Politico reports that the latest proposal Congressional Dems are floating is the short term funding approach:

Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.) outlined a new plan for an Iraq funding bill in private meetings Thursday afternoon, congressional aides said. The plan would split the now vetoed supplemental spending bill into two bills, one that would provide two months of funding for the Iraq War and another that would fund the agricultural programs contained in the earlier bill, aides said.

This will make some happy and I admit I have no objection to it. But no one seems to be talking about setting a date certain when the Iraq Debacle will NOT be funded. It does not have to be in any legislation. It need only be announced Democratic policy. You know my drill on this.

The other development is the Byrd-Clinton deauthorization proposal:

In remarks on the Senate floor, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that she and Senator Robert Byrd will introduce legislation to end authority for the war in Iraq. The legislation will propose October 11, 2007 -- the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution.

In responding to Jon Chait's argument that the Left Blogs take it easy on each other, Atrios writes:

If The Left suddenly became all powerful and was successful at promoting views and legislation I disagreed with I'd certainly be more critical of it.

Let me prove Atrios right by criticizing a view he is promoting:

The important thing, politically, is for the public to understand that the Democrats are doing what they can to stop CooCoo's war. And, sadly, "what they can" does have to take into account the fact that they have 51 senators and only a slim House majority, especially once one excludes the wanker caucus.

Atrios' underlying assumption is wrong. The Democrats are NOT doing everything Congressional control permits to end the Iraq Debacle. Whether Atrios likes it or not, the Blue Dogs are part of their caucus and if it is the Blue Dogs that are the problem, then DEMOCRATS are the problem.

I find this TPM Cafe story surreal:

[T]he offices of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are denying a Washington Post story today saying that Congressional Democrats have backed down to the White House by offering to remove Iraq withdrawal language from the now-vetoed Iraq bill.

That's great and all but the fact is the Dems backed down on a firm withdrawal date in the bill Bush vetoed. Why all the gnashing of teeth now?

Let's be clear, the Dems bill did not set a firm deadline and no binding conditions that the President could not waive. The only theoretically firm deadline was that troop withdrawal START, without saying how many, in October. Frankly, why Bush vetoed it is inexplicable to me. Sure he'll get the Dems to cave here but he let the Dems escape immediate co-ownership of the war.

All this DRAMA about whether the Dems backed down is funny. But the need to end the Iraq War is not. The Reid-Feingold framework which, for those of you just tuning in, does NOT require passage of a bill, is the way out. Announce April 1, 2008 as the date certain for NOT funding the war. Forget about strings, conditions, benchmarks and goals. None of that matter to Bush.

Close the purse. Say it now so you can do it then.

Update [2007-5-3 11:45:52 by Big Tent Democrat]: MYDD is dismayed by this headline - Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable Compromise. No offense but when MYDD was cheering for this House Supplemental did it NOT know this headline was inevitable? The funny thing is the Dems backed down on binding timelines in the bill they sent to Bush. The one he vetoed. The Media is so bad they think the Dems are backing down now. Hilarious.

What do the American People think about Iraq? Do they have deep complex thoughts on partition and counterinsurgency tactics and blowback? Or do they just know that what they have been told would happen did not happen? That we have been there for more than 4 years and with no progress in sight? Do they know, in short, that the Debacle is lost? How do you argue the issue of Iraq now? Cliff Schecter and Sean-Paul Kelly endorse this approach from the Nelson Report:

On a related note, when will ANY prominent Democrat start using effective propaganda vs. Bush's Iraq War policies? Whimpering like Sen. Reid is so politically weak. Every supporter of the war should be grilled again and again with variants of the same question: ‘When are we going to stop arming and training more terrorists?’ We armed and trained Al Qaeda before they turned on us. We armed and trained Hezbollah when they were still a Shiite brigade of the Lebanese army.

There are a few problems with this one. The most important is that the Democrats have already won the argument on Iraq. The American People want out. There is no problem with Harry Reid's argument. The issue now is how to end the Debacle. I am for NOT funding on a date certain. Certain folks want to "ratchet up the pressure," whatever that is supposed to mean. To think the problem is Democratic rhetoric is to have swallowed the Beltway line whole. Surprising to see bloggers do that.

John Edwards supports Reid-Feingold:

We support Reid-Feingold, but actually think we should go further. The Edwards plan calls for Congress to use funding power to force an immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops to show we're serious about leaving, followed by an orderly withdrawal our combat troops that would be complete in about a year. Reid-Feingold uses funding to start withdrawing troops in four months and complete it by March 31, 2008 - not immediate. We're for the use of the funding power and support this bill as far as it goes, but we think we should go further and begin withdrawal immediately.

Edwards joins Senator Chris Dodd in supporting Reid-Feingold. Senator Clinton? Senator Obama? Senator Biden? Governor Richardson? Senator Gravel? Congressman Kucinich? Time to step up.

Setting a date certain for NOT funding the Iraq war is the only way to end this Bush/McCain/Lieberman/GOP Debacle. It is what the American People want. The American People support Reid-Feingold.

Via Noah Shactman at Wired's Danger Zone:

The U.S. Army has ordered soldiers to stop posting to blogs or sending personal e-mail messages, without first clearing the content with a superior officer, Wired News has learned. The directive, issued April 19, is the sharpest restriction on troops' online activities since the start of the Iraq war. And it could mean the end of military blogs, observers say.

The new regulations are here (pdf).

Noah reports the rules "require a commander be consulted before every blog update."

[The rule] restricts more than just blogs, however. Previous editions of the rules asked Army personnel to "consult with their immediate supervisor" before posting a document "that might contain sensitive and/or critical information in a public forum." The new version, in contrast, requires "an OPSEC review prior to publishing" anything -- from "web log (blog) postings" to comments on internet message boards, from resumes to letters home.

Failure to do so, the document adds, could result in a court-martial, or "administrative, disciplinary, contractual, or criminal action."

Time's Karen Tumulty provides me all the evidence I need:

[T]he sense I'm getting from talking to leadership sources is that, in the face of the reality that they can't override the veto, they are ready to jettison the deadlines for troop withdrawal. Democrats figure they have public opinion on their side at the moment, but that they won't if this drags on too long. The public wants to end the war, but polls suggest most voters are not yet ready to cut off the funding.

The poll Tumulty cites is an endorsement of Reid-Feingold:

The April 23-26, 2007 panel survey finds <b.57% of Americans favoring "the U.S. setting a timetable for removing its troops from Iraq and sticking to that timetable regardless of what is happening in Iraq," while 39% favor the United States "keeping troops in Iraq as long as necessary to secure the country, even if that takes many more years."

Tumulty says most voters don't want to cut off the funding. What she fails to understand is that withdrawal is cutting off the funding. And Reid-Feingold is for withdrawal by the only means it can happen, by cutting off the funding on a date certain, April 1, 2008. This gives the funding for the troops. Heck it even gives Bush's surge a chance to work. You have 11 months Mr. President. That's it. This is a winning political strategy for ending the Debacle.

The president's surge strategy has been nothing but bad news for the troops he's placed in harm's way:

Five U.S. troops died in weekend attacks, pushing the death toll past 100 in the deadliest month for American forces since December, the military said Monday as a wave of violence battered Iraqi civilians including a suicide bombing at a Shiite funeral. ...

The rising toll for U.S. soldiers also pointed to a potentially deadly trend: More troops exposed to more dangers as they try to reclaim control of Baghdad.

The Congress sent up the inadequate Iraq supplemental funding bill for the President's signature today. And he is signing, a veto message:

Democrats sent the Iraq war-spending bill to the White House this afternoon after a ceremony at the Capitol. Aides to President Bush said he was eager to veto it before nightfall. . . .The White House said that Mr. Bush would wield his veto pen shortly after 6 p.m. Eastern time . . .

The Democrats are in luck. What a stupid move by Bush. The bill sent to him has no binding requirements on troop withdrawal. It has no binding benchmarks. It purports to require that withdrawal commence in 120 days but it has no requirement for when it should end. Bush could remove 1,000, or even 1, troop, and comply. And who is gonna call him on it anyway?

Bush blows it tonight. But will Dems blow it again? We'll see. I predict that even non--binding timelines will be stripped from the bill. Which, let me surprise you, is fine by me. Conditions and benchmarks and timelines and guidelines are so much nonsense with a person like Bush.

There is one way to end the war. Do not fund it. And no, it need not and will not happen today or tomorrow. But how about say, March 31, 2008? Tell the President and the country now that Mr. President, March 31, 2008, 11 months from now, is the last day of funding. Make sure the troops are out by then. The American People want this.

Does the Democratic Congress have the desire and courage to end the Iraq Debacle? This is what we will discover.

Via Atrios, E&P has this from the NYTimes:

By Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt
BAGHDAD, May 2 --
The Bush administration is planning to withdraw most United States combat forces from Iraq over the next several months and wants to shrink the American military presence to less than two divisions by the fall, senior allied officials said today. . . .

That was May 2, 2003.

Isn't it great?:

President Bush announced in a nationally televised address that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

"In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment," Bush told the Navy men and women aboard the warship Thursday.

Bush also made a direct connection between the war in Iraq and the continuing war on terrorism. "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on," Bush said.

. . . "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror," he said. "We have removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding."

Worst President in history.

The Maliki government is falling to pieces:

The largest bloc of Sunni Arabs in the Iraqi Parliament threatened to withdraw its ministers from the Shiite-dominated cabinet today in frustration over the Iraq government’s failure to deal with Sunni concerns. President Bush stepped in to forestall the move, calling one of Iraq’s two vice presidents, Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni Arab, and inviting him to Washington, Mr. Hashimi’s office said in a written statement. The bloc, known as the Iraqi Consensus Front and made up of three Sunni Arab parties, “has lost hope in rectifying the situation despite all of its sincere and serious efforts to do so,” the statement said.

1, 2, 3, 4, what are we fighting for?

At least 104 United States troops lost their lives in hostile actions in Iraq in April, the highest of any month so far this year. Another 13 deaths among other allied forces have been reported, making it the highest monthly death toll for all allied forces in more than two years. Military reporting typically lags at least 24 hours so the final total for the month could be higher.

Last month, 104 American soldiers lost their lives so that George Bush's feewings don't get hurt. I'm livid tonight. At George Tenet, David Broder and each and every enabler of the worst President in history who has plunged us into the most castastrophic foreign policy debacle in our history.

This Debacle must be ended. By the Democratic Congress. There are no other options.