Democrats have forged a new strategy for withdrawal from Iraq. They have determined their preferred immediate cut-off of funds to be politically risky, and are contriving instead to combine a slow strangulation of the war effort with demoralizing antiwar resolutions, at least for the time being.

You see, while they affirm with moral certainty that the Iraq War is a failure and cannot be won and that staying there merely "wastes" more lives, they cannot muster the moral courage to vote to end funding for it right away, because THAT might cause some political backlash. Such men of conviction, these Democrats!

John Bresnahan reports at The Politico:

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.

The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable.

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.

Read the rest at the link above. This political calculation isn't meeting with approval in some antiwar Democratic constituencies, according to the Associated Press:

"The people chose you due to your opposition to Bush's policy in Iraq, but it appears that you are marching with him to the same abyss"

* * * * *

. . . called what he described as Bush' failure in Iraq and the growing Taliban resistance in Afghanistan the "most important events" of the past year. He also said "the people cooperating with the United States in Afghanistan and in Iraq would be abandoned by the Americans once they fail, the same way they did in Vietnam."

Read the rest at the preceding link. I omitted all the usual moonbat ranting about Bush being a drunk, etc.

Hat-tip to Gateway Pundit for noticing the testiness of a key antiwar activist.