Gen. David Petraeus, the top US general in Iraq, "on Thursday said the military surge would continue 'well beyond the summer' as leading Democrats in Congress vowed to press ahead with legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal," reports the Financial Times.  "Separately, Stephen Hadley, the White House national security adviser,... echoed Gen Petraeus in saying there were some positive signs that the surge was damping the level of violence.  But he added that the surge was in 'the early stages, and we're going to have some good days and some bad days'.  Gen Petraeus said that while he currently had no plans to request more troops for the surge, he would ask for more later if required." 

The AP says the vote on the House Democratic leadership's plan "-- expected the week of March 19 -- will be a major test of [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi's ability to lead a party elevated by voters angered by the four-year war.  She will have to prove Democrats are living up to their promise to end the war, without running roughshod over moderates who oppose the war but do not believe in setting firm timelines for withdrawal." 

"The dates for withdrawal have been moved up from earlier drafts in an effort to appease war critics," says the Wall Street Journal of the terms of the House bill.  "Mr. Bush will get a relatively free hand to add more than 26,000 troops over coming months.  But in July and then again Oct. 1, he will be asked to certify that the Iraqi government is showing progress and has met political and military benchmarks.  If at either point Mr. Bush can't meet the certification requirements, the bill calls for withdrawal within 180 days.  If the requirements are met, more time is allowed, but in any case, withdrawal would begin next spring with the goal of having most forces out of Iraq by the end of August -- four months earlier than a prior draft." 

The New York Times notes that the Democrats' new plans have ramifications in the presidential race.  "The Senate plan sets a goal for troops to be removed by March 31, 2008, similar to a proposal by" Obama.  Clinton, meanwhile, "has advocated a phased withdrawal of troops, but has not proposed setting a specific date.  She said she intended to support the Democratic resolution.  'It's a goal; it's not a hard deadline, it's a goal,' Mrs. Clinton said in an interview Thursday evening." 

"The new Democratic proposals for Iraq may eventually be weakened or killed, but in one stroke they have transformed a many-sided debate about the conflict into a sharp-edged argument about the endgame," says a Los Angeles Times analysis.  "Now the Democrats have staked out a specific position while the administration peers into the uncertain future with an open-ended commitment.  That puts Bush under new pressure to tell the public which way he will go next." 

The Washington Times says of both Democratic bills: "It remained vague whether the bills encroached on the president's war powers as commander in chief.  Republicans also questioned whether the restrictions on the president could be enforced." 

Sen. Hillary Clinton yesterday, in a speech at a liberal think tank, proposed a new GI Bill of Rights and blamed President Bush for the problems at Walter Reed and other military facilities and asserted that if Bush won't fix those problems, then his successor (ahem) will.  "The buck does stop with this president," she told the Center for American Progress, "and if he doesn't take responsibility, I can assure you that the next president will." 

Per a poll conducted by Stan Greenberg (D) for liberal MoveOn that was released yesterday, two-thirds of all voters -- and a similar percentage of independents -- living in the 50 most competitive House districts support a March 2008 timeline for withdrawing from Iraq.