So the Post most helpfully trumpets this morning: Democrats Split Over Timetable For Troops. So the number of Democrats who support a timetable versus those who don't is the big issue of the day? This is the news? Chris Shays, a very high profile Republican was calling for a timetable last week. He may be just one member, but that's a significant split from Bush. Sometimes quality of opposition counts just as much as quantity.
What is Bush's strategy for the next two years anyway? Nonexistent beyond "stay the course." He can't even answer a question on it clearly, as seen at his press conference last week. But, of course, the Democrats are once again to be held to a higher standard. Bush gets away with babbling nonsense and unresponsiveness when asked about a change in strategy. But Democrats aren't so lucky. They have the Post to answer to for mathematical uniformity on their timetable for withdrawal...
The more important question, it seems to me, is who do you want providing oversight of Bush in congress - Republicans who are in lock step with Bush, as noted by this article, and who have driven the Iraq policy into the ditch - or people who are actually willing to display some thought about the issue? Who, dare I say, might not have a perfect plan for a timetable, but who are actually willing to consider such new directions?
What the strategy should be in Iraq is Bush's responsibility. It's not up to Democrats to be uniformly singing for a date certain for withdrawal. What a sideshow. Some media are clearly buying Rove's efforts to make Iraq an issue the Democrats have to answer for when it's a big, fat, George W Bush/Republican congress-enabled mess.