Jack Murtha had a plan to end the surge. It would have prohibited Bush from sending more troops unless those troops were rested, properly equipped and properly trained. Besides being practical, it would have blocked the Right-Wing talking points about "supporting the troops".

But now Murtha's plan is going down in flames, and if you believe today's WaPo, it's Murtha's own fault because he didn't go through the proper Dem Party channels (which would have killed his plan anyway) thereby upsetting "conservative" Dems.

From the beginning, Murtha acted on his own to craft a complicated legislative strategy on the war, without consulting fellow Democrats. When he chose to roll out the details on a liberal, antiwar Web site on Feb. 15, he caught even Pelosi by surprise while infuriating Democrats from conservative districts.
...
"If this is going to be legislation that's crafted in such a way that holds back resources from our troops, that is a non-starter, an absolute non-starter," declared Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah), a leader of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats.

Thanks repeating the bullshit GOP talking points verbatim, Jim. As David Sirota points out, Murtha's plan was precisely about making sure the troops had the resources they needed before going into battle.

Pelosi endorsed the plan in concept but never the details. The plan surfaced Feb. 15 in an unorthodox Murtha appearance on MoveCongress.org, an antiwar Web site affiliated with the liberal activists of MoveOn.org.

It came the day before the House voted on a nonbinding resolution opposing Bush's additional troop deployments that Democratic leaders had been touting as a major rebuke. Murtha dismissed that vote as he promoted his coming plans regarding the war spending bill. "This vote will be the most important vote in changing the direction on this war," he said of his proposal. "This vote will limit the options of the president and should stop the surge."

To many Democrats, that was not only impolitic, it was disloyal.

"He stepped all over Speaker Pelosi's message of support for the troops," said Rep. Jim Cooper (Tenn.). "That was not team play, to put it mildly."

Even after that Web appearance, some senior Democratic aides say Murtha might well have been able to save his plan if he had quickly laid it out before the Democratic caucus and marshaled Democratic leaders behind a defense. Instead, the House recessed for a week, Murtha disappeared from the media, and Democratic leaders were silent, saying they could not discuss Iraq legislation because no real plan existed.

So, the Democratic party leadership is made up of catty high-school girls who would destroy a good plan to end the war because their feelings were hurt by not being properly consulted. Either that, or the Democratic party leadership really has no intention of stopping the war and this is just another act in the kabuki drama.

The audience for the drama is you, dear readers. The purpose of the drama is to convince you that the Dem party really really wants to end the occupation of Iraq, and they're giving it the old College try, but gosh darn it there are too many complications. Bummer.

Outcomes are all that matter. By their fruits ye shall know them and all that. All of us who try to keep informed are just watching the details of the process, watching the tree grow as it were.

UPDATE: Down With Tyranny has a more nuanced take. Still, doesn't the GOP have a bunch of different factions? How is the GOP able to strong-arm every single member of their own party AND members of the Dem party to vote their way? Does the GOP have political skills that the Dems just do not posess? Or is it more a question of political will?