Okay, as long as I'm feeling hopeful...

...why the heck not throw this in.

There are signs, preliminary and vague, but still signs, of some spine-starch appearing among Congressional Democrats, as no fewer than three plans setting a timetable for withdrawal of most troops from Iraq were presented at press conferences on Thursday.

The toughest of the three, not surprisingly, was that of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which, as I noted a few posts down it was expected to,

proposed legislation that would require Congress fully to fund the safe and secure withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by December 31, 2007.

"Four and half years ago the president asked to give war a chance, and despite our objections he got that chance and he blew it," said Rep. Janice Schakowsky, D-Illinois.

"No more chances. No more waivers. No phony certifications. No more spending billions of dollars to send our children into the meat grinder that is Iraq. It is time to spend the money to keep them safe and bring them home."

The deadline is three or more months longer than I would have allowed, but it is, as the Caucus said, a clear, simple, measure with as few ifs, ands, and buts as possible. A firm deadline. On the other hand, soon after, the House leadership came out with its plan, with a longer timetable and more loopholes - but still, at least, with an outside limit. It

would have U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by August 2008 - or sooner if certain benchmarks of progress aren't met. ...

If Congress finds those conditions have not been met, a 180-day withdrawal of U.S. troops would begin, possibly as early as July. [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi said the barometer of progress would be "a subjective call."

"No matter what, by March 2008, the redeployment begins," she said.

Note the important word, though: "begins." At its maximum effect, the plan would have combat troops out by roughly year's end - a time when the Progressive Caucus plan would have all troops out. More likely, lacking a positive Congressional finding that the "benchmarks" haven't been met, withdrawal doesn't even begin for a year and then takes, if I understand the news reports correctly not having read the actual measure, six more months to complete, bringing it to August 2008. And even at that, as again I noted a few posts down, it allows for the continued presence of perhaps tens of thousands of troops for an unknown length of time.

That hardly endeared the effort to the Progressive Caucus.

"[The leadership's] plan would require us to believe whatever the president would tell us about progress that was being made," said Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California.

"This is same president that led us into a war with false information, [said there were] weapons of mass destruction, said we would be [welcome] with open arms, said that the mission had been accomplished. Now we expect him to give us a progress report in their plan by July?"

But I will take my hope in that, as flawed as it is, it does set some kind of limit; it breaks the stranglehold the word "timetable" has had on the Democratic leadership.

Meanwhile, over in the Senate, the leadership - joined, significantly, by Russ Feingold (significant because he opposed the earlier nonbinding resolution on the esca- er, wait, "surg-," no, dammit, "augmentation," I keep getting that wrong) - announced its own plan, saying that

the current conflict in Iraq requires a political solution, Iraq must take responsibility for its own future, and our troops should not be policing a civil war.

The resolution would require the "phased redeployment" of combat troops to begin within 120 days of passage and to be completed by March 31, 2008. Like the House leaders' plan, it would allow for a "limited number" of troops to remain for training and "counter-terror options."

Unhappily, that also means, like the House leaders' plan and yet again as I said the other day, it endorses the war, endorses the original invasion and occupation, urging withdrawal only because of the fact that it's become a civil war "and that's not what we bargained for." And it accepts the idea that Iraq is a "front" in the War on Terror^{copyright/reg./pat.pend.}. It embraces many of the White House's concepts.

But I'm feeling good tonight, feeling a little hopeful from the fact that all three of these bills actually do set outside limits, with one having all troops out by the end of the year and the others having at least all combat troops out by the end of March 2008 in one case and the end of August 2008 in the other. A psychological wall has been breached. That opening can only get wider - provided, that is, we keep poking at it.

Footnote: Actually, you know what really put a bit of hope in my head today? It was the news that was not expected.

According to Raw Story, after the White House stunned absolutely no one by issuing a veto threat against the plan proposed by the House Democratic leadership, Nancy Pelosi's office responded to questions about it by referring to what she had said at that morning's press conference:

"I say to my colleagues never confine your best work, your hopes, your dreams, the aspiration of the American people to what will be signed by George W. Bush because that is too limiting a factor," the Speaker said....

In simpler terms, the Shrub gang threatened a veto and Pelosi said "So what?"

I've been waiting six years to hear a Congressional Democrat say that. Music.