The Democratic "leadership" has wimped out already, agreeing to remove timelines from the Iraq funding bill. I don't know why they would "compromise" with a man with approval ratings in the low 30s who is moving forward with an unpopular war, but i bet they think they were being strategic and trying to not look like hardliners. Here's how that "strategy" has been perceived:

Here's how it plays in the media:

Democrats Concede On Iraq

Democrats Retreat in Funding Showdown

Bush Wins Congressional Battle Over Iraq

Democrats Concede. Democrats Retreat. Bush Wins. And that's not even covering the many stories on how the Democrats "caved in" or "blinked." Yes, that's exactly the kind of news everyone was looking for after 2006. I think we were all hoping for headlines just like these.

There are a few stories out there about how Democrats need to explain this position to "liberals," that being the 70% of the public who wants out of Iraq. I can answer that one quickly: don't bother.

Despite the failure of our "leaders", its still possible to reject this by getting the rank and file Democratic congress people to vote against the watered down bill. If you care, you can call or email your representative and tell them you don't support removing the timelines and that they should vote no.

You need to stop reading American News. The BBC headline is a lot less partisan.

Democrats drop Iraq pull-out plan

Damn that liberal media bias!

But, anyway, this might be slightly misogynistic, but when I heard this news, I exclaimed, "PUSSIES!" and I think that's what most Americans will also think whether they agreed with them or not.