I work from the following assumptions:

If the war is still going on when a Democratic President is elected, that President will withdraw all, most, or very many of the troops in Iraq.

The withdrawal, whenever it comes, is going to be accompanied by enormous bloodshed, loss of American life, an at least short-term deterioration of the situation in Iraq, and triumphant videos from Iraqi insurgents and Al Queda linked groups.

The question is "Who gets blamed"?

Right now, the fault for the war is mostly on the Republicans. Yes, it's true that the Democrats have not taken partisan action to stop it, and there are some things they could do which would pretty effectively tie George Bush's hands -- but still, the Democrats are able to speak out against the war and, as long as they do, the blame stays with the intransigent Republicans.

The problem is, if the Republicans succeed in running out the clock on the Bush Administration and a new Democratic Administration comes into office and implements a withdrawal they (we!) will "own" the disaster that ensues. It will take an extremely skillful politician and PR team to make sure the blame is placed where it belongs -- on the lunatics who started the war and bungled the aftermath.

But if the Congressional Democrats were to take the non-bi-partisan action that so many here want to see -- by filibustering the funding bill with no Republican support -- the situation is even worse. First off, again, blame for the unavoidably disastrous outcome will likely fall on the Democrats. And although the situation in Iraq will be bad even if a Democratic Commander-In-Chief pulls out the troops, imagine how truly terrible it will be if Bush is in charge! Even if you don't think that the Bush Administration will deliberately sabotage the pull-out, there's a certain basic level of incompetency above which they do not seem to be able to rise.

And compounding the problem will be the fact that the Bush Administration will still control the bully pulpit and will still be exerting control over the news coverage.

Does it matter who gets blamed for the eventual disaster in Iraq? Yes, because it's going to affect politics for at least two decades, just as the Vietnam war did. If the Republicans win, the coming period of Democratic governance could be short-lived indeed. If the Democrats can somehow dodge blame for doing what needs to be done and keep the focus where it belongs, on Republican bungling, they may neutralize the Republican Party for a generation.

Now comes the part of the diary where I tell you my brilliant solution for how the Democrats accomplish that. Except I haven't got one. I have inklings that if they wait until we have the White House and both Houses of Congress it might be done by simultaneously holding scandalous hearings in Congress while carefully controlling the media images out of Iraq (not that Democrats are particularly good at either coordinating their efforts or affecting media coverage).

If it's to be done by Congress before we take the Presidency I really don't see any way to stop the war and not get clobbered politically. That, I believe, is why the Democrats are so focussed on developing bi-partisan support for whatever legislation comes out of Congress and avoiding unilateral action.

If there's anyone who does know how to get out of this mess, put your plan in the comments.