Democrats, unlike Republicans, attack each other without restraint. All very democratic, but there are downsides--like the current movements among Democrats supporting the Out of Iraq caucus to defeat the Pelosi/Murtha Iraq Accountability Act.
What do they hope to gain from their opposition?
Principle? Don't they realize that the bulk of Democrats feel they can't afford to vote for something that doesn't "support the troops?" Don't they realize that Barbara Lee's initiative (with which I agree in principle) is not going to gain anywhere near a majority, but Pelosi's bill could carry the House, and might even pass through the Senate if a filibuster can be avoided?
Yes, her bill is not great; it fully funds the war (which is obnoxious), but it sets up "benchmarks" that both the US military and the Iraqi government have to meet, and most importantly, it sets up, for the first time a time certain when most (I wish all) US troops have to come home. Yes, there are various ways that Bush could fudge, and undoubtedly would try, if this bill became law, but that's what Congressional oversight is for.
Further, it sets up a dilemma for Bush; does he sign, and therefore ratify the date certain departure and the benchmarks, or does he veto, in which case setting up a situation where The President denies funds for the troops?
Actually, I think Pelosi and Murtha's strategy is impeccable, and the complaining left-wing (with whom I'm usually in agreement) should fall into line.