Democrats cave on Iraq timetable

But they haven't given up on their cut and run strategy.

President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.

Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president's veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability, "transition" the U.S. military role and show "a reasonable way to end this war."

"We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said after a White House meeting. "But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war."

If they're committed to ending the war, cut funding. But they can't do that because there are not enough votes to defund it. That's the problem. They can't get what they want honestly (by a vote) so they'll try to get it in a devious manner. Typical.

I would think that this type of benchmark would be within their authority:

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) indicated that the next bill will include benchmarks for Iraq -- such as passing a law to share oil revenue, quelling religious violence and disarming sectarian militias -- to keep its government on course. Failure to meet benchmarks could cost Baghdad billions of dollars in nonmilitary aid, and the administration would be required to report to Congress every 30 days on the military and political situation in Iraq.

What's wrong with that? Cutting aid to the Iraqi government gives them an incentive to work out their differences and pass the legislation necessary to get the economy going in Iraq and for parties to see that it's in their best interest to get the oil flowing so that they can share in the revenue. It makes sense and it doesn't impact the job that the military is doing.

And if it makes the Democrats happy, send them a report. What the heck? Why not? There are so many reports floating around Washington, what's one more.

And then there's this:

Already, liberal Democrats think that public opinion and circumstances in Iraq are on their side, and they view benchmarks alone as far too weak. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (Wis.) has repeatedly told Democratic leaders that he would not report a war funding bill out of his committee that he could not support. Pelosi is also reluctant to embrace such a compromise until she sees how far congressional Republicans are willing to bend.

If Obey can't do his job, maybe he should be replaced. His opinion doesn't trump his responsibility to support our troops during a time of war. Whether he supports the war or not, as long as they don't have the votes to defund it, they have to fund it.