I have yet to see a diary on this, or any significant coverage so I thought I would point it out. Remember when, only a little while ago, the Republican party was attempting to depict Democrats as "without a plan." If you'll recall, there weren't many opportunities for Democrats to "have" a plan as virtually any and all "valid" plans were called irresponsible, or were said to over-step the bounds of congressional authority. No, the GOP said (pretty much in unison) if the Democrats want the troops so badly out of Iraq they would have to cut the funding.
Well we Democrats are not that stupid. Many Democrats said "hey wait, if we cut the funding you're going to accuse us of hurting the troops"
You'll keep the troops in Iraq, whether they have funding or not and than accuse US of denying them necessary funding. The reaction was a collective gasp on the part of the GOP. (You know the kind) "What(gasp)? We? Allow our troops to stay in harms way? Without FUNDING? You think we would play politics (whimper) with the sob l-l-l....LIVES OF OUR TROOOOPS! WAAAAAAH!!! What kind of monsters do you you think we are? If you prick us do we not bleed (eyes upturned in pleading to the almighty)" and so on....
A month later "commander in chief" George W. has promised set policy by keeping troops in Iraq. He is also going to veto a bill for their supply, but it is not his fault for keeping the troops in harms way. It is the Democrats fault for refusing to fund them. That the Democrats are NOT refusing to fund them is beside the point. George Bush is going to have his war and if the Democrats try to refuse him it he will, indeed, play politics with the lives of the troops in order to keep it.
The GOP did make one mistake in this process. They defined EXACTLY what Bush is doing right now, as playing politics with the lives of the troops. Let us remind them of that.