E Pluribus Unum

Murtha's plan, although popular with the people, is apparently DOA in Congress. Instead, the Dems (including the Blue Dogs) hope to pass a plan that requires the Commander in Chief to provide Congress with a "presidential waiver" for any troops that do not meet their "standard" for deployment.

Feh.

It's clear that the Dems are split into two camps: those that do not want to stay the course versus those who do not to change the course. As a result, they are trying to have it both ways which means they will have it no way at all.

Because no one is willing to lead the way with legislation to end the war (translation: "cut off funding") the difference between the Dems and Republicans is minimal, if not zero. So the war will keep going for at least another two years, if not longer. This, despite what the people want.

Bottom line: if Dems vote for the presidential waiver option, they will own the war for the next two years.

UPDATE: Russ Feingold is the only one so far who is talking sense:

I am working to fix the new proposal drafted by several Senate Democrats, which at this point basically reads like a new authorization. I will not vote for anything that the President could read as an authorization for continuing with a large military campaign in Iraq. Deauthorizing the President’s failed Iraq policy may be an appropriate next step if done right, but the ultimate goal needs to be using our Constitutionally-granted power of the purse to bring this catastrophe to an end.

UPDATE: Chris Bowers thinks Steny Hoyer is behind the House refusal to allow a roll-call vote on Murtha's proposal. Makes sense: There's no love lost between those two rivals.