Amidst the celebration, is it uncouth of me to point out that the Iraq supplemental funding bill that will come out of conference will almost certainly contain a NON-binding withdrawal timeline?

Markos writes:

Reid did an incredible job of keeping Democrats together. I mean, he even brought Ben Nelson aboard! Pretty impressive.

Hello? He got Nelson and Hagel because the language was NON-binding! Did anyone hear Hagel's floor speech on the issue? HE stressed that point.

Now the headlines are fun and all but here is some constructive advice for the "pragmatists" - you want to force Bush to veto? Then you have to place MAXIMUM pressure on Pryor, Nelson, Hagel, Smith and any other soft supporters in the Senate. They must be made to accept a binding timeline. If that happens, I will apologize to every "pragmatist" I have criticized on this. At the least, if such a bill is passed, Bush WILL veto it, particularly if the March 31, 2008 date holds.

The Senate voted down the Cochran Amendment, intended to strip the Senate version of the Iraq supplemental funding bill. Every Republican excepting Hagel and Smith voted for the Cochran Amendment. Two Democratic Caucus members, Lieberman and Pryor, voted for the Cochran Amendment and against the non-binding withdrawal timeline.

The next action is a conference, as the House and Senate bills are in conflict, at least ostensibly. The House bill claims to set a firm deadline for withdrawal, August 31, 2008. The Senate bill sets a nonbinding goal of March 31, 2008. What emerges from the conference. A broken tooth or none at all?

And then what?

The Senate will vote on an amendment - the Cochran Amendment (Thad Cochran is a GOP Senator from Mississippi) to its toothless version of the Iraq supplemental funding bill today. Debate is going on now.

The debate is on a current Republican amendment to strip the bill of its nonbinding provision of setting a goal of removing all combat troops involved in the Iraq Debacle by March 31, 2008. Oh by the way, the provision is NON-binding!! And it is likely to be stripped out!!

Sam Rosenfeld finds the closeness of the vote on stripping the NON-binding withdrawal date significant:

[T]he saga of the congressional war supplemental bill has really taken a dramatic turn in the last two days toward a confrontation with George W. Bush himself over a Senate-House conference bill that does in fact include language calling for withdrawal from Iraq.

This is what we are reduced to -- making NON-binding goals for withdrawal from the Iraq Debacle a SIGNIFICANT achievement! This is the big pragmatic win! You have to be kidding me.

In the discussion on the Iraq supplemental funding bill, it seems to me that the arguments in favor of the House bill were based mainly on messaging, not the substantive result of the bill. Certainly Markos' argument is expressly so, seeing the political play as geared towards the 2008 elections. As I wrote, I respect that view more than the one which pretends that the House bill is a "first step" to future steps that will lead to an end to the US deployments in Iraq. Today, EJ Dionne produces a hybrid of the two arguments in favor of the House bill:

Last week's narrow House vote imposing an August 2008 deadline for the withdrawal of American troops was hugely significant, even if the bill stands no chance of passing in the Senate this week in its current form. The vote was a test of the resolve of the new House Democratic leadership and its ability to pull together an ideologically diverse membership behind a plan pointing the United States out of Iraq.

Well, the plan sort of points for a moment but it does NOTHING to get the country moving in the direction it is pointing. Reading the headlines today does not tell you what things will look like months later. The House bill will look bad in a matter of weeks, months and next year when it matters most. Because it is devoid of substantive action on Iraq.

A shortage of volunteers, according to the Administration, is the cause of up to 1,200 Marine reservists being called to Iraq next year.

What happened to the plans for withdrawal? Is this a message it's not happening until we get a new President in 2009?

The mobilization, which was approved by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates last week, reflects the increasing manpower shortages the Marines are facing as the war in Iraq continues. Officials said it would have been necessary even without the increase in American force levels in Iraq, which will reach 160,000, including 25,000 marines, by June.

Lt. Colonel Jeffrey Riehl said Monday that the corps was notifying 1,800 members of the individual ready reserve, made up of inactive marines who have not finished their service requirements, with a goal of getting 1,200 marines for one-year deployments in 2008. The affected marines will begin reporting for duty in October, Colonel Riehl said.

Funding bill or no funding bill, withdrawal clause or not, we're not leaving Iraq any time soon. Seems to me we haven't yelled loud enough yet.

I have noted before that I consider David Sirota a good friend and a good progressive who wants the Iraq Debacle to end. I have also noted my almost complete disagreement with his analysis of the Dem House Iraq supplemental bill. One of my major points was that the strength of the anti-Iraq War movement was much more prevalent in the House than in the Senate and thus the "line in the sand" needed to be drawn there so that the inevitable "compromises" that the Senate would require could start from a more anti-Debacle position. And of course, Bush would veto any concrete anti-Debacle legislation. Thus ultimately, a staredown with the President would be required. That is why I endorsed this approach:

I ask for three things: First, announce NOW that the Democratic Congress will NOT fund the Iraq Debacle after a date certain. You pick the date. Whatever works politically. If October 2007 is the date Dems can agree to, then let it be then. If March 2008, then let that be the date; Second, spend the year reminding the President and the American People every day that Democrats will not fund the war past the date certain; Third, do NOT fund the Iraq Debacle PAST the date certain.

The House bill does none of these things.

Just sayin'

Nearly three-quarters of Americans (73%) – including 77% of Republicans, 78% of independents and 66% of Democrats – say Congress is doing only a fair or poor job dealing with Iraq. Just 22% say Congress has done an excellent (3%) or good job (19%) in this regard.

For Democrats, much of this frustration is linked to the sense that Congress has too little influence on Iraq policy, and has not aggressively challenged President Bush's approach. Most Democrats (56%) believe that . . . Democratic leaders in Congress have not gone far enough in challenging George W. Bush's policies.

Many independents share these criticisms – a plurality (41%) says that Democratic leaders in Congress are not going far enough in challenging Bush's Iraq policies. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) That's a lot of purity trolls.

As usual, I speak only for me

The Senate appears to be prepared to move quickly toward a vote on the supplemental spending bill containing language about benchmarks and withdrawal from Iraq that the House passed Friday - the vote could come as early as Tuesday. Republicans will be trying to remove all timetables from the bill - to them, even non-binding deadlines are too much an affront to Bush's power to wage endless war.

So now the fight is to retain NON-binding deadlines in the supplemental funding bill? Oh by the way, look and see who you'll be fighting with:

Webb doesn't favor a timeline for withdrawal, as the Nancy Pelosi bill passed by the House on Friday proposes . . . and he's working with Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel . . . to come up with a bipartisan bill that would incorporate some of what he calls "the more workable points" from the House bill without unnecessarily tying the hands of the military.

What a win passing the House Iraq`supplemental funding bill was. What a bunch of unrealistic purity types those of us opposed to it were. Why, who could have imagined the Senate would likely weaken the bill? But hey, it was the best Dems could do, right? Clap louder please.

In defense of Move On, which I view as a largely red herring issue that distracts frm the discussion of themerits of the Dem moves that some endorse, Matt Stoller also makes some statements about how the thinks the Iraq supplemental funding bill will play for Dems politically:

[T]here is handwringing about whether the Democrats will 'own the war' in 2008 because they will ultimately end up voting for military funding. I don't think so. Just look at the Pew poll to see whether Democrats own the war -. . . the public knows that this legislation will run up against a temper tantrum from Bush, and doesn't see it as a particularly big game-changer one way or the other. . . . Democrats will not own the war in a political sense, because Democrats by and large oppose it and Republicans do not. People aren't stupid.

Yes, people are NOT that stupid. They know that a Pew poll that reflects upon the attitudes expressed by an out of power Democratic Party, NOT the actions a Democratic Congress. Matt must be kidding to cite that Pew poll as predictive of what will happen. Ironically, Atrios put his finger on what the problem is with the Iraq supplemental funding bill:

See also corrente.

Provided by Democratic Wise Man Lee Hamilton:

President Bush staked out his position on Iraq in January, and the House has now staked out its own. Deep divisions between these positions signal a stalemate among our political leaders. There is no unity of effort. Yet the president and the Democratic majorities in Congress will remain in office for nearly two years. They must seek a bipartisan consensus in the months ahead; otherwise, our efforts in Iraq will falter. . . . The House outlines a 2008 target date for U.S. forces to leave Iraq. It sets a direction for policy but leaves implementation to the president. The residual force it authorizes gives the president considerable flexibility to protect U.S. interests with a substantial presence of U.S. troops. The president manages the war and makes the decision about the force level needed to defend U.S. military forces and civilians in Iraq . . . This transition is flexible, not fixed. . . .

Firm "targets?" The President makes the decision about force level? This was the "big win?" Democrats and the Netroots have been had. Hamilton shows you what is to come. The drive for consensus will remove the few teeth left in the House bill. A month from now the gnashing of the missing teeth begins.

Giving this week's Democratic radio address, freshman Congressman Paul Hodes (D-NH), a good man who no doubt thinks he is doing the best he can, said:

The Democrats' plan to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq next year responds to voters' demand for change, New Hampshire Rep. Paul Hodes said Saturday. . . ."After four years of a failed policy, Democrats are insisting on a new direction in Iraq and a real plan that holds the Iraqi people accountable for their own country."

Does this legislation do that? It clearly does not. Here's the puzzle, why not PASS a bill that matches the rhetoric? If that is the message, why not the deeds to support the rhetoric? This is puzzling indeed.

This is the spin TODAY:

It was a sharp rebuke to the president, a clear message that “his policy of more troops, more money and more time has overstayed its welcome,” as Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the Democratic caucus chairman, said after the vote.

I ask, what was the 2006 Election? What was the Iraq Study Group Report? Sharp rebuke today. But what about tomorrow? Bush won't change his position.

But Democrats almost certainly will. I think we all know what is going to happen -- the "firm" date for withdrawal, August 31, 2008, will become a "goal." And this "goal" was once December 31, 2006, then 2007, now 2008.

I think that rhetoric will not be a the winning political position for a Democratic Congress in November 2008. Not when it has the power to end the war, through the Spending Power.