Well, it looks like the DemocratICK leadership of both houses of Congress are looking to repeal the authorization of force in Iraq, replacing it with a withdrawal timetable. But will that move fly with the American people -- and their own members?

Senate Democratic leaders intend to unveil a plan next week to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military's role and begins withdrawals of combat troops.

House Democrats have pulled back from efforts to link additional funding for the war to strict troop-readiness standards after the proposal came under withering fire from Republicans and from their party's own moderates. That strategy was championed by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and endorsed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

"If you strictly limit a commander's ability to rotate troops in and out of Iraq, that kind of inflexibility could put some missions and some troops at risk," said Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.), who personally lodged his concerns with Murtha.

In both chambers, Democratic lawmakers are eager to take up binding legislation that would impose clear limits on U.S. involvement in Iraq after nearly four years of war. But Democrats remain divided over how to proceed. Some want to avoid the funding debate altogether, fearing it would invite Republican charges that the party is not supporting the troops. Others take a more aggressive view, believing the most effective way to confront President Bush's war policy is through a $100 billion war-spending bill that the president ultimately must sign to keep the war effort on track.

What is missed in this calculation is the fact that EITHER direction will legitimately be presented as not supporting the troops -- just as the recent non-binding resolutions put forward by the Copperheads can only be viewed as a failure to support the troops and the abandonment of an ally.

However, I said some time ago that the Democrats should have the cojones to seek binding legislation if they want to act against the war -- that they should put their money where their mouth is. Let's see how serious they really are on th issue, or if all the anti-war talk is nothing but window-dressing -- because I believe that the Democrats know that any binding legislation to tie the hands of the President and the US military will ultimately be rejected by the American people.

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 409 words, total size 3 kb.