Today's Washington Post has an interview with Harry Reid in which he suggests that he's now prepared to compromise with Republicans on Iraq:

LAS VEGAS -- Saying the coming weeks will be "one of the last opportunities" to alter the course of the war, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said he is now willing to compromise with Republicans to find ways to limit troop deployments in Iraq.

Reid acknowledged that his previous firm demand for a spring withdrawal deadline had become an obstacle for a small but growing number of Republicans who have said they want to end the war but have been unwilling to set a timeline.

"I don't think we have to think that our way is the only way," Reid said of specific dates during an interview in his office here. "I'm not saying, 'Republicans, do what we want to do.' Just give me something that you think you would like to do, that accomplishes some or all of what I want to do."

Is Reid really saying that this fall he'll be flexible -- again -- on the question of funding the war without timetables? Seems like it.

Of course, Reid has already "compromised" with Republicans on Iraq by agreeing to fund the war through September with no withdrawal timetables, and look where that has gotten us.

That said, it's really hard to know what to make of this. His apparent openness to future funding without a date-certain for withdrawal, won't exactly buoy Congress' sinking approval ratings.

A charitable way to look at this is that it's a "Devil in the details" kind of situation. Come September, Reid -- aside from peripheral measures such as the troop rest measure -- would appear to have basically only two choices before him on the larger question of war funding: Refuse to fund the war unless the funding is attached to a withdrawal timeline, or agree to fund it without a date-certain. If Reid is only saying he's willing to compromise right now and has no intention of doing the latter, no biggie.

But if he does end up doing the latter, of course, Reid will catch Hell. It really is hard to imagine that the Dem leadership would do that, but after the FISA fiasco, it's anyone's guess what's next.

It won't be clear what this really means until it's translated into legislative details, but either way, it's hard to see what saying this right now accomplishes, aside from signaling weakness. Some clarification on what exactly Reid is saying here would be welcome.

Late Update: Reid's spokesman responds to our request for clarification.