This bill is clearly NOT designed to be a first step. It is designed, to give them credit, as a LAST step, one that ends the war in September 2008, as Peter DeFazio argued in the debate today.

Indeed, these contradictory claims are indicative of what a terrible mess this bill is. No one really believes this bill would end the war. No one really believes the Congress will NOT vote more funds for the Debacle in September 2008, two months before an election. No one believes that Bush will not waive the so called benchmarks in the bill. The bill is intended as a political statement, to be used in the 2008 elections. No one can seriously argue this is intended to actually end the war. And to her credit, Miss LAura does not either. So does this bill help us to end the war? I think it clearly does not. I have stated why in my many posts.

Miss Laura argues for the bill, saying:

Let's be clear. This week's bill would be stronger without the Blue Dogs' fear of looking weak or of facing the eternal BS accusation of not supporting the troops. Blame for that must laid at their feet - and if progressives join them in sinking this bill, the Blue Dogs will avoid that deserved anger from House leadership and from the country.

Huh? The Blue Dogs are FOR this bill!! They avoided the blame already when the Dem leadership caved in to their demands. How will they be blamed if the bill is passed? This makes no sense.

Miss Laura continues:

Progressives and their supporters should look to the next step - to that vote on the Murtha plan or the Defense Appropriations Bill language Sirota suggests - which is more likely to come if they emerge from this vote strengthened within the Democratic caucus rather than dragged down with the Blue Dogs. That is how we move concretely toward ending the war.

Progressives strengthened? How? Dragged down with the Blue Dogs? They won!!! They got the concessions they wanted!!

Moreover, what next step? THIS BILL is what's left of the Murtha Plan. There is no other Murtha Plan. The progressives emerge from this process utterly defanged. They have now been revealed to be utterly powerless. They have been forced to accept an unacceptable bill. The Blue Dogs won Miss Laura. This is much more their bill than anyone elses. This argument simply makes no sense.

Miss Laura continues:

[T]he progressives held on to significant victories and . . . the next bill would be far weaker. If this bill does not pass, it is the Blue Dogs' fear that wins, not the progressives' conscience. . .

Again, the Blue Dogs' fear is what made this bill. This is THEIR bill. What victories did the progressives gain here?

In addition, why would the next bill be weaker? Bowers and Sirota say this and I see that as confirmation that the Dem leadership, in their eyes, is going to roll over in September 2008 as well. If they can't stand strong NOW, how can we expect them to in September 2008? There is a disconnect with reality un the advocacy of this terrible bill that is hard to understand. Must we support the Dem leadership? Is that the message the Netroots is sending. I reject that DC Establishment Beltway message.

Other than what I highlight above, Miss Laura's piece is largely a rehash of pieces by Chris Bowers, which I criticized here and David Sirota, which I criticized here. There has been no substantive response to my critiques. So I have to nothing to add to those pieces.

Everyone knows this bill is a policy failure. The argument now is that we should not make this a political failure. I agree. Passing the bill would be a political failure, when it matters, two months before the next election, when Dems will cave in yet again, as any realist must see.

This bill must be defeated. The House Dems need to be saved from themselves.