The Iraq Supplemental funding fight has been something I consider of less importance because it has long been clear to me that the issue of setting a date certain for ending the war (I believe NOT funding it is the only way, but earlier versions discussed "binding timelines") would not be in it. And indeed, the talk is all of short leashes and benchmarks, not date certains for ending the war. The initial House bill, while supported by Move On and the Netroots, was in fact the worst deal possible, as it would have ostensibly set an end date two months before the 2008 elections, thereby insuring that in fact, the Debacle would continue past the end of the Bush presidency. It truly was a terrible bill.

Since then, the House passed a so-called "short leash" bill that provided 2 months of funding with a release of remaining funds in July. For those who favor the "ratcheting up the pressure" approach, this bill makes good sense. I do not think much of that approach, but it does notwork against a date certain for not funding approach I favor, the framework embodied in the McGovern Amendment and in Reid-Feiongold.

Now we see what is lkely to emerge as the Senate proposal, and it is something Bush will sign. GOP Senator John Warner proposed it: