Chris Bowers articulates his version:

The more I think about it, at least in the short term, both camps in the progressive side of this debate will actually get what they want. This bill will pass the House, but it will also never pass into law. Many anti-war activists don't want any more spending bills for Iraq to pass into law, and they want to start by defeating this one. When Republicans defeat this bill via Senate filibuster, or when Bush vetoes the bill, anti-war activists holding that position will get their wish, as this bill will be defeated. It will not be defeated in the way they want it to be defeated, but it will be defeated nonetheless. At the same time, those of us now favoring the bill will get what we wanted: headlines showing Democrats trying to end the war, but being thwarted by Republicans. Pelosi will look like a strong leader, and the Democratic caucus will look unified. In the short term, not only have Democrats won the politics of this fight, but there still won't be any more money to continue the Iraq war. We all won.

Actually, in the short term, I have always accepted this point, IF it played out that way. But it won't. What Chris does not realize is that the GOP and Bush are playing politics too. Indeed, on Iraq, Bush has so outmaneuvered Dems since the 2006 election that it is not even funny.

After the November elections, after the Iraq Study Group report, the idea of there NOT being some withdrawal plan was not even one that was seriously considered. Even Bush, everyone thought, including the GOP, would have to face political reality.

We all learned something different. Bush did not provide a withdrawal plan. Bush proposed an Escalation Plan!

Suddenly, we were not debating how fast to withdrawal. The debate became whether there should be an escalation. And after much fumbling and bumbling, the Senate and House made noises that meant nothing politically and policywise on the Surge.

The other big issue being discussed was whether Bush can go to war with Iran. This was another frustrating debate for me because it acepted a false premise - that Bush can unilaterally declare a war. A provision against that view was originally part of the Iraq Supplemental but was stripped out at the behest of the Blue Dogs. Substantively, I do not care. That provision was unnecessary. But the fact that it was proposed was a bad move, and yes it was progressive Jim McDermott who did that. The fact it was taken out is worse. Talking about emboldening Bush.

And so it goes with all of the Iraq initiatives. And it will be so with the Iraq supplemental. House Dems and the Netroots seem not to understand how this process has played out and will play out.

The very same pressures that forced the capitulation to the Blue Dogs will force further capitulations along the way starting with the Senate, IF a bill is to be approved. If the goal is to have Bush veto a bill then it was critical to start with as strong a bill as possible so that when the inevitable compromises were made along the way at least at the end Bush would need to veto. The bill, if it emerges, that Bush will see will be utterly toothless. To wit, he will not veto it and the Dems will have funded the Debacle.

Chris writes:

I indicated yesterday that the next fight would probably be engaged over the Department of Defense appropriations bill in late April/early May. However, when this bill--the one we have so agonized over--is defeated either via filibuster or via veto, the fight over the Iraq supplemental will continue. And we will need to work together on that fight. If there is any attempt to cave to Republicans, and pass a bill with no restrictions whatsoever, people on both sides of the current debate will need to join together to help defeat that bill. You better believe I will help whip votes to defeat a straight-up funding of the war. Further, if Democrats decide to scrap this bill, and start over with new legislation, we will all need to work together to make the language stronger, rather than weaker. Yet further, even apart from this bill, we will need to make sure that provisions which were stripped out of it, such as language requiring congressional approval for any military action on Iran, are not only given a vote on the House floor, but passed by the House. In short, no matter what happens, once this bill is passed we will need to continue working together to help bring an end to this war.

That's all very nice Chris, but the "218, best we can get mantra" is now the baseline. Does anyone think you can retrace those steps? Pelosi went down that road. The Netroots went down that road. The Out of Iraq Caucus went down that road. The funding with next to no restrictions is a fait accompli now.

All that is left is messaging. The reality is Chris that the strategy you endorsed really leaves you only to try what Markos is talking about:

The message being sent is that Democrats want out, Republicans want more Americans to die in Iraq. That is the clear distinction we need heading into 2008. Voters will then decide which they prefer -- pullout or escalation. And when we win that battle and hold the White House and Congress, this war is history.

I do not believe that message can be sent effectively given what will transpire now. But at least there is a level of realism, political savvy and pragmatism in this approach. It won't work but at least we are back on Planet Earth.

The idea that the progressives and the Netroots can now, turn on a dime and stop a weaker bill in the future is pretty much a pipe dream. Better to just concentrate on trying to execute the strategy Markos outlines. That accepts that the war will not end until after the 2008 election. And that is the consequence of the House Iraq supplemental. That's why I so vehemently opposed it.