Joe Klein makes a similar error and is rather disingenuous in the process. In his latest column, Joe writes:

[Bush] can do what he has done throughout—politicize the war, use it as a bludgeon against Democrats instead of trying to find common ground and thinking through the consequences of his intransigence. Best of all, he can do this secure in the knowledge that this is one battle he will surely win... even as the war shows many signs of worsening, including hundreds killed in Baghdad bombings this past week. The screeches you just heard—No! No! Klein, you Bush appeaser!—are coming from the left wing of the Democratic Party, which, despite its incredible erudition, is unable to count to 67, the number of votes needed for a veto-proof majority in the Senate. Right now the Senate Democrats are stuck at 51 in favor of their version of the $100 billion supplemental appropriation to pay for the war through Sept. 30. It's a version that posits March 2008 as a goal—not a deadline, just a goal—for troop withdrawal. The irony here is that Bush could sign this bill because it gives him implicit authority to revise the withdrawal date toward perpetuity.

Klein falls for the same thoughtlessness on the issue that Onbama and many Netroots bloggers do, the 67 votes fallacy:

This is the fundamental misunderstanding of how defunding can work. To enact any piece of legislation to defund the war, the following must occur. It must be passed by the House and Senate, and signed by the President OR approved by 2/3 of the House and Senate. I believe it is absurd to believe that either of these things will happen.

So how come I am so stridently for defunding? How would it work? I have had this to say about that before:

I want to address the central defense presented for Obama's opposition to defunding the Iraq Debacle, that legislative realities make it impossible. To wit:

. . . In the Senate you still need 60 votes. . .

Indeed, count up to 67 to overcome a Bush veto. And this is precisely why Obama is full of it on this. NO LEGISLATION ending the Iraq Debacle can overcome this reality. That is why Obama's proposal, Murtha's proposal, Sestak's proposal, etc. are all bullspit. I am for defunding the war because it requires precisely NO passage of any laws, rather the ensuring that no laws are passed that fund the Iraq Debacle. The defunding bar is in fact the lowest we can hurdle, and thus the one REALISTIC proposal for ending the Iraq Debacle.

Defunding is a plan to do nothing on funding Iraq after a date certain.

So much for Joe Klein's non-point. Klein continues:

But this is a President who won re-election by fomenting political confrontations, and he knows the Democrats are in a bind. They won't block funding for the troops. Only 9% of Americans say they are in favor of cutting off funds for the war, according to an April 13 cbs News poll. [This is false. That is the numbe rfor an IMMEDIATE cutoff of funding. 67% support cutting off funding BY March 2008. Klein is being dishonest here.] Unfortunately for the Democrats, that 9% includes the noisier elements of the party's base. Senator Barack Obama found this out the hard way recently, when he said in an Associated Press interview that perhaps the best course of action was to "keep the President on a shorter leash"—that is, approve funding but limit the funds, forcing Bush to keep coming back for money. This unleashed the ire of Markos Moulitsas Z�niga, proprietor of the Daily Kos blog, who wrote with typical restraint, "What a ridiculous thing to say. Not only is it bad policy, not only is it bad politics, it's also a terrible negotiating approach. Instead of threatening Bush with even more restrictions and daring him to veto funding for the troops out of pique, Barack just surrendered to him." Kos assumes Bush will negotiate. He may also assume there won't be severe consequences if Congress refuses to authorize funding and the U.S. thoughtlessly skedaddles from Iraq. But even Senators like Obama and Jim Webb, who opposed the war from the start, say the extrication must be careful and must involve far better planning than the Bush-Cheney invasion. Sadly, the left-wing Democrats and Bush are playing the same game—all or nothing—and, even more sadly, the President is destined to win.

And one assumes Joe Klein thinks that Bush will respond to "ratcheted up pressure." As Obama claims to. This is sheer nonsense.

Democrats MUST play all or nothing on this PRECISELY because Bush will. There is not other option. The issue is binary - support the Bush IRaq Debacle or not. The way to NOT support it is to set a date certain for ending the funding of it. Again, Reid-Feingold is the ONLY way.

Joe admits this:

Congressional Democratic leaders admit privately they'll give Bush his appropriation when the current Kabuki is over. The question is, What, if any, restraints can they put on funding for the troops? Senate Armed Services Committee chair Carl Levin says the next version of the bill should tie continued funding to progress on reforms the Iraqi government has promised and failed to meet: "We'll send him a bill with economic consequences for the Iraqis if they don't meet their own benchmarks in 60 to 90 days. The President says he favors those benchmarks. Let's see if he means what he says." . . . A number of Senators told me they thought the idea was "ingenious," but one of them said, "Sure, but do you think Bush will approve even that?" No, I don't, and it's a disgrace.

Sure it is a disgrace Joe. But so what? Bush is a disagrace in every way. Bush is playing ALL OR NOTHING Joe! You said so yourself. Levin, Obama, you and the entire Beltway seems not to get what that means.

Everyone except Feingold-Reid supporters.

Mark my words, Democrats will listen to the ignorant advice of the Alters and the Kleins and cave in to Bush on Iraq. And the result will be a political loser for Democrats who wilk reinforce their spineless image.

And unfortunately, it seems to be the substance as well as the image.