In the news today:

AMERICA has responded to spiralling violence in Iraq by preparing an exit strategy that will allow coalition troops to withdraw by forcing the government in Baghdad to take responsibility for security.

According to a story in the New York Times, the Pentagon is drawing up plans for a “forcing mechanism” that would set target dates for handing control to the Iraqis. American troops would pull back to their bases, leaving military advisers “embedded” with the Iraqi security forces.

So, the Bush White House is looking at carrying out a plan where we would force the Iraqis to shape up because ready or not, we will withdraw most of our forces from Iraq, except for training forces, by a specific deadline.

Hmmm. Where have I heard that before?

Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. If Iraqis aren’t willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they’re probably not willing to build one at all. The civil war will only get worse, and we will have no choice anyway but to leave.

If Iraq’s leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year’s end. Doing so will empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country. Only troops essential to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces should remain.

Yeah. That sounds like the exact same plan. With one difference: it was put forth by John Kerry, in early April of this year, that plan echoing John Murtha’s.

So, are the Pentagon and the White House now admitting that Murtha and Kerry, who they mocked and derided as “cut and run defeat-ocrats,” were actually right all along?

The Bush White House is already weaseling, by making a non-denail denial to the story; they say the Times story is not “accurate,” but carefully did not deny the basic premise. Clearly, they at the very least had this plan up and front, and still may use it. If they do, you can be damned sure they won’t give credit where credit is due.