I did not like that idea from the get-go. It violated three of my principles of negotiation. First, never bid against yourself. Its like sticking your thumb in your own eye.

Second, some things don't lend themselves to compromise. The issue here is fund or don't fund. Not fund for a little while vs. don't fund. A bill needs to include time for logistics--execution of a redeployment--but not time for just general screwing around.

Third, when you have leverage, use it! The president's hand is weaker now, not stronger. There are a group of Republican senators and house members who are just not prepared to vote on the record for the war again and again. Susan Collins would like to be elected in an increasingly anti-war Maine, as would Norm Coleman in left-leaning Minnesota. There are others.

Remember, last week the dead-enders were the 33 percenters; this week they are the 28 percenters. As for the 72 percenters, they want Congress to act. not play footsie with W.

Send it back; make the benchmarks mandatory. Seriously if they cave on this issue ....

So what will the chickens in the Senate accept? Unconcditional surrender to Bush? Hope not, given that he is on his back with no public support and the nation is clamoring for the Democrats to show they have some balls on this question. Will the lilly livers in the Senate support a flat refusal to fund the war without a plan for withdrawal? I pray the House remains resolute and does as Edwards' ad suggests: just keep sending the White House the same bill and don't back down.

Keep sending it back!!
There will be benchmarks and timetables. The MSM is absolutely ignoring the fact that the benchmarks being discussed are the very ones that Bush himself cited in January.
Hang tough Democrats!! Stand firm.

It's a game of PR chicken. Gingrich's "shut down the government" was a disaster in terms of public opinion, because he believed that his '94 victory meant public opinion was as anti-government as his people were, so the shutdown would be seen as a good thing.

I think Bush (or at least his advisors with a brain) are banking on two things:

1. That while people want the troops out, they can still be sold on the "undercutting the troops" line and don't understand that it's the way Congress ends a war or any other program.

2. That Congress will be afraid that he's crazy enough to actually leave the troops out there with dwindling supplies and no way home, rather than bring them home if there's no funding. While that would be a PR disaster for him, it's a tossup who it would be a worse PR disaster for.

And it's not an unreasonable fear; he's so far been willing to inflict any amount of suffering on the troops (stop-loss, extended tours, etc.) if it benefits him and lets him avoid ever admitting that he's wrong.

Send it back.

If Emperor George wants to fund HIS war with OUR money, he should do it with the bill OUR legislature passes. He had HIS legislature (and we know where that got us); We didn't like them. We voted. He's got to answer to OUR legislature now. If he doesn't want to support OUR troops with OUR money, let him fall on his sword and veto the same bill every single week until his term is over. Or let HIS daddy and the Saudis write checks.

And not to preach to the choir here, but we should do more than just post "send it back" on a message board. At the very least, we should be calling OUR representatives to make sure that they know how we feel. And encouraging others to do so.

Send it back.

I think that the D's need to tell Americans that not funding the war means a stop to the fighting. Funding means another 100 caskets of American soldiers a month. Let Americans know that the military won't just stop and abandon the troops in the field. Not funding the war will mean an orderly withdrawl and keeping the troops in the Camps and, more or less out of harms way. The Dems should take the lead here and say that the president has withheld the money and money should never be given without limits. If the Democrats don't take the offensive here they will get their ass kicked.

I don't understand why the pres. would abandon his party to Democratic dominance in the next election unless he has planned an October suprise like (bomb, bomb, bomb Iran) in an effort to rescue his party.

Of course nrglaw is exactly right.

That the Dems would entertain, even for one moment, giving in at this point on mandatory timelines leaves me speechless.

Does everyone remember the The Scorpion and the Frog fable?

Despite their best efforts at 'fear and smear' the President's numbers continue to slide while more and more of the public warms to the mandatory timelines.

The Congressional GOP can see this train wreck coming and are desperate for any deal to save face. So why on earth would anyone consider throwing them a lifeline now?

Let the GOP twist in the wind. Time is on the Dems side.

There is no reason to bid against themselves. Wait the President out and watch those rats flee that sinking ship.

There will be plenty of time later to capitulate should public opinion take a dramatic turn.

I agree with the not negotiating against yourself notion. But that some things are not open to compromise..nah. It's clear that Bush is going to get a leash of some kind, why not make it a short one?

The Democrats are listening too much to the extremist wing of their party.

By the extremist wing, I don't mean the left. I mean the rich DC insider consultant class that leans too far to the right.

This is a frigging no brainer and just about everyone on this board has recited it. The majority of the American people think Republicans are incompetent to run ANYTHING let alone a WAR.

The only changes they should be making to this bill should be putting MORE teeth into it.

Not less.

Good points. The first one is exactly what Congress should be mounting a major PR campaign against. Everyone should know that defunding is how Congress ended our involvement in Vietnam and other places. The soldiers will be placed in absolutely no danger unless Bush puts them in danger.