David begins with the famous quote from Saul Alinsky:

“As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be,” wrote Saul Alinsky, one of the 20th Century’s most successful progressive leaders. “That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be - it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system.”

On this we are in agreement David. I think your assumption that someone is advocating something other than this is your first grave mistake. It leads you to the mindset that any disagreement with your view is outside of these paramters. It colors your every thought. And it leads you to misinterpretations, misunderstandings and misstatements.

David continues:

With the House expected to vote this week on binding legislation to end the war in 2008, a group of Congress’s most distinguished progressive heroes is undecided about whether to vote yes or no. The indecision is entirely understandable. Democratic leaders have attached their binding legislation to a bill providing ongoing military funding, and many progressives understandably do not want to vote for a single dollar more for anything that could be construed as fueling the war.

This is a misstatement of the issue. Everyone understands that many single dollars more will be voted for the Debacle. The objections to the bill arise because it does not lead to an END of the Debacle. Again David construes any disagreement with his view as somehow not dealing with reality. It is he who is not dealing with the reality of how bad and how useless, indeed how HARMFUL this bill is.

David continues:

The question, then, is simple: Should these progressives vote yes and accept the congressional world as it is right now – a world filled with a unified Republican caucus that will do anything to continue the war indefinitely and a group of egotistical, pro-war Blue Dog Democrats who will do anything to lavish attention on themselves as supposedly “tough”? Or, should they view the congressional world as they wish it would be and vote no, sending the bill down to defeat?

Here begins the grave errors. The congressional world as it is now is precisely what DAVID is not accepting. He ignores the Congressional world where it is IMPOSSIBLE that Congress will not provide additional funding for the Iraq Debacle in September 2008, two months before the election.

More importantly, it is David who chooses to let the Democratic leadership off the hook. For it would be the Democratic leadership that decides that if this bill fails then something worse will come. What could be worse than this I ask?

David would say:

[Rep. David Obey's] calculation, though laid out inartfully in his now-famous “idiot liberals” tirade, is sound: He doesn’t have the votes to pass what congressional progressives say they want, which is a “fully funded withdrawal.”

Accepted. And? This is no reason to vote for THIS bill. Why should progressives vote for THIS bill David?

David continues:

Every vote that he may attract from a progressive Democrat for a bill cutting off funding for the war gets him double the “no” votes among both pro-war Blue Dogs and typical rank-and-file invertebrates who want to avoid the issue altogether.

This still is no reason to vote for this bill. Remember all that happens if the bill is defeated is the bill is defeated. The world does not end. Bush does not attack Iran. The Progressive Caucus is not obliterated. What is the reason for voting for THIS bill David?

Finally David decides to discuss THIS bill:

Here are the facts: The Iraq supplemental bill begins redeploying troops by March 2008, and completes a full withdrawal by September 2008. You can label the bill anything you like. For all I care, you can label it the Iraq War Indefinite Continuation Act and Fox News can run slick graphics cheering on the legislation as the greatest escalation of militarism since Genghis Khan. But as long as that language is in there and the bill passes, then at the end of the day, real, binding power has been wielded to end the war.

This would be the argument for the bill. And it is precisely why David's argument utterly fails. The bill DOES NOT "begin[] redeploying troops by March 2008." Bush will certify he needs to keep them there for national security reasons. This is simply not true David. And since it is not true, your argument is flawed. Fatally so.

The bill does NOT "complete[] a full withdrawal by September 2008." This is false. The bill funds through September 2008 and on that date, in THE REAL CONGRESS THAT EXISTS TODAY, ADDITIONAL FUNDING will be voted "FOR THE TROOPS" two months before an election.

Only wishful thinking can imagine anything else happening. Indeed, Dem staffers argue that the plan is to go to court!!!!! You know better than this David. Your argument is a house of cards. This bill is a complete and utter failure. It does nothing to stop the war. It is why PRAGMATISTS and PROGRESSIVES who want the war to end MUST vote against it.

Now, we can see that the bill itself is a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE bill. But maybe the alternative is worse.

David argues:

THE ALTERNATIVES: A “CLEAN” WAR FUNDING BILL

When employing brinksmanship as remaining undecided on such a close vote does, any lawmaker should game out what they legitimately think will happen. So let’s objectively walk through the two scenarios.

Consider progressives voting yes, and the bill passing. It will be conferenced with the Senate’s bill, that may end up having even stronger deadline language in it already.

This is not realisitc in my opinion. The bill will only get WEAKER from here. Not stronger. David is simply unrealistic now. As Homer said to Marge,"now who's being naive?"

David's unlikely scenario continues:

That suggests the conference report will include at least as strongly anti-war binding language as was originally voted on in the House, and that such binding language will be forwarded on to the White House. President Bush will be forced to sign a bill ending the war, or veto a bill and be blamed for refusing to fund the troops.

This is more wishful thinking. The "strong language" is likely to be gone in order to overcome the GOP power of filibuster in the Senate. An even WEAKER bill will emerge. And if it does not, Bush will veto. And who gets blamed for it is anyone's guess. But this mealy mouthed nonsense of a bill is not anything to feel you can campaign on.

David continues:

The former is a positive legislative scenario for antiwar progressives, because it cements legally binding legislation to end the war.

It does not as it exists now. It certainly will not after McConnelll gets through with it. And if it did, Bush would veto it.

Now David scenarios out a No vote:

Consider progressives voting no, and the bill failing. At that point, President Bush would use the bully pulpit to echo the Fox News talking point that Democrats’ incompetence and division is supposedly leaving troops in the field without the resources they need.

This is not sound from David. You see, in David's construct, when Bush has a powerful bully pulpit is only if the vote FAILS, with GOP votes I might add. If it passes, Bush is a bumbling fool who can't even talk. But if it fails, he is Reagan come back to life. This is just nonsense.

Now is when David really infuriates:

The ascension of the Spineless Caucus would likely commence, with people like Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) demanding Democrats move a “clean” supplemental bill – one that is stripped of the binding antiwar language. This move will be made because a panicked Pelosi, under pressure for supposedly “leaving troops in the lurch,” will invariably calculate that there is a much bigger pool of pro-war Republican “yes” votes to attract to a pro-war bill than new antiwar progressive “yes” votes to attract to an even stronger antiwar bill.

These are the same people that will make THIS bill, a travesty already, even weaker when the Senate is pressured by the GOP and with filibuster! David, like Bush, these weak kneed Dems have to be confronted sometime. And like Bush, it is best to confront them ON THIS GROUND.

"Are you for Bush's Iraq debacle or against?" is the question to be presented. And it is a question best presented as far away from the election as possible. Fight them on this NOW David. You let them win now on Iraq and they will have won it forever.

Clearly, this is just a best guess and there's always the possibility for something else to happen. But I submit that this is about the best, most informed guess we can make at this point.

No David, this is NOT a best guess, it is a sheer wishful thinking you have built. Hope is not a plan. I thank you for your efforts. Since nothing better exposes how bad this bill is than playing out the scenario as you have. The wishful thinking involved in your story is the most effective condemnation of this bill that anyone could muster.

If you think Sirota has spun a convincing story of how this will play out then by all means, vote yes. But, if like me, you are certain David's scenario is sheer fantasy then you should be resolved in opposing this terrible terrible bill.