But, even now, we're seeing that a number of the johnny-come-lately withdrawal plans from the Democratic presidential candidates don't really cut it. While it can be said that each contains worthy elements, when you start checking them out in detail, you find disturbing omissions. Some don't deal with permanent bases, some don't say withdraw all the troops, some don't deal with war profiteers. Some are, in other words, neither here nor there. Some are better than others. Do your own parsing.

Worse still, even now, it's not at all clear whether a Democratic majority will stand firm against Mister Bush should he choose - as he has promised - to veto the supplemental spending bill because of its timetable. The response to that veto - the Feingold-Reid proposal with its funding cut-off and demand for withdrawal starting in four months - is very far from a slam dunk.

And if we add to the bill John Murtha's plan to prohibit the sending (or re-sending) of inadequately trained, equipped and rested troops, and limit spending to two- or three-month increments, then surely the legislation will lose by a wide margin, an unknown number of Democrats refusing to go along. They remain as cowed by the Bush Administration, and as desperate to "cry uncle," in John Edwards's phrase, as they were back in '05 and '06 when, inarguably, the mess in Iraq was less of a mess, the civil war was just getting started, a lot fewer dollars had been spent and a lot fewer people were dead.

There is no excuse for surrendering anything to a Bush veto. No excuse for triangulating while the blood and dollars flow. All the Democrats ought by now to recognize just how right Russ Feingold was 20 months ago, and how right he is now. Those who choose to oppose his legislation deserve a hearty ass-kicking.

Also read this in one of the comments.  Not an ideal source but Novakula is claiming:

A bipartisan deal on the supplemental appropriations bill to finance the Iraq war appears to be in the books, with less talk now of a presidential veto and a subsequent crisis over funding the troops in the field. The final version probably will contain the benchmarks opposed by President George W. Bush, but with no cutoff of funding.

you're a lawyer

so

it seems reasonable to ask

what time was it

when you wrote

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 12, 2007; Page A06

...Dodd took the unusual step of announcing his candidacy on the "Imus in the Morning" radio program, partly, he said, because he has been doing interviews with host Don Imus for 14 years. But there was a practical political reason as well: Imus was willing to give him more airtime. "Condi Rice was going to do the 'Today Show,' " Dodd said. "CBS said they would give me three minutes. I got 20 minutes on Imus."