WHY should the Dems concede ground to an opposition that has no negotiating leverage?

At any rate, I don't think Feingold-Reid will pass, more's the pity. That's why I support, as I wrote this morning at Daily Kos, adding the Murtha train-rest-equip provisions to the next funding bill that will inevitably, imo, be sent to Bush IF he vetoes whatever ocmes out the conference committee later this month. So the next bill would be three months worth, with Murtha provisions and withdrawal timetables. Not because I disfavor defunding, on the contrary, but rather because we're going to lose the defunding fight, and we need a fallback unless we're willing to wait until 2009 to stop the occupation.

A key advantage of Murtha  is that it means the splurge stops dead because troops that aren't properly trained, equipped and rested wouldn't be able to be sent (or re-sent) to Iraq, and, conceivably, many of those now there would have to come home because they don't have the right equipment or training and they've been extended more than once.

So, Murtha #2 means withdrawal begins the day it passes. Unlike Feingold-Reid, it doesn't wait 120 days. And it has the potential to be veto-proof if the Dem leadership frames it correctly. And Murtha #2 starts a withdrawal that leads,I think, to Murtha Plan #1, a withdrawal within 4-6 months, which is about as fast as logistically possible.

The Murtha Plan, on the other hand, could [get enough votes to make up a veto-proof majority]. It has appeal for the guys with semper fi pasted on their bumpers as well as those of us with Out Now! symbols stuck on ours. (There should be, in fact, no reason a bumper can't have both.)

My take on that how to make Murtha work:

A targeted selection of Senators and Representatives who object to the Murtha Plan could be verbally ambushed in public forums in their home districts: Sir (or ma'am, as the case may be), do you think we should send exhausted soldiers back to Iraq before they have rested? You do? Should National Guardsmen be sent to fight without adequate training? They should? Do Marines deserve to have adequate armor and other equipment when they are sent to stand in the middle of somebody else's civil war? They don't? Put together a dozen or so of these Q&As up as YouTube videos (or ads in the mainstream media). And then let's see these elected officials try to argue what great patriots they are.

Any politician who is willing to ship American fighting women and men off to war (any war) without training them, equipping them and making sure they have enough downtime between combat assignments is a scoundrel. Yes, you Blue Dogs, if you're one of these, then I mean you, too.