Isn't this the "short lease" plan the Democrats announced yesterday?

[madfloridian]

I thought it sounded familiar. This is from April 26.

We've already endorsed the idea that Congress should follow-up the veto by putting the administration on a "short leash" -- providing a temporary extension of funding without withdrawal deadlines, but requiring the president to come back for additional funds with some sort of honest assessment of conditions in the country and a clear exit strategy for the United States.

Honest assessment from GWB...when hell freezes over.

From the New Dem Dispatch, April 26.

Putting the President on a Short Leash

More about it:

This approach continues to make a lot of sense substantively and politically. To an astonishing extent, Bush remains in a state of deep denial about the failure of his Iraq strategy. But even worse, he is in denial about its implications for the broader fight with jihadist terrorism -- which should be the primary focus of our foreign policy in Iraq and elsewhere -- just as the fight against totalitarian communism was our central focus during the Cold War. Each day we continue the administration's course of action in Iraq, we lose ground in that broader struggle, and at a terrible price in lives and resources, and in our nation's moral authority and influence, especially in the greater Middle East. To use the vice president's favorite term of abuse for anyone who questions the administration's policies, Bush's stubborn refusal to change course is emboldening our enemies and delaying the political settlement that is the only way to bring our Iraq engagement to an honorable and acceptable end.

Since neither logic, nor expert advice, nor bipartisan reports, nor overwhelming public opinion has had any visible impact on this administration when it comes to Iraq, Congress is duty-bound to make every effort to turn things around by any responsible means available. The "short leash" approach undermines the administration's classic Rovian tactic of polarizing the debate into a false choice between perpetual pursuit of failed policies and a precipitous withdrawal, with no rational "exit strategy" in either event. And forcing Bush back to the negotiating table quickly will also maintain unity among virtually all Democrats and some Republicans who agree that ending our combat role in Iraq and making Iraqis (with international help) responsible for a political settlement is the only way to avoid the defeat that Bush and Cheney keep claiming they want to avoid -- and the only path to success in the battle against jihadism, the goal against which any legislation on Iraq must be judged.

Perhaps forcing him back to the table is a good idea, but not without timelines.

And I don't see much unity among Democrats since yesterday.

[Heath Hatcher]

1. That's because there not united on this current bill

Since the timeline is taken out for now it's totally pissed off the anti war base of the party(which makes up about 1/3 of our house caucus), it's so bad our own speaker won't even vote for it so god even know what will even happen if this reaches the Senate. Something going on here, there's a better bill coming soon.

[madfloridian]

2. Just pointing out...

the policy setters. Or so it seems. It is bad, you are right.

[Heath Hatcher]

3. What are you talking about i'm glad there not united

Maybe there a chance this bill won't pass because it gets pretty bad when a good bit of your house caucus including your speaker is turning on this bill.

[madfloridian]

4. Of course I hope the bill won't pass.

.