After the passage of the original House Iraq Supplemental, the much lionized measure, in response to the praise the bill received, I wrote:

Chris Bowers articulates his [analysis]:

The more I think about it, at least in the short term, both camps in the progressive side of this debate will actually get what they want. This bill will pass the House, but it will also never pass into law. . . . At the same time, those of us now favoring the bill will get what we wanted: headlines showing Democrats trying to end the war, but being thwarted by Republicans. . . . We all won.

Actually, in the short term, I have always accepted this point, IF it played out that way. But it won't.

. . . The very same pressures that forced the capitulation to the Blue Dogs will force further capitulations along the way starting with the Senate, IF a bill is to be approved. . . .

Ironically, unlike most everyone else, I am not so discouraged about what can happen next. For I believe, after this hard lesson, for Democrats in Congress, for progressive activists, for the Netroots, we can now go forward with a PRAGMATIC, realistic plan to end the Iraq debacle AND play smart politics. Yes, from these ashes should rise the Reid/Feingold/McGovern/Dodd/Kerry/ Edwards/Obama/Clinton/Boxer, et al. NOT funding after a date certain framework.

A New York Times - CBS poll finds public support for the Iraq War at its lowest point since the invasion in 2003.

Sixty-one percent of Americans say the United States should have stayed out of Iraq and 76 percent say things are going badly there, including 47 percent who say things are going very badly, the poll found.

....President Bush’s approval ratings remain near the lowest of his more than six years in office. Thirty percent approve of the job he is doing over all, while 63 percent disapprove.

More Americans — 72 percent — now say that “generally things in the country are seriously off on the wrong track” than at any other time since the Times/CBS News poll began asking the question in 1983. The number has slowly risen since January 2004. Then, 53 percent said the country was “seriously off on the wrong track,” and by January of this year it was 68 percent.

If we don't cut off funding, how do we ensure the war ends? What's so difficult about bringing the troops home by a date certain and refusing to fund Iraq war spending after that date?

I have often said in discussing the Iraq Debacle that if you want to be a pure political cynic, then what you must to do is consider what your positions and actions will look like to voters on the days they are going to vote. Don't think about what your poll numbers will look like the day after you do something, think about what they will look like the day of the election. Thus, despite murky polling, in early 2005 and throughtout the next two years, I urged a strong Democratic opposition to the Iraq Debacle, arguing then that since Iraq WAS a Debacle and Bush was not going to turn it around, better to opposing it as soon as possible. Today Digby and Matt Yglesias make similar points. Yglesias discusses today's Iraq Supplemental vote:

President Bush:

President Bush said he supports a $120 billion war spending bill on track to pass Thursday, ending weeks of wrangling with Democrats on whether to end the war.

The bill funds the war through September as Bush wanted and does not set a date for U.S. troop withdrawals. . . . "By voting for this bill, members of both parties can show our troops and the Iraqis and the enemy that our country will support our service men and women in harm's way," Bush said in a Rose Garden news conference.

Translation, all of you will sign onto my GOP Debacle. I chuckled at this reaction from Rep. David "There Is No Deal" Obey:

"I hate this agreement," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Vote against it then Congressman. The bill cleared the procedural motion by 218-201. There will a vote on the motion adopting the Senate Amendment later today. Let's see who wants to rubberstamp President Bush this afternoon.

From CBS News:

As President Bush and Congress hammer out an Iraq war funding bill, a CBS News/New York Times poll shows the number of Americans who say the war is going badly has reached a new high, rising 10 percent this month to 76 percent.

And another pony for Holden:

BUSH’S JOB APPROVAL RATING
Approve 30%
Disapprove 63%

But Congress is headed in that direction:

APPROVAL OF CONGRESS
Approve 36%
Disapprove 52%

I wonder why? Could it be . . . rubberstamping the Iraq Debacle?

The backdrop of today's vote of the GOP/Blue Dog Iraq Supplemental Alternative, is the Beltway delusion that come September, as Greenwald outlines:

The single greatest and most transparent delusion in our public discourse right now -- and that is a distinction for which there is always an intense competition -- is that Something Weighty and Significant is Going to Happen In September with regard to the Iraq War.

September, you see, is the real turning point, the real Day of Reckoning. . . . That is the read deadline for George W. Bush.

. . . But all that is going to happen In September is that we are going to await with baited breath for General David Petraeus -- he of infallible wisdom, judgment and honesty, and unquestionable objectivity -- to descend upon Washington and reveal whether there is Real Progress being made (by him) in Iraq.

. . . And, needless to say, General Petraeus will, cautiously though emphatically, declare that progress is being made, though there is much work that remains to be done. And therefore we must redouble our resolve and stay until The Job is Done.

Well my friends, if Democrats REALLY BELIEVE this September nonsense, then we are doomed. Greenwald says "The central unyielding truth in our political landscape is that -- no matter what -- the War in Iraq is not going to end before the end of the Bush presidency." If that is true, then we will be debating Iraq in 2010, and likely 2012 as well. Democratic or Republican, the next President will not want to "lose Iraq."

Via Stoller, and Matt, it is good to see you back in first rate form, this story adds to my theory that there is something in the water in DC:

Democrats said this week they would have jeopardized their fall bargaining position if they had insisted on keeping withdrawal timelines in the current supplemental spending bill (HR 2206). Persisting now would likely have resulted in another veto and would have handed Republicans talking points for the Memorial Day recess about which party supports the troops in the field.

Begging the question, if this is true, why did you pick the fight in the House Iraq Supplemental? Did you NOT know this day was coming? Either Dems are stupid now or they were stupid then. They can't have been smart both times.

[N]ot funding it is going to be the de facto Democratic stance by the end of the year for all of those that want the Democratic nomination, if not sooner.

-Jerome Armstrong

It should be the de facto stance for all Dems in Congress now. And the developments on the Iraq Supplemental demonstrate why,

The Democratic Congress passed a horrendous Iraq Supplemental bill. I opposed it because, in my opinion, it did nothing to get us closer to ending the war. From the unacceptable House bill, the one Move On loved, to the predictably stripped down nonbinding version that emerged from the conference report, the one the President vetoed, these were all bad bills that did nothing to further the fight to end the Iraq Debacle.

Update [2007-5-23 21:17:56 by Big Tent Democrat]: Jerome Armstrong says Obama will vote no but there is nothing offical on that. Hillary is undecided. But if Obama goes no, so will Hillary. A real chance to make lemonade out of this lemon is developing. Meteor Blades reports that at least 150 Dems in the House will vote No. This will be a Republican bill. But I think it illustrates my point, the way to end this is by NOT funding after a date certain. Make Reid-Feingold-McGovern the Dem position and lay out the date when Dems will not vote for the Iraq Debacle.

Okay, so what now on Iraq funding and ending the war? I think everyone finally gets that the Spending Power, and specifically the NOT Spending power is the only potential check on Bush on Iraq now. There will be no veto proof majorities for deauthorization, timelines, etc. Steve Soto wrote:

Both Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer stated the obvious today: that the Democrats don't have a veto-proof majority in either house. Yeah, so? You knew this back in February, as did most everyone else. It was your job and everyone else in the Democratic leadership to fashion a strategy that made the GOP pay a price for rubber-stamping Bush's surge while still pushing your agenda. And you and your Beltway consultants failed. So stop your whining and get back to the drawing board.

I take Soto's point that everyone knew this but I disagree with the idea of just extracting a political price from Republicans on it. Most importantly, because ending the Iraq Debacle is the most important issue we have. And I do not believe the next President, GOP or Dem, will quickly walk away from it. But secondly, because it is very difficult to extract political advantage without actually trying to change the policy.

In the latest attempt to justify the Iraq War, President Bush is now saying there is credible evidence that in 2005 Osama bin Laden tried to create terror cells in Iraq that focused on the U.S. as the target.

Citing newly declassified intelligence, Fran Townsend, President George W. Bush's adviser for homeland security, said the information backs the administration's assertion that U.S. troops must stay in Iraq for now to prevent it from becoming a ''terrorist sanctuary.''

Mindful of its trouble selling its war strategy to the American public, the White House is trying to put the spotlight on bin Laden's connections to Zarqawi, the head of Iraq's al Qaeda wing who was killed in a U.S. air strike in June 2006.

Of course, this has nothing to do with 2003 when the U.S. invaded Iraq. And it smacks of Bush trying to distract attention from the civil war going on in Iraq which also does not directly affect the U.S.

If Osama is still that key an influence, why aren't more resources being devoted to finding him?

From Greg Sargent:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi will present a plan to House Democrats for a war funding bill that won't include a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq but will feature benchmarks with consequences, according to Democratic leadership aides...

The Warner Deal. I told . . . Sorry.

Now for the good news. Harry Reid said:

We now have the timeline that the Republicans have set, and that’s this September. And that’s the very least, and then as I’ve indicated –the Defense authorization– we’re going to start right where we’ve left off with this bill, continuing our push to change direction in the War on Iraq."

I explained in March that the House Iraq Supplemental was a terrible strategy for ending the war. There is one way to do this - NOT funding the war on a date certain and announcing that as far ahead as possible. The Reid-Feingold-Dodd framework. Can we now work on the one actual way to end the Debacle now? Leader Reid? Speaker Pelosi? Let's get to work.