Brilliant.  Just brilliant.

Anytime a Democrat expresses opposition to the Iraq War (and, in current terms, the Bush plan to escalate the number of U.S. troops in Iraq), that Democrat is accused of not "supporting the troops".

Senator John Murtha, a combat veteran, has long opposed the war in Iraq, and now he has a bill which puts Bush in a corner:

By mid-March, Murtha will unveil legislation that he says would set such stringent rules on combat deployments that Bush would have no choice but to begin bringing troops home.

His legislation would dictate how long troops can stay, the equipment they use and whether any money could be spent to expand military operations into Iran. Murtha says few units could meet the high standards he envisions, meaning Bush’s plan to keep some 160,000 troops in Iraq for months on end would be thwarted.

Under his plan, he says, Democrats would be helping and not hurting troops by making sure they have what they need before being thrown into combat.

“This vote will be the most important vote in changing the direction of the war,” Murtha, D-Pa., told an anti-war group in an interview broadcast on the Internet Thursday.

“The president could veto it, but then he wouldn’t have any money,” he later said.

Murtha’s bill will end the stopgap procedures, end the extensions of deployments, and end the deployment of troops without sufficient training, equipment or time between deployments.  The Murtha plan raises the ante, and puts the ball in Bush’s court.  "You want to send more troops to Iraq?" the bill asks.  "Well, HERE’S how to do it and ‘support the troops’ with more than just empty words."

What’s Bush to do?  Refuse to sign the bill?

Love.  It.