In March we heard this:

The frustration of some Democratic leaders as they painstakingly build a majority boiled over in an outburst this week by Representative David R. Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat and chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who blew up at a persistent antiwar activist . . . In an exchange that was videotaped by another activist and quickly posted on the Internet, Mr. Obey declared that, ''We don't have the votes to defund the war, and we shouldn't!'' He described proponents of a financing cutoff as ''these idiot liberals.'' Mr. Obey apologized in a statement on Friday.

In the Senate, it is not enough for Democrats to hold their own majority; rules require a super majority of 60 votes to force a vote on their Iraq legislation, a binding resolution that sets a ''goal'' for a pullout in 2008 and redefines the American mission in Iraq. That means Democrats must attract about a dozen Republicans.

And even if, by some miracle, both houses managed to pass legislation requiring a withdrawal, President Bush has clearly signaled that he intends to veto it, and the Democrats fall far short of the necessary two-thirds vote to override a veto. As a result, what is essentially happening in Congress right now is an attempt to ratchet up the political pressure -- on Republican moderates, especially in the Senate, and on the president -- to change course in Iraq.

. . . ''This is a campaign,'' Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said at a news conference on Friday, as senators headed home. ''We are going to keep at it, and we are going to continue this discussion for the good of the country. And we believe the more it is debated and discussed, the more the difference between the parties is apparent to the American people, the less flexibility the president will have in maintaining his course.''

Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, agreed, as the Senate looked toward another procedural fight next week over Iraq: ''We succeed even if we don't get 60 votes.'' Step by step, vote by vote, the pressure grows, Democrats say.

The pressure grows does it? Well, let's see what happened. The House Supplemental bill included a "binding date" of September 2008 to end the war. It was not really binding, as a close reading of the bill would demonstrate. It was not even possibly pragmatically binding, as no Congress will "not fund the troops two months before an election. But progressives and the Netroots demanded fealty to this travesty:

Matt Stoller says:

Pelosi's compromise is messy, but there's no clean solution here. The public is against this war, but it is not for complete withdrawal. Change is still a very scary prospect.

My question to Stoller and Meyerson is this - what part of the Pelosi "compromise" do they like? What is it that they feel is worth ANYTHING? Specifically, what?

Harold Meyerson jumps on the beat up on on antiwar folks bandwagon:

We're trying to use the supplemental," [Obey] explained, "to end the war." . . . In effect, what the protesters are doing is making the unattainable perfect the enemy of the barely-attainable good. Because Obey is quite right: The votes aren't there to shut down funding for the war. What he and Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership in both houses are about is finding some way to curtail the president's determination to pass the war on to his successor regardless of the continuing cost to U.S. interests and lives.

What Meyerson does is simply repeat nonsense about what some of us are seeking - not the unattainable perfect as he so breezily dismisses it, but the attainable, indeed the ONLY, method for reaching the goal Myerson purports to support-ending the war before the next President is in office.

Consider on the flip Meyerson's views on what the House is doing to gauge just how unserious Meyerson is in this article.

Attaching conditions to the appropriations bill is not a foolproof way to accomplish that, as Pelosi and Obey would readily admit. It is merely the best of the imperfect options to wind down U.S. involvement in Iraq, given the narrowness of their congressional majorities and the presence of George W. Bush in the White House.

First, NO conditions have survived the Blue Dog assault! Bush needs to merely certify that national security demands whatever he asks for.

Then Meyerson writes:

What Pelosi and Obey understand that their critics on the left seem to ignore is that it will take numerous congressional votes and multiple confrontations with Bush to build the support required to end U.S. involvement.

SO that explains funding the war through October 2008? Because that means there will be no more votes on funding. Why not a short term funding bill? Why not the simple provision that was excised from the proposal, no funding after October 2008?

Meyerson continues:

Thanks to the Constitution's division of powers, Congress and the White House seem bound for months of fighting over the conditions attached to any approval of funds for continuing our operations in Iraq.

This is sheer nonsense. The Congress does not have to haggle over restrictions. It can choose NOT to fund the war. What in blazes is Myerson talking about?

Over time, as the war drags on, either enough Republicans will join their Democratic colleagues to put an end to U.S. intervention, or they will stick with Bush, thereby ensuring there will be a sufficient number of Democrats in the next Congress to end the war.

SO that is the end game for Meyerson and the Dem leadership, run on Iraq in 2008. But what happens when there is nothing to point to? This supplemental gives Bush everthing he wants. IT is the DEM proposal. What confrontation is Meyerson talking about?

For the record, this is my proposal:

In reality there are two positions available now -for ending the Debacle or for continuing it. It is that simple. And the choice is binary. Because President George W. Bush makes it so. Bush listens to no one, except Cheney.

Many ask 'so what is a Democratic Congress to do?' With Mitch McConnell promising filibusters to all attempts to revoke the Iraq AUMF, cap troop levels and to cut funding for the Iraq Debacle, what is it I am asking of the Democratic Congress?

Let me explain again - I ask for three things: First, announce NOW that the Democratic Congress will NOT fund the Iraq Debacle after a date certain. You pick the date. Whatever works politically. If October 2007 is the date Dems can agree to, then let it be then. If March 2008, then let that be the date; Second, spend the year reminding the President and the American People every day that Democrats will not fund the war past the date certain; Third, do NOT fund the Iraq Debacle PAST the date certain.

Some argue we will never have the votes for this. That McConnell will filibuster, that Bush will veto. To them I say I KNOW. But filbustering and vetoing does not fund the Iraq Debacle. Let me repeat, to end the war in Iraq, the Democratic Congress does not have to pass a single bill; they need only NOT pass bills that fund the Iraq Debacle.

But but but, defund the whole government? Defund the whole military? What if Bush does not pull out the troops? First, no, not defund the government, defund the Iraq Debacle. If the Republicans choose to shut down government in order to force the continuation of the Iraq Debacle, do not give in. Fight the political fight. We'll win. Second, defund the military? See answer to number one. Third, well, if you tell the American People what is coming for a year, and that Bush is on notice, that i t will be Bush abandoning the troops in Iraq, we can win that politcal battle too.

Understand this, if you want to end the Iraq Debacle, this is the only way until Bush is not President. If you are not for this for ending the war, tell me what you do support. I think this is the only way. And if you shy away from the only way to end the Debacle, then you really are not for ending the war are you?

Meyerson's fantasy scenarios do not change the reality that Dems are now making Iraq their war too.

Once the House passed its version of the bill, the Netroots rejoiced, indeed, predicting Bush would veto the House bill. I pointed out that Bush would not even see the House bill:

[W]hat 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."

And on March 25, the Senate moved to strip the House bill of binding deadlines:

Daily Kos trumpets the Senate's quick move on the Iraq Supplemental:

The Senate appears to be prepared to move quickly toward a vote on the supplemental spending bill containing language about benchmarks and withdrawal from Iraq that the House passed Friday - the vote could come as early as Tuesday. Republicans will be trying to remove all timetables from the bill - to them, even non-binding deadlines are too much an affront to Bush's power to wage endless war. So now the fight is to retain NON-binding deadlines in the supplemental funding bill?

And it was. The Senate passed a bill with non-binding timelines. And it went to conference and that is what emerged as the bill sent to Bush. And he vetoed it. I breathed a sigh of relief. Because that bill was bad. I suggested the following strategy. The Democratic Congress instead, via the House, offered the short term funding "short leash" approach. The Senate offered nothing, choosing instead to negotiate in conference with the House, Bush and the Senate GOP. They have promised a bill by the end of the week.

Who expects a binding timeline after the President vetoed a bill with non-binding timelines? The likely deal will be this:

The initial House bill, while supported by Move On and the Netroots, was in fact the worst deal possible, as it would have ostensibly set an end date two months before the 2008 elections, thereby insuring that in fact, the Debacle would continue past the end of the Bush presidency. It truly was a terrible bill.

Since then, the House passed a so-called "short leash" bill that provided 2 months of funding with a release of remaining funds in July. For those who favor the "ratcheting up the pressure" approach, this bill makes good sense. I do not think much of that approach, but it does notwork against a date certain for not funding approach I favor, the framework embodied in the McGovern Amendment and in Reid-Feiongold.

Now we see what is likely to emerge as the Senate proposal, and it is something Bush will sign. GOP Senator John Warner proposed it:

That second proposal, by Senator John Warner, Republican of Virginia, would require Mr. Bush to report to Congress in mid-July and mid-September on how well the Iraqi government was performing against a set of benchmarks. Foreign aid could be withheld for lack of progress, but, at the insistence of the White House, a provision was added allowing Mr. Bush to waive any penalties.

Bush basically endorsed this approach today:

[Bush] said he respected the desire of members to include benchmarks in the bill that the Iraqi government should meet.

So the Warner Amendment it is. Will the House go along? I predict they will. Does this matter? If you believe in "ratcheting up the pressure," I imagine you think it does. As I do not, I find this pretty meaningless. What we need to end the war is a date certain for not funding it. And the Iraq Supplemental will not be about that.

And yesterday, AP reported the obvious. And today Obey says there is "no deal." But there will be a deal. The Warner deal. And only a Pangloss can not see that.