Looks like I was premature when I suggested that just because Democrats refuse to use their authority to bring the war to an end, they did not have a plan. Apparently they figure 'why end the war by ending it, when we can instead embarrass the Republicans some more:'
Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That's a standard Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet.
In addition, Murtha, acting with the backing of the House Democratic leadership, will seek to limit the time and number of deployments by soldiers, Marines and National Guard units to Iraq, making it tougher for Pentagon officials to find the troops to replace units that are scheduled to rotate out of the country. Additional funding restrictions are also being considered by Murtha, such as prohibiting the creation of U.S. military bases inside Iraq, dismantling the notorious Abu Ghraib prison and closing the American detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
I doubt that the Democrats will be able to put lipstick on a pig. They can couch their proposal in terms of 'readiness,' but as they sell their case to the American people it will still sound like cutting off needed support for troops in the field.
Further, one has to remember that Joe Lieberman has a veto on everything that the Democrats do - particularly with regard to Iraq. If they intend to starve the effort on the vine, it will have to come with his consent. What's the likelihood that he allows such a measure to come to the floor of the Senate?
I suppose Democrats can always threaten to gin up the grassroots and threaten him with primary opposition the next time he runs for re-election.
Yeah. That'll work.