From last night’s Special Report with Brit Hume:

—On Murtha’s Suggested Iraq Policy—

MORT KONDRACKE: That would deny funds for any troops that go to Iraq unless they meet certain benchmarks of training, of equipment, of — they have to be back in the states a year, you can’t send them over there if they haven’t had their years rest. You can’t extend troops beyond a certain length of time service in Iraq.

Look, I mean it’s pretty clever on two different levels. One, it pretends to be for the troops, I mean, to make sure that they’re trained adequately and rested adequately and all this. And it’s also appears to be for the troops in that if you vote against the supplemental with this in it, you’ll be against funding the troops while they’re in combat.

[But] it is truly anti-troop, because you’ve got — the surge will be well underway and what Murtha is going to try to do is deny reinforcements for these troops . . . leaving them more vulnerable than they were.

NINA EASTON: What happens if it passes both Houses and it lands on the president’s desk and the president says, “I’m sorry, I’m commander in chief, this is micromanaging the war. I’m going to ignore this.” He might not even bother to veto it and then it goes to the courts.

FRED BARNES: This is way too clever by a half for two reasons. One, it’s clear what Democrats are doing. . . . And secondly. . . in micromanaging the war with all these restrictions and so on that Mort talked about, they risk taking ownership of this war. I mean, this is Bush’s war, it’s the Republican’s war, but if they’re going to apply all these standards to it and micromanage the war . . . it could become their war.

EASTON: I think it’s very smart politics on the Democrat’s part.

KONDRACKE: I think if the Republicans attack, as they should, as cutting off the funding for the troops, it’s terrible politics for the Democrats.

BARNES: I mean, think they’re playing with fire here. This could be bad politics for the Democrats.