'Democrats back down'

UPDATED

Okay, Democrats, what part of "hang tough" are you having trouble with?

Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable
Compromise Bill in Works After Veto Override Fails

By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 3, 2007; A01

President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.

Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president's veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability, "transition" the U.S. military role and show "a reasonable way to end this war."

The override was not the point. It was never the point.

The point is that we have to insist on measures that will bring the troops home from Iraq, because Bush is never going to do it. The point is also that we have to demonstrate to the American people that Bush's plan is for an open-ended engagment in Iraq. You only do that by sending him tough measures which include a timeline for withdrawal. If he insists on vetoing the bills, then so be it. We can only hope that at some point he will see the error of his ways and sign one of them. If not, then perhaps the American people will see his intransigence for what it is.

The one thing you never do is give ground to him on the pretext of "negotiating." Bush never negotiates. He insists on getting his way. Period. The troops can't live with that. Literally. They are depending on you to bring them home. Do it.

UPDATE

At TPM's The Horse's Mouth, Greg Sargent reports:

Check this out -- the offices of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are denying a Washington Post story today saying that Congressional Democrats have backed down to the White House by offering to remove Iraq withdrawal language from the now-vetoed Iraq bill.

Pelosi just went before the Democratic caucus and informed them that the story's false, a Pelosi aide tells me. WaPo is standing by the story, and the lead writer of the Post piece, Jonathan Weisman, told me that leadership aides told him that the withdrawal language had to go. But the WaPo story goes further than that, saying explicitly that Dems have already "backed down" and offered the concession of removing the withdrawal language. Those aren't the same thing.

Why report that Dems have already caved in the negotiations if they haven't yet?

There's more, including e-mail responses that Sargent received from Democratic senate aides, and from the WaPo. Go read it.