How do we hamstring the war effort without making it look like we're at fault if it fails?

Hat tip to Powerline blog for making me aware of this story by AP writer Julie Hirschfield Davis:

Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, tasked by Democrats to direct the next step, says his approach "stops the surge, for all intents and purposes," and would "force a redeployment _ not by taking money away, by redirecting money."

Former Rep. Martin Frost, D-Texas, said Democrats have made a "very clear point" this week by putting the House on record against Bush's troop buildup and now must be careful not to overplay their hand by seeking to cut off funding or limit deployments right away.

"They don't want to be a scapegoat for the Bush administration's failures," Frost said. "This is Bush's war, and there should be no confusion about who's war it is, and Democrats should not set themselves up to have that done to them."

Frost said he did not want to "prejudge" Murtha's effort to restrict funds, but cautioned that Democrats should not yield to intense pressure by outside anti-war groups for swift action to end the conflict.

(Breitbart.com)

The Democrats have turned out worse than I hoped on the war. They have continued to offer strategies that will result in defeat. Indeed, the rhetoric suggests that many in the Democratic Party regard the war as already lost.

This is one of the outcomes I predicted when the Democrats took both houses of congress in 2006. They would no longer be able to hide solely behind criticism of the ideas of conservatives.
I think they tried to hold the line on sticking with the just criticize them! strategy, but some good maneuvering by Republicans in congress and the start of presidential campaigning has begun to lift the veil.