Rep. Jerry Nadler was the only lawmaker at a meeting of all House Democrats on Thursday to stand up and declare that he could not support a compromise plan to fund the Iraq war with a timeline to end the conflict. So some party leaders had written him off even as he joined House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for a private meeting.

In the confines of the speaker's suite, Nadler (N.Y.) could be specific. He sought assurances from Pelosi (Calif.) that President Bush would be compelled to withdraw all troops from combat by August 2008, as the legislation proposed. He wanted to know: "What is the legal compulsion to follow this timeline?"

A Pelosi aide disappeared from the meeting for a few minutes and returned with a few lines of legislative text offering what Nadler wanted to hear: Once troops are out of Iraq, no money would be available to put them back in, outside the narrow exceptions of targeted counterterrorism operations, embassy protection and efforts to train Iraqis.

"You know," Nadler said after a pause, "I think that's okay."

Strip away the oleaginous coating, and the straight story is pretty remarkable, if it's to be believed. (One might suspect that the coating is there to protect the story from such doubts.)

Thus:

As Democratic leaders balance those demands, the calculus is fairly straightforward, said one conservative Democrat involved in the process. Leaders are counting on winning all but a dozen of the 43 conservative Blue Dog Democrats and all but a dozen of the 75 or so members of the liberal Out of Iraq Caucus. Then, Democratic leaders are hoping, enough Republicans will break ranks to put them over the top.

By last week's end, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) said, they had secured about 200 votes.

At this rate, they'll be passing the bill nem con!

It implies a mass capitulation of the Progs - or (perhaps more likely) a sign that there never was going to be a 100% Prog turnout against a supplemental bill without a withdrawal rider.

The Nadler Proviso (dwarf second cousin (shades of Rudy!) to the Murtha Ditto) at least looks like conditional defunding. But we don't have the language; so I wouldn't be staggered to find a Bush-size loophole.

And it confirms - as if confirmation were needed! - that the withdrawal requirement itself does not come with a rider cutting off funding to troops left in theater after the due date.

Most revealing of the state of the Dem House party on Iraq is this:

A meeting in Pelosi's office Thursday stretched from 1:30 to 4 p.m., as 35 to 40 Democratic liberals hashed over the legislation with Pelosi, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) and Pelosi's political consigliere, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.).

Miller's pitch was blunt: If the liberals team up with Republicans to bring down the Iraq bill, Democratic leaders would have no choice but to come back with a spending bill that simply funds the war, without any policy restrictions. It would pass easily, with Republican votes and the support of many Democrats.

So, the threat from the leadership to the Progs was: vote against a bill with ineffective deployment control provisions, and we'll pass a bill with no such provisions!

And this piece of snake-oil salesmanship seems to have worked on most of them!

Yesterday, I was moved by weekend longueurs to wonder whether we might see a sudden leap into relevance of our friends in the CPC, thus offering the lefty sphere a chance to forge bonds, etc, etc.

Needless to say, there were caveats. But the tone was cautiously upbeat.

Perhaps I should have known.

All the above assumes that, leaving the tone of the piece aside, the Post has its facts right.

It's just possible that this is a leadership con; that they are taking as a supporter every Prog who doesn't actually say vaffunculo to the Signora, in the hope that the Progs will be too demoralized to count themselves.

But I wouldn't believe it. It's more plausible that the Progs really have, most of them, thrown in the towel.

However - we don't the have the information on which to make a definitive judgement.

And the CPC/sphere 'alliance'? Let's at least make contact - even if it's only in the hope of finding out what in Sam Hill they think they're playing at!