Mooching around the lefty sphere, I come across this piece from TPM Cafe on intra-Dem negotiations today on the Pelosi Iraq proposal.

It's basically single-source Capitol gossip. But, I think, rises to the level of probable cause when it comes to this:

According to my source, one of the things that's particularly galling to the liberals is that earlier drafts of the leadership's approach contained a measure that would have forced funding to stop if the troops weren't withdrawn by the date mandated in the legislation. But, my source says, that language was gone from the final version. This pissed off some liberals who think that this was a needless concession to moderate "Blue Dog" Dems that will dilute the measure's ultimate effectiveness.

Now, just because a rider is in an apps doesn't mean it affects appropriations one way or the other.

But - it's something to watch out for - when we finally get to see some legislative language.

There's more...

Is it a coincidence that, the day after the heated Caucus meeting on Iraq, a piece on the sterling qualities of the Blue Dogs should turn up on the AP (with the ever more popular byline of Ms Julie Hirschfeld Davis)?

Mmm.

How 'bout this:

House leaders now see the support of the group _ particularly its nine freshman members, whose victories over Republican incumbents in conservative districts helped to hand Democrats the House _ as a prerequisite for any measure they bring before the House, senior aides said.

Whose senior aides, would that be?

There's more...

Courtesy of the Politico, we now have an update on today's Caucus meeting's discussion on Iraq.

A bit earlier, Matt and Chris were looking at the question (my initial thoughts).

Pelosi has apparently made the Progs an offer:

House Democratic leaders, seeking a compromise with several dozen anti-war lawmakers in their own caucus, are considering a vote on a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq before considering $98 billion in new military spending.

In return for the vote, the leaders want the 50 to 75 anti-war Democrats to support the wartime funding, if their proposal fails.

There's more...

And, probably for the best, considering the cards they had were a ten-high.

The damage: the Murtha Proviso gutted with waivers; a fig-leaf in the form of benchmarks for the Iraqi government which, if not would, would lead to - oh, the humanity! - a requirement on Bush to submit a withdrawal plan to Congress.

Not that he has to actually withdraw any troops; just submit the program.

The story obviously deserves maturer consideration - not least because there is not a single pol quoted on the record. Caveat maxime lector!

But - at first sight, it looks as if the House Dems have capitulated to the WH without a round being fired.

There's more...

Dogs to the right of her, Progs to the left of her...

According to the CSMtoday, the Lioness is beseiged in her den on the Iraq supplemental bill:

There's more...