Way back on April 3, I gave an appreciation of where we were then with Iraq legislation, with a brief rundown of the story so far. Referring to the Murtha Proviso (once much loved before it picked up a presidential waiver proviso), I said

The main purpose of the Proviso (and the provisions current in the two versions of HR 1591) can only have been to draw a veto and trigger an inter-branch crisis: to wield the power of the purse and bring Bush to the negotiating table.

There would - this is still my interpretation - have been the most public of confrontations, quite different from the kind of connoisseurs-only stuff we've enjoyed so far. The public - the same public now wanting to get out of Iraq - would be put on the spot: back the Dems, who were trying to give them their wish, or go for business as usual with Bush.

Window-dressing apart, there only has ever been one choice to make: to confront Bush (as per the quote) or to give in.

Essentially, all the Congressional activity to date has been window-dressing. Which is not to say that it's been worthless: the Dems are the majority and have to be seen to do something. Hence the placeholder nonbinding resolutions - remember those? - and the long drawn out action on HR 1591, the bill doomed to be - made to be - vetoed.

There's more...

What in Sam Hill is going on? is a question not infrequently raised by proceedings on the Senate floor. Rather seems like a freemasonry in plain sight.

As witness the arcanum that is the water bill Iraq amendments. (Only in America...)

Yesterday, I took a stab (my hand guided by our friends at The Hill) at the MO to be employed. One or two things are a little clearer.

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...

If the transcript doesn't lie, Murtha has lowered his sights to his colleague's distinctly modest lowest common denominator position on Iraq legislation.

For one thing, his Proviso will be waiver-thin. Except that the waiver will be dressed up:

MR. RUSSERT: You are going to withhold the money unless those troops were--had readiness or were prepared, but now you've changed your view. You will allow those troops to go to Iraq in that situation or condition, as long as the president certifies that. Correct?

REP. MURTHA: Well, he's got to certify that--at least this is what I'm recommending to the committee--he's got to certify that these troops are equipped, and they are trained, or it's in the national interest...

'he's got to certify that'?! The guy who fixed the intelligence around the policy is going to be trusted to certify honest injun that all units being deployed to Iraq are in apple-pie order?!

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...