This represents complete recognition that the Democratic ideas about Iraq -- as outlined by Senators Carl Levin and Russ Feingold -- are in line with the rest of the country. (These would be the non-existent ideas that the Democrats supposedly don't have.) We've heard for months, if not years, that setting any sort of timeline or even benchmarks for withdrawal from Iraq would represent a 'cut and run' policy. In fact, we're still hearing it now. Frist says that the Republicans' "real objective was to get out of this timeline of cutting and running that the Democrats have in their amendment."

Frist is lying about the Democratic amendment, though. As the Times piece points out (in the second to last paragraph), the Democratic amendment demands that the White House give " 'estimated dates' for redeployment of American troops once a series of conditions was met, with the caveat that 'unexpected contingencies may arise.' " There is no 'cutting and running' there.

There will likely be a lot of push for the Democrats to give up their proposal and sign on to the Republicans'. But the Republican plan doesn't really hold the President at all accountable. In fact, all it does is give Bush cover to continue the same policies that have gotten us where we are today -- it's a farce. The Democrats have never been in a stronger position than they are today. I hope they take advantage of their new found strength.