The effect of the timeline would be to “snatch defeat from the jaws of progress in Iraq,� agreed Lieberman, who won a new term last fall in a three-way race after losing the Democratic nomination to an anti-war insurgent.

Anti-war insurgent? That’s a curious choice of words, isn’t it? Insurgent suggests rebellion against the legitimate candidate, instead of say, the candidate who actually won the primary.

As for the news, if a non-binding withdrawl bill on a razor thin majority is what now passes for “strong stance” I think I’ll go off to the corner and cry about the state of the union now.

The change will likely be more qualitative than quantitative: the Democrats clearly do not have the votes to override a Bush veto.

Bush can’t fund his own war. If he vetos the bill, he doesn’t get his emergency funds. He’s gambling that the Democrats will cave in in the end, that they won’t allow the surge to go unfunded.

But time is against him. This war is getting more unpopular, the Democrats haven’t suffered for their votes, Republicans are getting tired of the scandals and many want the war done before it costs them another election.

And as you point out, the Pentagon says it needs the funds in weeks or the surge is over.

The fact that the Senate ended up including similar language, despite expectations that the Republicans would filibuster, is a huge red flag that they’re preparing to bail out on this.

Kevin H Says:
As I see it the Dems don’t really need to override a veto here…

I think you’re right Kevin.

• The President has asked for suplimental war funding.
• Congress is HAS authorizing his request.
• It’s Mr. Bushs move.

And it’s his, not the congresses, Game Clock that’s ticking…. Mate in two.

I wonder what Bobby Fisher would do?

If he vetoes the bill, the Democrats can work to make sure the timetable is in every future version of the bill that goes to Bush. That puts more pressure on people who vote against the timetable, as the war continues to erode support for Republicans going into the ’08 season.

If he signs the bill and ignores the timetable, I don’t know what happens.

FWIW, he’s already said he’ll veto the bill.

the Democrats clearly do not have the votes to override a Bush veto.

I think I need some clarity here. As I see it the Dems don’t really need to override a veto here. I’m pretty sure the House vote was on an amendment to a war-time spending bill, which means Bush can’t veto the amendment without vetoing the spending bill.

That puts him in a bind because he’ll basically vetoed his own war. This will force the issue to come up again, and a new war-time spending bill will have to be proposed.

Unless the political algebra changes somehow in the next few weeks, wouldn’t it be very, very likely that any future versions of spending bills would include the same amendments and time-tables? A veto would simply seem to delay the issue, not solve anything in Bush’s favor.

Am I missing something here?