While many in Congress purport to want to end the Iraq Debacle, only one proposal is an actual proposal which uses the true powers of Congress to end the war- the "Not Spending" Power. The proposal is that of Senators Harry Reid and Russ Feingold. The magic words are the following:

c) 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.

Any proposal that does NOT include this phrasing is merely for show. Having the same date or goals is nice and all, but absent those magic words, no proposal from the Congress is truly a proposal to end the Iraq Debacle, given who the President currently is.

This is a major development, imo:

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER COSPONSORS FEINGOLD BILL TO REDEPLOY TROOPS FROM IRAQ

Washington D.C. -­ U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. . . . The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.

“I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feingold’s important legislation,” Reid said. “I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period.”

“I am delighted to be working with the Majority Leader to bring our involvement in the Iraq war to an end,” Feingold said. “Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security. By ending funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the President to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq.”

This sound familiar?

I have concerns about cutting off funding . . . I think there is a possibility, given how obstinate the Administration is, that if we try to cut off funding, Bush is hellbent on doing what he is doing . . . he may decide to play chicken and say 'you guys do whatever you want [I'm keeping the troops there]' . . .

No, that was NOT from today's daily kos front page story on Obama.

It is from MY front page Talk Left story of March 2, 2007. So all the Obama sycophants who believe the AP is lying when it writes this:

If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

need to wake up and stop drinking the Obama kool aid. For months and months, I have been preaching that Obama has been playing a bad brand of politics. To disbelieve a quote that is virtually the same thing he said a month ago, a quote that was ignored by most, but not by me, is to descend into blind hero worship.

Obama has talent and a good heart, but he has a politics problem.

Edger has led the charge on the growing Out of Iraq Blogger Caucus.

E, we have a new prospect for membership, President Bush's former pollster, Matthew Dowd:

In a wide-ranging interview here, Mr. Dowd called for a withdrawal from Iraq and expressed his disappointment in Mr. Bush’s leadership.

. . . His views against the war began to harden last spring when, in a personal exercise, he wrote a draft opinion article and found himself agreeing with Mr. Kerry’s call for withdrawal from Iraq. He acknowledged that the expected deployment of his son Daniel was an important factor.

. . . “If the American public says they’re done with something, our leaders have to understand what they want,” Mr. Dowd said. “They’re saying ‘Get out of Iraq.’”

He has a blog with Joe Lockhart. Send him an invite Edger.

I have stated that:

The March 31, 2008 nonbinding date contained in the Senate provision should become the announced date certain for NOT funding the Iraq Debacle. . . . [T]he INTENTION to NOT fund the war past the date certain is essential to a political strategy that will allow the Congress to do this. The American People must be forewarned of the date. They must internalize it. They must then internalize that if Bush does not withdraw troops past that date, then it is he who is abandoning the troops in harm's way - [it is] President Bush.

According to Newsweek, the American People will support this:

Do you support or oppose the legislation passed this week by the U.S. Senate calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by March 2008?

Support: 57%
Oppose: 36%
DK: 7%

The House and Senate have now passed versions of Iraq supplemental funding bills that both contain language either suggesting withdrawal dates or purporting to mandate to the President that all troops be removed from combat operations in Iraq.

The President continues to say:

He stood on the North Portico of the White House, flanked by Republican House leaders, and delivered his veto threat one more time. “We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we’ve got a troop in harm’s way, we expect that troop to be fully funded,” he said. “And we’ve got commanders making tough decisions on the ground, we expect there to be no strings on our commanders.

So what now? I'll explain what I am thinking on the flip.

The Senate passed its Iraq funding bill today.

The 51-47 vote fell mostly along party lines, with two Republicans -- Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Gordon Smith (Ore.) -- joining Democrats in support of the package, which would fund U.S. military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Democrats also attached language that would start troop withdrawals within 120 days of passage, with a March 31, 2008, goal for completing combat operations in Iraq. Some troops could remain in Iraq after that deadline in order to conduct counterterrorism training and security operations.

What's next? The House and the Senate have to come to an agreement about the date for requiring troops to pull out. Once the House and Senate agree on a version, it goes to President Bush, who has threatened to veto the bill.

Is there no one President Bush is accountable to?

In today's press briefing, David Gregory asked Dana Perino, Acting Press Spokesperson for the White House, if there is room for compromise with the Congress on the Iraq supplemental bill.

In marked contrast to the Decider's defiant uncompromising statements, Perino flatly stated there is room for compromise and tried to frame the Congress' position as "extreme," ironically citing the Iraq Study Group report as the mainstream. Yes, the very report President Bush tossed in the trash can when he ordered his Escalation.

Bumped because of update. -BTD

Update [2007-3-29 11:25:1 by Big Tent Democrat]: Senate Passes Iraq supplemental 51-47. The game is on. And by game, I mean Bush's veto game. Getting out of Iraq is no game. Not sure but it appears that all Dem Caucus members save Lieberman voted for it. That would mean Pryor (D-Ark) voted for it. The 2 Republicans who crossed over were Smith and Hagel.

Sam Rosenfeld notes that one plan, to provide only short term funding for dealing with a Bush veto of the Iraq supplemental funding bill that has been bandied about, has been floated by some conservative Dems Congressmen:

Conservative Democrats also discussed alternatives for providing troop funding, if the standoff proves to be prolonged. For instance, Reps. Dennis Cardoza (Calif.) and Mike Ross (Ark.) suggested that the war funding be parceled out in three-month increments to force Bush to keep coming back for more.

The source of the idea intrigues more than the idea itself. I prefer a different approach, but it is a good sign when conservative Dems are preparing fighting tactics, as opposed to rollover tactics.

A lot of folks are strategizing on what to do on the Iraq supplemental funding bill. A lot of complicated suggestions. I think that KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) applies here. Don't try to finesse this. Not Bush. Not the Blue Dogs. Not the American People. The American People have said two things. End the war. Don't abandon the troops. The war will be funded for some period of time. No one can hope otherwise.

I propose my old refrain:

Let me explain again - I ask for three things: First, announce NOW that the Democratic Congress will NOT fund the Iraq Debacle after a date certain. . . .; Second, spend the time to the not funding date 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.

Get the votes for that. Should be easy. No restrictions, benchmarks, etc. Bush will ignore all that. But he can not fight the war without money.

In short, fund the troops AND end the war.

The administration is batting about .000 in making predictions -- Iraqi citizens will welcome the U.S. with open arms; the war might last six days, six weeks, probably not six months; a fearsome supply of WMD's will be seized after the invasion; etc. Why, then, should we credit the president's claim that the American public will "blame Democrats" if he vetos the supplemental funding bill? Memo to the president: if the public believes someone deserves blame for not funding the troops, the blame will fall on the person who vetos funding, not on the Democrats who approved it.

Get over yourself, Mr. President.

The family of Pat Tillman is not taking yesterday's report on his death quietly.

"The Army continues to deny the family, and the public that pays for the Army with its taxes, access to the original investigation, and the sworn statements from that investigation,” the statement read, adding that eyewitnesses’ statements of Corporal Tillman’s death have been altered. “This is not a misstep. It is evidence tampering.”

The Pentagon report, released on Monday, said officers had suspected early on that Corporal Tillman had been killed by American troops in an accidental fratricide, not hostile fire, as was initially reported. But despite their suspicions, it said, officers did not immediately inform the family of the possibility of such a death, in violation of Army regulations. As a result, four generals, and five other officers, will face disciplinary action.

But the Pentagon found no criminal wrongdoing or evidence of a cover-up in the death...

Pat Tillman's mother was on Countdown tonight, and she said she could not rule out that her son was killed intentionally.