In this morning's media, I see signs that, while S Con Res 63 (House voting at 1600 today, according to the Note) is a no-brainer for all (almost all?) Dem MCs, the Murtha Proviso may be a different matter.

Few around here will be staggered to learn (LA Timespiece) the name of one doubter:

many Democrats worry about the consequences of trying to block the troop increase by tying strings to the supplemental war appropriations bill Bush has requested. These Democrats warn that Republicans will accuse the party of undermining the military because it is difficult to isolate funding for the troop increase without affecting military personnel already deployed.

"It is a Gordian knot," said California Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Alamo), who supports the nonbinding resolution.

But, as quoted in the same piece, Pelosi is just a little tentative on what is generally being sold as a leadership intitiative:

Pelosi stopped short of fully embracing Murtha's plan, while endorsing its thrust of putting a premium on troop readiness.

"It remains to be seen where the committee will go," she said.

Channeling the Grand Old Duke of York much?

USA Todayhas a similar quote on the Murtha Proviso:

Pelosi was non-committal. "What he's doing is putting out ideas," she said of Murtha. "Until you see his proposals in writing nobody can tell what the level of support is."

Uh oh.

Meanwhile, the left flank also looks as if it might be in need of protection:

Murtha's measure does not go far enough to satisfy some antiwar Democrats. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma), for example, said she would vote against the war funding bill even if the House accepted the conditions aimed at blocking the troop increase.

"People voted for Democrats [in November] because they want us to change the course in Iraq," Woolsey said.

And, in the Senate, one senses senior Dems are on the whole less bullish about the Proviso than Pelosi. For instance,

Senate Armed Services Committee Carl Levin, D-Mich., said he's not ready to support tying the president's hands. "I have at least a little hope we can turn the president in a different direction," he said.

When your SASC chairman is lukewarm about changes to defense funding, MCs proposing those changes know they've got a fight on their hands.

Plus

Many Democrats say political pressure will have more effect than legislation in changing the policy in Iraq. "We are going to keep at this," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "We are going to keep ratcheting up the pressure so that public opinion and congressional opinion is so strong that the president will have no choice but to change strategy."

These are some very nervous bunnies.

[Looking at the USAT piece for Pelosi quotes, I failed to noticed the contribution from Uncle Harry:

"The answer is no," Reid said when asked whether there are any legally binding measures he's prepared to support.

Can't be blunter than that!]

But - just to illustrate how huge the element of spin is in this whole business - the Post's piece has hed Pelosi Backs War Funds Only With Conditions and lede:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) yesterday linked her support for President Bush's war-funding request to strict standards of resting, training and equipping combat forces...

Her caveat comes in graf #7 - but immediately undermined by her excluding items from it:

Pelosi was careful to say no final decisions have been made on binding legislation. But she backed key provisions already floated by Murtha, including requirements that troops be given at least a year's rest between combat deployments, special training in urban warfare and counterinsurgency, and safety equipment that the military has struggled to provide.

One other issue has been raised - link as of now lost!here - the possibility that Dem MCs gave campaign pledges not to cut the funding of troops in Iraq.

Depending on the wording of these pledges, and the wording of the Proviso, such MCs might be at particular risk of attack.

On the basis of my highly unscientific dip into online media on the subject, I couldn't confidently identify Dem leadership rowback on the Proviso.

But I get the impression that, however bullish Murtha is about his baby, most other Dem MCs are (to put it mildly) not yet fully on board.

The watchword comes from the Lioness:

Until you see his proposals in writing nobody can tell what the level of support is.

And that could be several weeks away. Tactically, that is something of a vulnerability.

[Slow-bleed, by the way, is the eye-catching GOP-favored descriptor for the Proviso - where is the Dem equivalent, I wonder?]

Update [2007-2-16 13:55:26 by skeptic06]:

A Hillpiece identifies another constraint on the Murtha Proviso: the need of the US military for the funds requested in the Iraq supplemental.

Now, it's true that any Federal agency worth its salt has a good tale to tell about needing the moolah it's asking for.

And - well, that the DOD furnishes some of the more characterful of those tales.

But, the point is that, however many stretchers they contain, they generally tend to be effective - and General Schoomaker (outgoing Army Chief of Staff) illustrates why:

“If we do not see the supplemental funding by April we will have to go to the same problems that will slow down the system,” Gen. Peter Schoomaker said in what well may be his last hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Schoomaker said that the Army was forced to take extraordinary measures to “slam the brakes” on expenditures when the supplemental funding did not come through when expected.

It seems that

The 2006 supplemental was meant to pay for war costs accrued between October 2005 and September 2006. The supplemental request was submitted to Congress in February 2006.

To manage the shortfall of cash last year, the Army slowed production at depots, laid people off and instituted a hiring freeze, tightly controlled travel expenses and delayed IT purchases, Schoomaker, who is passing the baton to Gen. George Casey reminded lawmakers.

Congress approved the 2006 defense budget and an increment of the supplemental at the end of December 2005, one quarter after the fiscal year had started, while the rest of the supplemental for 2006 was approved in June, 90 days shy of the fiscal year’s end.

There are, you'll be staggered to learn, two sides to that story:

The chairman of the Armed Services panel, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), countered that the Pentagon ran into problems with the supplemental because it did not submit it together with the regular budget, a sore issue with authorizers and appropriators alike.

There is also a problem with procurement funding - and not that it's obscenely bloated and corporate welfare beyond the dreams of contractors' avarice (well, almost beyond):

“We started this flatfooted with a deficit of $56 billion in equipment shortages across the Army,” because the Pentagon’s procurement accounts were under-funded by $100 billion in the previous decade, Schoomaker said.

So - imagine what the DOD reaction is going to be if the supplemental bill is held up by wrangling over the Murtha Proviso!

The DOD is going to be able to bringing a regiment of brass one by one to a TV screen near you all saying that they need their money stat.

Murtha, in return, may be tempted to use his pivotal spot on the defense apps flowchart to threaten the DOD that some of its marquee projects might just not make the cut if said brass don't pipe down pronto.

Whereupon the likes of Levin, none too keen on the Proviso right now (as quoted above), might not take too much persuading to call for the Proviso effort to be ditched.

This could get really ugly, I suspect.

Update [2007-2-16 19:9:16 by skeptic06]:

There's another thing.

I've been looking at the FY06 supplemental bill HR 4939 (109th) - actually, mostly at the CRS report on the bill (PDF).

The timeline: the supplemental request came in from the WH on February 16 2006; House Apps reported out the bill on March 13; the House passed it on March 16; the Senate passed its version on May 4; it passed Congress and became law on June 15.

The main non-defense/GWOT element was $20bn of hurricane relief.

And this time Bush has apparently asked for $3.6bn - sourced to a piece in the Hill rather than the WH site, which doesn't have any materials on the FY07 supplemental that I could see.

Now, the Dem Congressional leaderships will obviously be anxious to take action (certainly, to be seen as taking action) on the post-Katrina fubar - the Hill piece is about Brer Melancon blowing his stack about the lack of action on the subject.

So an extended delay to the supplemental bill on account of the Murtha Proviso would exacerbate existing frictions.

(The piece does say that, at a presser,

Hoyer did not commit to adding more money to the supplemental, talking instead about a comprehensive push in the House on Katrina matters in early March.

I can't think he has in mind possible delays to the supplemental bill. But - who knows?

(I don't think there's any reason why there shouldn't be two bills, one for defense and one for everything else.))

The point here is not the substantive cost of delays to the bill to beneficiaries of hurricane aid; but the mischief that the GOP might make in getting leverage over the Proviso.

(Of course, it would be the grossest hypocrisy, given the ghastly history; but these are pols we're talking about - and, junked areas of New Orleans, unlike hypocrisy, come with pictures.)