What are they debating? The same thing as last time? How big to make the check?

Am I supposed to assume that the Senate is actually going to do what The People voted in them into the majority to do and not bow to special interests? Hopefully AIPAC is on vacation.

To Sen. Reid, I've heard them say this before and won't be holding my breath this time.

Just a correction, Harry Reid is from Nevada, not Utah.

More brave talk. When you've actually stood up for what you believe in and DONE something, call me.

Bush won't obey this law. He'll veto it, and if it passes, he'll issue a signing statement defying Congress.

while it may not be obvious, this provision would effectively mean a drawdown for current troop strength in Iraq in very short order. The current level is unsustainable even without mandatory periods of US down time for troops. With this provision, the current level would be unreachable. getting sufficient Republican support to make it veto proof would be a very major blow against the president's war policies, although presumably it would still be subject to the whims of signing statements.

I hope that this proposal will actually make it to a VOTE before the Democratic leadership once again abandons it's guns (and it's electorate) and declares defeat.

I fear I will be wrong, yet hope for the best.

1. Maybe the Mandatory Home Time is a backdoor way to reduce US presence, or,

2. Current rumor has it that the White House is about to announce (premptively, ironically) its own pull-back arrangement, or,

3. W. Bush, Cheney, and Rove still try to dumbfound us by announcing resumption of the US military draft. The big escalation right when they seem cornered. They did this after the elections, after the Iraq Study Group report, and it worked. Caught everybody flat-footed.

What happens if the Senate simply dosen't ever bring any spending bill related to the war to a vote.

Hell would freeze over.

And the occupation of Iraq would come to an end.

Just like Americans elected the Democrats to do.