The Iraq Supplemental funding fight has been something I consider of less importance because it has long been clear to me that the issue of setting a date certain for ending the war (I believe NOT funding it is the only way, but earlier versions discussed "binding timelines") would not be in it. And indeed, the talk is all of short leashes and benchmarks, not date certains for ending the war. The initial House bill, while supported by Move On and the Netroots, was in fact the worst deal possible, as it would have ostensibly set an end date two months before the 2008 elections, thereby insuring that in fact, the Debacle would continue past the end of the Bush presidency. It truly was a terrible bill.

Since then, the House passed a so-called "short leash" bill that provided 2 months of funding with a release of remaining funds in July. For those who favor the "ratcheting up the pressure" approach, this bill makes good sense. I do not think much of that approach, but it does notwork against a date certain for not funding approach I favor, the framework embodied in the McGovern Amendment and in Reid-Feiongold.

Now we see what is lkely to emerge as the Senate proposal, and it is something Bush will sign. GOP Senator John Warner proposed it:

Meteor Blades writes:

According to many, defunding isn’t just bad because it’s impossible, it’s a bad idea per se because the polls say most Americans don’t support it. And, they say, if too many elected Democrats do support it, they are going to screw up the party’s prospects for winning the Presidency and perhaps even retaining a majority in the Senate and House come 2008.

Where do these false memes come from? The first is obviously false. As of today, an Iraq Supplemental funding bill has not become law because President Bush vetoed the bill Congress passed. NOT funding is merely a function of not passing a bill, it does not require passage. Right now the Democratic Congress is grappling with a way to force an end date to the Iraq Debacle by means other than NOT funding it. Benchmarks, timelines, "short leashes," etc. are ways that, given a President less obstinate and incompetent and more respectful of the American People, would likely work. But the President IS George Bush.

British authorities have decided it's too dangerous for Prince Harry to go to Iraq -- his face has been too well-publicized and he's too big a target.

Prince Harry is said to be very disappointed. I can only think about how relieved Diana would be, if she were alive. A smart decision. If he is a individualized target, there's also a much greater risk of danger to his team members traveling with him.

I don't think it's a question of valuing his life more than others. I think it's a question of whether sending him amounts to state-assisted suicide because he'd be such a trophy for the insurgents.

Today's vote on Reid-Feingold should have a salutary effect on the creeping hometeamism that had captured progressive activists and the Netroots and brings into stark relief what still ails the Democratic Party - political cowardice.

For months the cheerleading from progressives and the Netroots for the House Supplemental and all the noisemaking coming from the Democratic Party has been a serious impediment to efforts to truly end the Iraq Debacle.

We kept hearing about the need to "ratchet up the pressure" on Bush and the Republicans. I think it is clear now that the pressure needs to be placed on those segments of the Democratic Party that likes to talk a lot about ending the war but clearly has felt no pressure from its base to do what is necessary to end this catastrophic war.

Jim Webb told President Bush, Democrats would show the way, as did others. It is clear that Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, Jack Reed, Carl Levin, et al, have no intention of leading on Iraq.

Yet again, as in 2006, it will require the base of the Democratic Party to lead its leaders. This vote today leaves no doubt what must be done by progressives, the Democratic grassroots and the Netroots. We must all take on those segments of our Party who do not want to end the war, but rather merely say they want to end the war.

And for this important insight, today was a good day.

The Amendment to cut off funding for the Iraq War went down to defeat today. Here's the roll call vote. 67 to 29, with 4 not voting.

[Via Think Progress.]

Like Senator Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton does not get it. While ostensibly supporting Reid-Feingold, Senator Clinton seems not to understand the imperative for it. She seems not to accept or understand that President Bush will not be affected by "ratcheting up the pressure" nor will Republicans provide a "veto-proof" majority. Instead Senator Clinton sees Reid-Feingold as:

Senator Clinton will vote for cloture on both the Feingold-Reid and Reed-Levin Amendments, to send the President a clear message that it is time to change course, redeploy our troops out of Iraq, and end this war as soon as possible.

Reid-Feingold is not about sending messages. It is about understanding that President Bush is oblivious to messages. It is about telling the American People that the Democratic Congress will not fund the Iraq Debacle past a date certain. And that it is then incumbent on President Bush to NOT abandon the troops in the middle of the civil war raging in Iraq.

Sen. Barack Obama's "support" for Reid-Feingold is based on a phony description of what the Reid-Feingold framework is about:

Tomorrow, I expect cloture votes on two other proposals. One is the Reid-Feingold plan, which would begin a withdrawal of troops in 120 days and end all combat operations on April 1. . . . I will support both, not because I believe either is the best answer . . .

Quite simply, Senator Obama has chosen to mislead as to the critical point about the Reid Feingold proposal. It is this:

Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.

Nothing in any of Senator Obama's proposals contains the concept of NOT funding the Iraq Debacle after a date certain. Senator Obama needs to be forthright on this issue- either he supports not funding the Iraq Debacle after a date certain, or he does not. His "support" of the Reid-Feingold framework is phony and false. To me, this is the WORST possible answer he could have given. I would have preferred honest disagreement. Instead Senator Obama gives us disingenuous "support." Bad show.

Senator Dodd says we can not wait for the next President to end the Iraq Debacle. He's right. And that's why I support his Presidential bid.

John Edwards says:

“It is time to end this war. The only real power Congress has to end the war is their funding power, which is why I and others have been calling on them to use it for some time. "I would actually go further than Reid-Feingold and use the funding authority, not just to set an ultimate deadline, but to force an immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops, followed by a complete withdrawal in about a year. But using the funding authority to bring this war to an end is exactly the right thing to do. Every Senator who believes this war is wrong and wants to end it should support Reid-Feingold."

At the end of a good post on the failed political Presidency of George W. Bush, my friend DemfromCt writes something that I think misses the point:

What America needs is recognition of the problem and a concerted bipartisan effort (including Republicans) to minimize the damage done, rather than a pretense that 'being like Reagan and Truman' will make everything okay in the morning. . . . If Republicans and conservatives are serious about this, they'll call for the firing of Alberto Gonzales. If that doesn't happen (and I doubt it will), all these Rx for Success notes to Bush and the GOP are just so much wasted bandwidth that won't stop a GOP debacle in 2008.

Since, as DemfromCt recognizes, the GOP will not join Dems in "a bipartisan effort to minimize the damage done," what he should recognize America needs is a concerted partisan effort by Democrats to minimize the damage done, particularly on Iraq.

As I have written here many times, it is within the power of the Democratic Congress to end the Iraq Debacle. The Reid-Feingold framework, with an announced date certain, March 31, 2008, for NOT funding the war, is the concerted partisan effort that is needed to minimize the damage of the Iraq Debacle. Today, the Senate takes up the Reid-Feingold proposal. Please urge your Senators to vote in favor of ending the Iraq Debacle in the only way truly possible, by announcing a date certain for NOT funding it.

Yesterday, I was filling in for Jane at Firedoglake and I wrote about the new decision by the Iraqi Government to ban the news media from covering bombing scenes.

Iraq’s interior ministry has decided to bar news photographers and camera operators from the scenes of bomb attacks, operations director Brigadier General Abdel Karim Khalaf said on Sunday (local time).

His announcement was the latest in a series of attempts to curtail press coverage of the ongoing conflict, which has already attracted criticism from international human rights bodies.

That got me thinking.

How real is the War in Iraq to Americans who don’t have a loved one fighting in the conflict? Where has the news coverage been of the gory daily details?

For those of you old enough to remember the media coverage of the Vietnam War, you’ll remember how vividly it was brought to us every evening on our television screens by the nightly news programs.

Without the internet or e-mail, a massive anti-war movement grew. I don’t think anyone doubts that it contributed to the war’s end.

More...

Senator Dodd (D-CT) released this statement on Reid-Feingold:

Senator and Presidential candidate Chris Dodd today released the following statement responding to the announcement that the Feingold-Reid legislation would be attached to the Water Resources Development Act Reauthorization:

"We should have a straight up or down vote on Feingold-Reid - not as an amendment to a water bill or any other bill. This is the most important Senate debate since the original vote to authorize the war. This simply cannot be the occasion for hiding behind procedural tactics.

That is why I am calling on all my other colleagues running for President to state clearly where they stand on this important legislation by joining me as a co-sponsor of Feingold-Reid and stating how they would vote on the bill."

Disclosure: I have endorsed Senator Dodd's candidacy for President.