Now, the bill's not public yet, but I'm told that the language most at issue reads like this:

   Funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may not be obligated or expended to deploy or continue to deploy members or units of the Armed Forces in Iraq after the conclusion of the 180 day period for redeployment specified in subsections (c) and (d).

What are subsections (c) and (d) about? I'm informed that they're apparently the ones that lay out the so-called "benchmarks," which means this language -- since removed from the bill at the behest of the Blue Dogs -- was the mechanism for enforcing those benchmarks.

So - to be clear, he's saying that the language quoted is not in the current version - that would be the leadership's version, presumably - of the bill.

It's not exactly watertight sourcing; but, as I mentioned on Thursday,  a guy at TPM Cafe, was saying exactly the same thing: they put it in before they took it out.

The Kossack goes on (in sneakily ambiguous style: is this still his source, or is this the Kossack's gloss?) to say this:

At the moment, it appears that the political calculus hinges on what happens with those "teeth." That is, the leadership's math goes like this: they figure they get and keep more Blue Dog votes by removing the ability to enforce the benchmarks than they lose from the Progressive Caucus, who think the president can't be trusted and will game the benchmarks and continue to humiliate and embarrass Congressional Democrats.

So as things stand now, the language is out, because by the leadership's count, there were more Blue Dogs at least implicitly threatening to vote against a bill that included it than there were Progressive Caucus members threatening to vote against a bill that excluded it.

From then, the Kossack's argument rather loses its way: having explained why the text was removed, he then tries to reverse the causation, and suggest that the removal was a procedural artefact.

Perhaps it makes sense with a bit of puzzling - I've got to book right now but, like McArthur, I will return. (Deo volente.)

How do the Progs respond? Pelosi evidently doesn't take seriously the possibility that they will vote down the supplemental bill.

And - note this - if the Progs do so, there's no reason why that should be their final word.

But they have to show their steel and draw some blood to be taken seriously.

Then they can talk turkey to Pelosi.

Right now, it's a rerun of They Were Expendable.