Cut-And-Run Caucus Starts Setting Dates

The pressure on San Fran Nan to defund the war must be intense given that the cut-and-run caucus has now proposed actual legislation designed to micromanage the war (from Politico):

The House Democratic plan for funding the war in Iraq could force a pullout of U.S. combat troops starting on July 1, with all American units out of the country by the end of 2007, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Thursday.

Even under the least aggressive timetable laid out by Pelosi and other Democratic leaders, U.S. forces will have withdrawn from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008.

When the pullout begins depends on the progress that the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki makes in meeting political and military benchmarks. President Bush would have to certify by July 1 that the Maliki government is "making progress" toward those goals, or a U.S. withdrawal would start immediately and be finished in six months.

If Bush says there is some progress in reaching the benchmarks, the Maliki government would have until Oct. 1 to formally enact them. If they aren't, pullout begins, and again, it's a six-month timetable to complete withdrawal.

If the Maliki government meets both those deadlines, and Bush certifies that it has, withdrawal would begin on March 1, 2008, with almost all U.S. units out of Iraq by that September.

So the range for U.S. withdrawal under the Democratic plan is as early as July 1, 2007, with departure no later than September 2008.

This is a dramatic new dimension to the Iraq debate, and the structure of the proposal vividly demonstrates the intense pressure that Pelosi is under from the anti-war faction within her caucus to force a vote on a timetable for withdrawal. Pelosi indicated that she would not allow the Out of Iraq Caucus and other anti-war Democrats to have a separate bill requiring all U.S. forces to leave Iraq by Dec. 31 of this year.

The speaker also dismissed a potential veto by Bush, or the likelihood that the bill would get bogged down in the Senate, as immaterial to what she and House Democrats were trying to do. Pelosi said worrying about whether Bush would sign a bill was "too limiting" for House Democrats.

The Dems seem to forget one very important thing - the Constitution does not designate 535 commanders-in-chief. It only recognizes one, and none of them serve in the Congress. Even if such legislation were to pass the Congress, and even if that bill was signed by the president, I don't think it would be enforceable because the president could at any time change what he wants to do in Iraq and ignore the timetables in the bill. That's his perogative as C-in-C.

This is just a show put on for the wacky left caucus and their supporters so they'll keep sending in the campaign bucks. All flash, no substance.