Democrats get sucker punched again.

The WaPo reports:

"Senate Democrats reacted angrily yesterday to a report that the U.S. commander in Iraq had privately presented a plan for significant troop reductions in the same week they came under attack by Republicans for trying to set a timetable for withdrawal.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said that the plan attributed to Gen. George W. Casey resembles the thinking of many Democrats who voted for a nonbinding resolution to begin a troop drawdown in December. "

Hmm. . . does she think so?

Now let me get this straight; last week the Senate by a large majority rejected the Kerry/Feingold amendment calling for a pull out of US troops from Iraq by a date certain next year. Similarly, another Democratic amendment put forward by Carl Levin calling for a large withdrawal by the end of next year, but without a set timetable, also failed with almost all Democrats --again -- voting 'No.'

For all their caution not appear to be 'cutting and running,' they've walked right into a trap, haven't they?

It turns out now that General George Casey and the Pentagon have a plan to withdraw most troops by the end of next year, depending on the situation, the very same policy Levin promoted, but which the majority of Democrats voted against. While the GOP comes off looking like they're strong on defense, fighting the war on terror by 'staying the course,' while at the same time taking credit for withdrawing troops -- as early as August no less--- the Dems come off looking like indecisive bumblers who couldn't even summon up the courage to vote against the president's disastrous policies, which clearly have been rejected by a majority of Americans.

If the Democrats hadn't been such a bunch of 'fraidy cats and had voted to a man and woman on a principled renunciation of the administration’s polices; they could've said ' you see we were right along and W. knows it,' when the news of withdrawals were made official. But instead, the Republicans can now say they're the ones who are listening to the American people by declaring victory and pulling out.

If things don't go according to plan for the administration and W.'s vision of 'victory' in Iraq -- a stable democratic government who fights terror on our side -- doesn't pan out and Iraq turns into a festering nexus of Iranian style fundamentalist Islamic terror, he can still turn around and say it was all the Democrat's fault for wanting to 'cut and run.' Nice work!

Whoever the GOP nominee is, he (there is no possibility of a she) can use this vote against the Dems, too, by saying they are as much responsible for the mess in Iraq as W. is, because they voted against pulling out. Sure both sides were wrong, he can say, but we were a little more right, because we knew this is what would happen if we cut and run, like the Dems said we should.

If I were the Democrats I'd be mad too.