Just got off a a conference call with Senator George Mitchell hosted by the "progressive" National Security Network.

Mitchell, a critic of the war in Iraq, said that while "the president's policy is essentially 'stay the course' without the slogan," the Democratic proposal "is similar to that of the Iraq Study Group." Of course, the Iraq Study Group, and James Baker, explicitly support the 'surge' and oppose the implementation of timetables for withdrawal. Details, details...

Mitchell also said that he hopes that the two sides will be able to "sit down and work out their differences." One reporter on the call asked in which areas the senator though compromise might be possible. His answer: on dates for withdrawal there's "plenty of room for working it out." Is that really the Democrats' idea of compromise?

Pam Hess, the UPI reporter who gave us this extremely moving and persuasive glimpse of the liberal case for the war in Iraq, asked if timetables for withdrawal "somehow infringe on the president's powers as commander in chief?" Mitchell's less than persuasive answer: "Congress is a coequal branch of government...the framers did not want to have one branch in charge of the government." True enough, but they sought an energetic executive with near dictatorial power in pursuing foreign policy and war. So no, the Constitution does not put Congress on an equal footing with the executive in matters of national security.

Mitchell also said that there was no dissonance between the Democratic support for installing Petraeus and their lack of support for his counterinsurgency strategy: "the civilian leadership makes the decisions" and "when commanders don't agree with [the president], they're replaced by someone who does." I could accept that if Democrats routinely allowed the president to appoint his own guys--but they don't. They routinely oppose his nominations, and frustrate his attempts to appoint men who share his views. So it does seem a bit...dishonest?

And finally, on Pelosi's trip to Syria: "much ado about nothing," in the opinion of Senator Mitchell. "Congrssional delegations have gone around the world for as long as I can remember," he said. I wonder what the framers would have thought about that--if they'd wanted Congressmen to have an equal footing in matters of foreign policy, why not just give Congress its own diplomatic corps?