If Democratic leaders in Congress play it right (no sure bet), they'll provide money to the troops without splitting their caucus by the end of the month. That didn't seem possible just a few days ago: Liberals don't want to spend another dime on the war - and have told House Democratic leaders as much, robbing leadership of crucial votes in a closely divided Congress.
But nothing unifies a party quite like cracks on the other side of the aisle, and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) got plenty of company yesterday among Republicans warning that their patience is limited. This is the sound of Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) smelling blood: "George W. Bush is hellbent on January 20, 2009, when he walks out of the door, leaving a box stamped 'Iraq' for the next president. The Republicans [in Congress] are hellbent on not going through the next election with Iraq tied to their ankles." LINK
Congress Redefines 'Timetable' in Iraq Bill
Republicans of late loved to say they hated timetables, and now they're showing why. By offering one of their own – the date by which they expect progress in Iraq - they've given Democrats political leverage. ABC's Jake Tapper reports that Republican leaders being influenced by a "patience" timetable, "marking when GOP support for the president's unpopular war could begin to seriously erode." LINK
The Washington Post identifies a deadline of September – the month by which "political pressures in Washington will dovetail with the military timeline."
Getting the funding bill from here to there will require some legislative gymnastics, but a House vote setting the process in motion could come by the end of this week. Among the Democrats, the 2008 crew has quieted its jostling over the Iraq funding bill – maybe for long enough for Congress to hammer out a compromise that can pass White House muster. But who will be the first top-tier GOP presidential candidate to call for US troops to start coming home?