Where do we go from here? The battle's done, and we kind of won, so we sound our victory cheer. Where do we go from here? -From Joss Whedon's "Once More With Feeling"

I'm stealing my title line from both Joss Whedon and mcjoan, whose fine piece on the Iraq Supplemental reflects a lot of what I think, but stated in her usual persuasive manner, as opposed to my shrill one. Joan writes:

My very pragmatic observation of the Iraq supplemental was that in cobbling together a bill that could make it through the House and set up the veto showdown with Bush, the leadership was setting a very, very low baseline with the Blue Dogs, negotiating away too much substance. . . . It's . . . unclear . . . as to how that fits in to the larger battle plan to make significant progress on actually getting the troops out.

I agree with this but I think it does not go far enough. I think this is ALSO a terrible political move. I'll explain it all on the flip.

President Bush says the Democrats' bill hurts the troops. He's says there's too much pork in the bill.

The Washington Post reports:

The bill provides about $95.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as more than $20 billion in new domestic spending for such items as agricultural subsidies, veterans' health care and rebuilding efforts in Gulf Coast states hit by hurricanes two years ago. Among other things, it provides about $3.5 billion in additional funding above Bush's request to address the health care problems faced by veterans and by returning service members wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan.

...More

The House of Representatives today passed the Iraq funding bill containing a provision calling for troop pullouts from Iraq by August, 2008.

Bush says he will veto the bill.

Bush said House Democrats had engaged in "an act of political theater" and "voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq."

As to the vote:

216 Democrats were joined by two Republicans in supporting the bill, while 198 Republicans and 14 Democrats opposed it. Voting with the Democratic majority were Republicans Walter B. Jones of North Carolina and Wayne T. Gilchrest of Maryland.

More...

The new Netroots CW on the Iraq supplemental funding bill has been set by Markos and I will give it this, it is a much more honest and realistic position than the previous argument that this bill actually was worth a darn. No more "first concrete step" nonsense. Now the point is the House Dems' proposal will never become law. I guess I should be happy, there seems to be a new consensus for my no funding proposal. But I am not. Because I disagree with the analysis. I will explain why on the flip.

The number of deserters from the U.S. Army is higher than the military has reported.

A total of 3,196 active-duty soldiers deserted the Army last year, or 853 more than previously reported, according to revised figures from the Army.

The new calculations by the Army, which had about 500,000 active-duty troops at the end of 2006, significantly alter the annual desertion totals since the 2000 fiscal year.

Who is considered to be a deserter?

More....

Our friend (Jeralyn and mine) Markos says:

Is the supplemental perfect? Nope. But ultimately, it matters little. Bush will veto it, just like he'd veto a "tougher" bill. The would-be-emperor from the unaccountable administration has no interest in agreeing to even the most mildest of oversight requests.

But what bill will Bush see? The Senate now starts from a weak baseline - and McConnell has the filibuster power. What bill will Bush see? If he sees any bill, it will certainly be even weaker than this bill. Then Bush starts to negotiate. Markos thinks this is the end of the concessions. It is only the beginning of the "compromises."

Update [2007-3-22 20:28:52 by Big Tent Democrat]: And now those who advocate for this bill will have their theory tested:

Four prominent liberal Democrats said Thursday they have given House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) the support she needs to pass the $124 billion wartime spending bill, even though they remain steadfastly opposed to any additional funding for the war.

All right all you proponents of this bill, what is the famous "next step" for this strategy? As Johnny Friendly says in "On the Waterfront," "you want him, you got 'em." What now?

Dem speaker after Dem speaker has defensively said the Iraq supplemental bill is "just a first step." At Daily Kos, Miss Laura repeats this talking point without examining whether it is is true or not:

The House of Representatives today began debate on the Iraq supplemental funding bill. . . . [T]oday the question comes down to yes or no on this bill, which does, for the first time, set a withdrawal deadline. . . . MoveOn expressed support for this bill, at least as a "first concrete step to ending the war." . . .

I say to her, saying it is a first step don't make it so. Indeed, by its own terms, it should NOT be so. It should be a last step setting a date certain for total withdrawal. That Miss Laura argues that it is a first step is the evidence that indeed the date certain is not so certain.

The debate on the House Iraq supplemental funding bill, HR 1591 now reaches the debate on the bill itself. Rep. David Obey (D-WI), leads off for support of this bill.

As I did below, I will be live blogging the debate. Sorry, duty called.

Obey's argument - 'we try to do three thing with this bill - (1) direct monies to the right war, Afghanistan, (2) protect the troops, and (3)send a message to the Iraqi politicians. This bill sets a timetable for getting out of Iraq. It sets benchmarks, and set "a target" for ending our incolvement under any circumstances.'

Same argument. The bill does none of part 3 imo. The benchmarks are a charade as the PResident certifies there completion. The end date certain is phony as this Congress will never cut off funds in September 2008, two months before an election. This bill will never become law. It will be filibustered in the Senate and this bill will thus be weakened. IF it has a tooth left, the President will veto it.

It does not help politically. The Dems get nothing from this bill. It does not help towards ending the war in Iraq. This bill hurts this cause. It should be voted down.

Update [2007-3-22 16:21:27 by Big Tent Democrat]:Procedural vote passes with 224 votes. 1 GOP vote, Walter Jones presumably. More debate and the big vote tomorrow.

Open Thread. I'll be updating with my observations, which as always, are attributable only to me. You can follow along on c-span or at the c-span website.

Louise Slaughter, voting Yes, (D-NY) says "this its the first time Democrats get the chance to change the course of the war and we will do it."

Not with this bill you are not Representative. You talk a good game but push came to shove and you balked at standing for ending the war. You are supporting staying the course for all practical purposes. Your changes are unenforceable. Your withdrawal deadliine a sham. You have not honored your word on this.

You know what I think about the House Dem Leadership's Iraq supplemental funding bill. But what do I know? I am just a citizen who has thought it through for months, looking at facts, language and history. Why not listen to a DC Beltway Media type. They know how things really work right? so let's see what Tom Edsall has to say:

The Democratic leadership . . . has busied itself behind closed doors, producing a toothless, loophole-ridden resolution that showcases the party’s generic antiwar stance while trying to establish troop readiness requirements, benchmarks for Iraqi progress and withdrawal timetables. The resolution — more precisely, a set of deals intended to paper over intraparty factions — is the result of a process better suited to a highway bill than national security. This patchwork proposal . . . risks setting the Democrats up for a poisonous share of responsibility for the failure of United States foreign policy, while amplifying questions regarding Democratic competence on military matters.

Hmmmm. That does not sound good. So what is the political reason for this bill again?

House Dem Leadership still twisting arms to get the votes for their terrible, harmful, politically disastrous Iraq supplemental funding bill:

The Iraq debate is scheduled to begin Thursday afternoon on the House floor, but the final vote was delayed by a day to give leaders more time to build support for a measure that has proved to be one of the most significant tests of the new Democratic Congress.

Shelve the bill House Dem Leadership. Start over. This bill is just plain horrible.

I consider David Sirota a good friend and a good progressive. Much more progressive than I across the board. He has written a piece supporting a Yes vote on the Iraq supplemental funding bill with which I profoundly disagree. But I am very glad David wrote the piece. David, alone amongst the proponents of this piece of legislation, has taken the objections some of us raise seriously and has attempted to respond to our concerns in detail.

For that I am grateful to David. One of my biggest concerns in this episode was the kneejerk attempts to shut down discussion of the merits of this bill. Too many bandied in misinformation, falsehoods and insults to the "idiot liberals' like myself. David has avoided this in his response. As I say, David is a friend, and I expect nothing less from him.

And yet he is wrong. I will explain why I think so on the other side.