House Democrats quickly denied a report last week that they had given up on a proposed timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. That move would have constituted a significant concession to the president, and it was clearly unacceptable to their real leadership team. Instead, Roll Call ($) reports there’s a split among the leadership about whether to keep fighting for a surrender, or to tacitly concede that the president has the authority to prosecute the war:
The piece states that it appears more likely that the House will pass the ‘micro-funding’ bill, discussed here before, to fund the war for two months. That will set up a confrontation with the Senate, which is likely to go a significantly different route:
A short-term funding approach allows Democrats to kick the can down the road. While they may not have the guts and the votes to defund the war today, this allows them to try again in a few months. And by choosing an approach so different from the Senate’s, it might create a situation so uncertain that no bill can be agreed upon for a while–which helps the cause of undercutting the mission. It also allows the House to play the ‘more anti-war than thou’ card, and sets up Harry Reid, or Carl Levin, or Ben Nelson to be the ‘bad guy’ in the eyes of the netroots. Because someone will be forced to stand up and say that this approach is unacceptable. Of course, no one has been willing to so far; and unlikely though as it may be, there’s always the chance that the Senate leadership will try to emulate the House on this, as well. In either case, the White House had better be prepared to explain why this approach won’t work.
