Progressives need to gain influence in the caucus to really make things happen in these future battles.  And since the Republicans are too idiotic to accept the weak restrictions in the bill and instead make them out to be more than they are, Democrats will succeed in highlighting the differences between themselves and Republicans (ie. anti-endless war and pro-endless war).   That's the takeaway message that we want to send.

And as you say, a Bush veto is possible anyway.  It's a good thing he's torpedoing it rather than progs.

The only thing that matters for progressives is that the votes happened. The weathervane slice of the Republican party will bend as the election nears. Every vote that takes place is an opportunity for change.

Good points, and I'm all for not tearing each other apart.  I would like to make two points, though.

1) The best outcome for us is a Senate filibuster, and this is what the Dems should let happen. The Senate version must not be a reconciliation bill (which precludes filibuster). Bush already owns this war; let the Repubs buy in. Let them be the ones preventing the troops from getting their money. And a real, not a procedural, filibuster. If the Repubs won't vote for it, they have to actually command the floor all day. That will keep this in the headlines till they cave; the longer the better. And once they cave; they have cave. We look strong, and them weak. And when they eventually cave, all who voted yes will be committed to imposing deadlines on Bush. Then Bush vetoing looks even worse.

2) There should absolutely not be a resolution requiring Congressional approval to attack Iran. It was a mistake to put that in the Iraq bill, because now the Repubs can claim that the failure to pass that provision means the President has such a right by default. The Dem leadership should state that Bush has no right to attack Iran unless a bill specifically permitting him to do so is passed. They are on very strong Constitutional ground here, but cannot let the Bush position become the default, as they will never be able to pass this over a veto. This will not stop Bush from attacking, but neither will force him to veto or signing statement a "permission slip" resolution. Frankly, nothing but impeachment will stop him, if he decides to do it, and impeachment cannot be done quickly enough. Our moves, then, have to be calculated in terms of what happens the next day after he attacks Iran, and the position we want to be in is that what he did was clearly illegal and unconstitutional and therefore grounds for impeachment.

I seldom do this, but I feel the need to mirror one of my previous posts on this subject. It is THAT important. I am hoping the supplemental will be filibustered in the Senate:

The real reality is that the USA is now BANKRUPT. Bush, or his surrogates plan to nuke the hot Iran reactors, and Turkey plans to attack northern Iraq. Russia and China may simultaneously make a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

If Bush gets any kind of supplemental, he will borrow that amount of money, and he will use it to nuke Iran. He will laugh at any stipulations, 'mandatory' or not! World War III is now on the table. THIS IS NOT A TEST.

Excellent stuff.

If I wanted to be picky, I'd suggest that the vote on the bill was a sanity test - the fact that the vote was in doubt at all was a measure of how close to self-maiming the Dem House party was willing to go.

And that everyone won argument, I suspect, is a trifle tricksy, if one were to analyze it too closely.

But - this is politics, the Dems are not overburdened with competent leadership, and Chris has been giving lessons - as with this piece.

(Thus - even now, I'd not be absolutely certain that the House leadership hasn't cocked up the count. We'll know soon enough, though, thank God!)

It's a beat down, that's for sure.  Too often throughout the course of history we are litered with examples of states or organizations within states making progress, but being polarized from within for "not doing enough".  Let's realize that we are on that right track and that we are further along than we have ever been on this issue.  There is no magic wand to be waved.

This is already a good outcome.  If even the weak tea in this bill is unacceptable to the Republicans, we've already won.

If they filibuster or veto, they've lost their chance.  The anti-war crowd has no need for this bill; they have no need to compromise further.  The pro-war crowd needs it to keep the war going.  The negotiation is asymmetrical.  The progressive caucus holds all the cards.  Any funding bill has to go through them.  When Republicans kill this bill, we can just toss something back at them that is even more restrictive, or even just superficially different from the current bill.  There's no need to give them any more, since killing this bill is perfectly acceptable.  Progressives can walk away from the table and be perfectly happy.  The pro-war crowd cannot.

All that remains true so long as Pelosi holds her ground and keeps the Blue Dogs chained up.  The only way we lose this is if she lets a bill come up for vote that can pass Republican muster.

Republicans must know all this, so they may even fail to follow through on the filibuster and veto threats.  If they do that, they've admitted to the emptiness of their threats, and we can abuse them worse the next time around.

This may be a "political" victory in a sense.  However, it does funds george bush's arrogant war for one more year.  Why is it so hard to just say no to more war funding? We need those funds for other purposes.  Why cant we just say no to war?

great post. this vote is a progressive victory.

Republicans can no longer condemn Democrats for voting against funding the Iraq War, since they have gone on record doing so.  They have validated the concept that the power of the purse means holding back money until you get the terms you want.

We need to publicize the Republican vote in the districts of vulnerable Repubs and instead of lambasting them, give them credit for standing up for their principles.  We thereby give ourselves room to do the same when the time comes.