With a mixture of pride and remorse, I have a confession: I am the author of the Democratic Party's "slow-bleed strategy" for ending the war in Iraq...

As happens all the time in journalism, this was a decision -- made on the fly and under deadline -- that I would have taken back in the morning. It is Murtha's job to defend his own policies. But I'd prefer not to hand his opponents ammunition in the form of evocative but loaded language...

Bresnahan, who has unparalleled sources and understanding of how Congress works, wrote an article that was the first to detail the emerging Democratic strategy of challenging Bush on Iraq. Here was the lead paragraph of the draft he submitted:

"Even as the House begins debate on a resolution opposing President Bush's plan to send 21,500 more U.S. combat troops to Iraq, leading anti-war groups are preparing a multi-million dollar TV ad campaign and grassroots lobbying blitz designed to pressure vulnerable incumbent lawmakers to end their support for the war."

VandeHei and I read the article and were impressed by the detail of Bresnahan's reporting. But, as editors always do, we had our quibbles. Like the lead paragraph: Too bulky, and too bland. The story was a good bit better than the introduction.

We rushed the patient to the operating table for emergency surgery. With VandeHei hovering over my shoulder, this is what I came up with:

"Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options."

That is not exactly prize-winning prose, but it seemed a little snappier to us -- and more on point. Please note the context: What is slowly bleeding away is the administration's political support to keep fighting the war. Republicans pounced on the phrase because of the ease with which that context could be shorn away, to give the impression that what Democrats were slow-bleeding were the bodies of troops in Iraq.

That willingness to wrest words from context -- and to attribute the phrase to Democrats even though it was not theirs -- was demagogic on the part of Republican operatives. But it was never my plan to make their work so easy.

I have to give Harris credit here for stepping up to the plate and clarifying the situation. I know from experience that editorial decisions that involve little thought can have large consequences. I'm very impressed with Harris' willingness to explain the origins of the slow-bleed meme.

Having said that, I still see the Murtha strategy as a deeply unfortunate one. In truthfulness, I can't see any other way to end the war. In many respects it is a very clever plan. And the Republicans are not offering us any realistic alternatives. So, maybe, I should just shut my mouth and get on board with the plan.

But I do not like this plan. I think it will have several lasting effects, none of which will be good for the Democratic Party. Rather than dry up the President's pool of troops, I'd much rather see the House begin impeachment proceedings for the Vice-President. Neither strategy is going to end this war before 2008, but the latter strategy has the advantage of pursuing justice, and it doesn't invite accusations that we have contributed to the loss of a war by tying the commander in chief's hands.

The Murtha Plan should go forward, but it should go forward as a bluff. It shoud be used as a way of forcing some kind of compromise from Republicans. And if they call our bluff, then I guess we'll just have to lay our cards on the table. But it should be clear that the Murtha Plan is only a last resort that we will use if the Republicans will not help us end this war in any other way.