The Reid-Feingold bill is significant not because it will overcome filibuster, vetoes or even pass. It is significant, in my opinion of course, because it meets the criteria I laid out:

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.

The NOT FUNDING date CAN BE March 31, 2008. Harry Reid is not just anybody. He is the Senate Majority Leader. His words carry special significance. With Democratic support, Harry Reid can enforce a NOT FUNDING date of March 31, 2008.

That is the significance of the Reid-Feingold bill. Come the summer, when the regular appropriation process begins in the summer, Reid and the Democrats can pass a CLEAN bill that funds the Iraq Debacle to March 31, 2008 and no further. And then reiterate that is it. Day after day. Tell the American People and tell the President, whether he likes it or not, the Iraq Debacle ends March 31, 2008.

That gives Bush a year to "declare victory." But the key is announcing the date now so that "the troops in the field" are not "abandoned" by the Democratic Congress. That if the troops are kept in Iraq by Bush after March 31, 2008, it will be George Bush who has abandoned the troops.

Let me repeat what I said at the start, given the funds, President Bush will NEVER leave Iraq. Ever. The ONLY way to end the Iraq Debacle is for the Congress to NOT FUND it.

And the way to do it, in my opinion, is to announce a date certain and stick to it.

Is this, in the parlance of Senator Obama, playing chicken with Bush? If you like Senator Obama. I call it ending the Iraq Debacle.