Gingrich forced President Clinton to give up health care reform and the rest of his popular agenda when his approval rating was consistently over 50%, at times over 70%. Certainly Nancy Pelosi can stop Mr. 30%'s deeply unpopular war.

The first power available to Pelosi is Spending Power. The occupation of Iraq costs $10 billion per month, and George Bush can't spend a penny  of our tax dollars without Congressional approval. Americans know Pelosi could tell Bush she will not give him another dime except to safely redeploy our troops out of Iraq, and they would support her if she did.

So why hasn't Pelosi done this? When pressed by Wolf Blitzer, Pelosi said:

"I wish the speaker had all the power you just describe. I certainly could do that. That doesn't bar the minority from bringing up a funding resolution. They have their parliamentary prerogative as well."

What prerogative? As Speaker, Pelosi decides what comes up for a vote and what doesn't. The only tool available to the minority is a petition for a floor vote, which requires 218 signatures. When Pelosi fought for a combat deadline of March 31, 2008 this past March, her opponents only found 212 votes - 198 Republicans and 14 Democrats. Last week one pro-war Republican died.

And Pelosi has lots of ways to persuade the 14 Democrats to change their votes. She could steer defense contracts away from their districts so they have no political reason to support the war. She could cut off other pork like highway funds. She could cut off essential campaign funds from the DCCC. She could take away their committee assignments. If none of those punishments did the trick, she could even recruit and support primary challengers.

On a matter of such monumental importance, Newt Gingrich would have done these things in a heartbeat, as would all the former Speakers. While MSNBC's "Hardball" has been on TV for only 10 years, House Speakers have been playing hardball since 1789.

But for some inexplicable reason, Pelosi rejects the idea of using Spending Power to end the war. When pressed, Pelosi says she would never "cut funds for the troops," as if George Bush and the Pentagon would leave unpaid and unarmed soldiers on the battlefield. Of course that's insane; if no funds were in the pipeline, any commander - even George Bush - would have to redeploy the troops or face court-martial for dereliction of duty. And thanks to the $124 billion supplemental passed by Congress in March over Pelosi's objection, followed by $14 billion more in September, the Pentagon has more than it needs to run convoys to get all our troops from Iraq to Kuwait.

Pelosi's only reason for rejecting this strategy is fear that George Bush would use the "bully pulpit" to attack Democrats for "abandoning the troops." But since Bush has all the money he needs to get our troops out of Iraq - and it's his responsibility as Commander-in-Chief to get it done - why should Democrats care for a second what Bush says?

Bush spent most of 2006 viciously accusing Democrats of wanting to "cut and run," yet Democrats won a sweeping victory which gave them control of the Senate and the House. Polls show opposition to the war - and its architect George Bush - growing with every passing day. If present trends continue, Democrats could gain up to 10 seats in the Senate, 30 seats in the House, and win the White House too - no matter what Bush says.

So Spending Power is all Pelosi needs to end the war. But if she is ultimately unwilling to use it, she could use another time-honored Constitutional power - Bargaining Power. Besides war funds, there are many other things Bush needs from Congress, and Pelosi could attach a troop withdrawal deadline to any or all of them.

Right now, Bush is desperate for Congress to pass a law to legalize warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, and to immunize bureaucrats and telephone companies who engaged in it while it was illegal. Why is Bush desperate? Because everyone in the administration who engaged in illegal wiretapping could go to prison, including both Bush and Cheney after they left office. Constitutional scholars like John Dean, Jonathan Turley, and Bruce Fein, as well as House Democrats like Jerrold Nadler, all agree on this point.

Personally, I believe everyone involved in illegal wiretapping should go to prison, including Bush and Cheney. "Accountability" is one of Pelosi's most-used words, and the administration's repeated violations cry out for Pelosi to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

But if Pelosi were to exercise her Bargaining Power with Bush by trading immunity on wiretapping for a firm deadline to redeploy our troops out of Iraq, I would set aside my insistence on prosecution for warrantless wiretapping and support the bargain for the sake of the troops.

So the bottom line is simple: between Spending Power and Bargaining Power, Nancy Pelosi has all the power she needs to end the Iraq War.

And to prove my point, I will bet a contribution of $2300 - the maximum allowed under the law - to Nancy Pelosi or any other Democrat in Congress who can prove my argument wrong.

If you agree with my argument, I hope you will add your bet to mine below, for whatever amount you can afford.