Like the Right Wing blogs, as described by Blogometer, I am not comfortable with what the Politico blog describes as the Democratic strategy on Iraq, but for different reasons of course. Politico reports:

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.

. . . As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement -- the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.

Unlike the deluded Right, which describes this strategy as Surrender without Responsibility!, my problem is that it does not move to end the war immediately. The contrargument is that defunding the war does not have the votes and this is the quickest way yo end the war. If that is true, then this might be defensible. I do not think it is.