Iraq

The President has a plan. It may be a good plan, a bad plan, a successful plan, or not really much of a plan.

Then there's the other party, whose plan is reviewed by Victor Davis Hanson:

After listening tonight to Wesley Clark, Dick Durbin, Tom Vilsack, Nancy Pelosi, etc. I still can't for the life of me learn what they want to do. Not one will support Ted Kennedy's cut-off of funds. Apparently the party line is that we can't win, but we're afraid to pull out in case we do, and so we will equivocate as we watch the battlefield and make the necessary rhetorical adjustments just in time.

I think that's just about right. It would not be entirely unfair for Democrats to say:

This is the President's war, and it has been conducted as he thought best. What he's done has not worked, and we have no confidence that what he proposes will work any better. We don't have any better ideas, but as Commander-in-Chief it's his job to come up with ideas about making war. We'll give him six months, at which time we'll pass a resolution calling for him to bring the troops home with all deliberate speed. Three months later, if withdrawal is not proceeding apace, we will vote to cut off funds for the Iraq war as of three months later.

Nothing like this will happen, of course, because it would involve taking responsibility, something Congressmen and Senators are allergic to.