If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable. The Democrats are going to try again to limit Bush’s ability to wage war. They are trying everything but the only thing they are able to do under the constitution.

Senior House Democrats, seeking to placate members of their party from Republican-leaning districts, are pushing a plan that would place restrictions on President Bush’s ability to wage the war in Iraq but would allow him to waive them if he publicly justifies his position.

Under the proposal, Bush would also have to set a date to begin troop withdrawals if the Iraqi government fails to meet benchmarks aimed at stabilizing the country that the president laid out in January.

The plan is an attempt to bridge the differences between anti-war Democrats, led by Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), who have wanted to devise standards of troop readiness strict enough to force Bush to delay some deployments and bring some troops home, and Democrats wary of seeming to place restrictions on the president’s role as commander in chief.
The legislative jujitsu in the backrooms of Capitol Hill underscores the difficulties the Democrats face in confronting the issue that helped them regain control of Congress — Iraq. Democrats passed a resolution in February opposing Bush’s deployment of 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, but Murtha’s proposal to go a step further by restricting deployment to troops deemed to be adequately trained and equipped elicited a fierce response from Republicans, while also dividing the Democratic caucus.
The new plan would demand that Bush certify that combat troops meet the military’s own standards of readiness, which are routinely ignored. The president could then waive such certifications if doing so is in “the national interest.”
Democrats hope the waiver and benchmark proposals, whose details were confirmed by aides and senior Democrats close to the House Appropriations Committee and leadership, will keep the policymaking responsibilities on Bush. That should allow the committee to move forward next week with a $100 billion war spending bill.

What’s amazing about this proposal is how unconstitutional it is to make the president dance to the tune set by Congress:

If those benchmarks are not met, Democrats would demand Bush submit to Congress a timetable for withdrawing troops, leadership aides said. The idea is to force Bush to abide by his own promises but to make sure he remains responsible for conducting and ending the war.

And then there’s this:

But unlike last month, when nonbinding language expressing opposition to Bush’s troop increase plan was blocked by GOP procedural objections, Democrats this time intend to give Republicans broad latitude to offer their own Iraq-related measures. If Republicans go along, the result could be a remarkably robust and wide-open debate — but nothing of consequence is likely to pass.

That’s refreshingly honest!
I can’t see how any of this would appease their base. If the country wants an end to the war like everyone is saying, then they should be able to cut funding and force Bush to bring home the troops. I think that the reason they don’t is because they know that the country doesn’t want Congress to mess with the war effort and that they don’t want to own what happens in Iraq if we leave the country before they are ready.