Democrats last night whined and whined for hours about the Republicans dastardly trick of forcing Democrats to clearly state their position on the war in Iraq. They said that the Republican resolution differed in content from the Murtha resolution. So, lets see:

Republican Resolution: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

Murtha Resolution: "The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date."

As anyone with basic reading skills can see, there is no substanative difference between the content of the resolutions. The Republican one is shorter and to-the-point. The Democratic one tries to speak more softly.

So what about the last sentence in that quote, "the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date"? There's only one problem: That's kind of what our policy already is. The debate is over when the "practicable date" is. When is the practicable date in Murtha's opinion? Apparently, his definiton of "practicable date" is around the time of the mid-December elections, as he stated in his big press release:

"I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy."

That doesn't sound much different than what the Republicans offered. Considering the nature of how difficult an immediate redeployment will be (withdrawing over 100,000 troops requires more than a simple overnighter), it sounds like starting now wouldn't be much quicker than starting any other time before the mid-term December elections. Hey Jack: How close to the elections do we need to be for you to act on your own words?