Roberts is good at avoidance

I'm listening to the confirmation hearings, and Sen. Leahy (I believe) asked a very good question: If the Senate has the constitutional authority to declare war, do they have the constitutional authority to end war? Damned good question. Roberts refused to answer because he believes the abstract question reflects a real question he will face as judge, and he has refused to answer questions based on hypothetical questions. Roberts refusal makes me wonder if he thinks that America is in a legal state of war. We aren't. There was no legal declaration of war. I guess this means that all Congress can do is cut funds, so that the President willhave to pull out of Iraq. That's not going to happen, because the Republican led Congress believes in smaller government across the board with one glaring exception: the military. This particular congress has a second exception: Halliburton, but that's because Halliburton is still paying the Vice President nearly $200,000 a year. (Well, they're paying into an account that supposedly is unavailable to Mr. Cheney, but presumably when he is no longer VP he will collect 1.6 million bucks from Halliburton, a tiny tiny fraction of the money we the people have given Halliburton.)
But back to the real question, can Congress declare an end to a war. To my knowledge, all real wars fought be the United States ended in treaties, and Congress has the power to authorize treaties, not the President. The big non-wars, like Korea and Vietnam, also ended in a treaty. I'm trying to think of war like actions started by past presidents that weren't legal declarations of war. Bosnia, Grenada, where else? Not being a great student of history, all I can do is paint broad strokes. I think that at some point the President who ordered the action ordered it stopped.
That means that only Bush can stop the occupation of Iraq and the occupation of Afghanistan. This president will not take any action that can be interpreted as an admission of a mistake, so he has left himself no choice but to "stay the course." There is nothing that Congress can do. Sure, they could try to cut military spending, but that would be wrong. The abuses the ground level forces suffer from the military would only increase as the privateers sucked up all of the remaining money, leaving our soldiers without supplies.
Roberts is avoiding issues he doesn't want to talk about by claiming that the issue represents a hypothetical question. I think he's admitting a lot more by his refusal to answer the Democrats questions.