Congress Daily, via Politico, reports some of the "how" regarding the Democratic leadership's plans to bring the next Iraq funding bill to the floor without going through the appropriations committee:

HOW THEY'LL DO IT: CongressDaily's Christian Bourge and Peter Cohn say Democratic leaders may be able to bypass the appropriations committees by using the "never-enacted FY08 Military Construction Appropriations bill as a vehicle for the war supplemental and other provisions. . . . The bill would function as a 'shell' that would allow Democrats to avoid the usual committee process in both chambers and a formal House-Senate conference. House Democrats could also avoid giving Republicans a shot at procedural motions on the bill during floor votes."

What procedural motions are they looking to avoid? Probably our old friend, the motion to recommit.

But whether they decide to use the abandoned hulk of the MILCON appropriations bill or not, the plan that seems to be gelling is to bring the proposed appropriations to the floor in three parts: one package containing the $108 billion demanded by Bush; one with the proposed Democratic restrictions aimed at bringing the occupation to a close, and; one with additional domestic spending, to help the medicine (or poison, as you prefer) go down.

That's supposed to make liberal Democrats feel good about facing their voters ("I voted against the war funding, but for a withdrawal!") and make conservative Democrats feel good about facing their own ("I voted for the war funding and against the withdrawal!"), with other mixed options thrown in for the people in the middle ("I voted for the war funding, but also for extending unemployment benefits!"). And of course, Democratic challengers get to run against Republicans who voted for the war funding, but against everything else. Which, oddly enough, is what a dozen or so incumbent Democrats are probably going to end up doing.

House Republicans are, predictably, outraged. Said noted crybaby and GOP appropriator Jerry Lewis:

"By doing all three — skipping committee markup, having a limited or closed debate on the floor, and skipping conference committee — the Democrats will effectively shut down any semblance of democratic process in this Congress."

It is terrible, isn't it? Except for a vote on whether or not to give the president the $108 billion he demands for the war, another vote on whether or not to wind the war down and withdraw, and a third vote on whether or not additional money ought to be added for domestic priorities, the Congress will barely have any semblance of democratic process at all!

But Lewis has a point. What Republicans will be missing out on is the opportunity to force a vote aimed at creating an embarrassing attack ad they can run against Democrats in the fall, and as you know, the troops really want that very badly. It's actually what most of them are fighting for, if you think about it. Or, perhaps, if you refuse to. Ever.

You do have to wonder, though, why Democrats at this late date are still having to consider a procedure that does an end-around to avoid a motion to recommit, and why they're doing it on this bill. Recall that last summer, we ended up saddled with the disastrous Protect America Act as a result of the House's inability to find a way around the threat posed by the motion to recommit. So if you're going to attempt a maneuver that has Minority Whip Roy Blunt sayingDems, "are threatening to burn the House down" (probably a better description of what Republicans will be doing in response, actually), why use it to fund a war Democrats say they don't want in the first place? And why not use it to stop a spying bill Bush was forcing down their throats?

Who knows? But that's what they appear to be getting ready to do. Burn down the House for the sake of passing another $100 billion+ in war funding. And maybe, just maybe, topping this off with the whipped cream of caving on FISA, of all things.

Seriously, dudes. One turd per toilet, please. If you're going to bend the rules this hard, all I ask is that you screw Republicans with them just slightly more often than you do Democrats. Is that really so much to ask?

Coffee added to the probability that the Democratic majority, including our Dem candidates for President, are  going  to give Bush more money for the occupation is burning my stomach big time this morning.

This does not have to be.  Given  Odom's testimony for immediate withdrawal and Crocker/Petraeus testimony being interpreted as no end in sight, I am more convinced than ever that the Democrats in Congress should  be cutting off  funds/or requiring withdrawal and showing the world, not to mention the voters, that they are worthy of leading us to a new way!

Isn't this what we gave money and worked for in 2006? Isn't this why I have given them money this year?  Isn't it? (weeping now)

Please tell me that this time, at least, they will not write a check with no requirement for withdrawal timetable. Please?

The big news about General Petraeus’ testimony before Congress came not from the General himself (what should we expect from someone hand-picked by President Bush) but from the Senators who grilled him. Each of the three contenders for President -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain -- was critical of current policy. But they all also spoke out against removing all US troops from Iraq.

http://congressnow.com/

http://congressnow.com/...

Looks like it just might be High Noon a-comin'.

The source, CongressNow, is a wonderful Congressional News service that through some finagling I'm getting for a free 2 week trial.  So you might not be able to link up.

I copied the the entire bill in a comment, from a THOMAS search.  Links to THOMAS searches disappear after a short while.

http://www.dailykos.com/...

Brilliant:

Obey also announced that Democrats will not pass a supplemental spending bill for the Iraq war until next year, when Democrats hope public pressure could force Bush to change the course of the war.

Democrats hope their chances of winning a battle with Bush on the war will be better next year as the election season heats up.

"The showdown is going to be in January or February," McGovern said.

From The Nation:

The Senate agreed on Thursday to increase the federal debt limit by $850 billion -- from $8.965 trillion to $9.815 trillion -- and then proceeded to approve a stop-gap spending bill that gives the Bush White House at least $9 billion in new funding for its war in Iraq.

Additionally, the administration has been given emergency authority to tap further into a $70 billion "bridge fund" to provide new infusions of money for the occupation while the Congress works on appropriations bills for the Department of Defense and other agencies.

Translation: Under the guise of a stop-gap spending bill that is simply supposed to keep the government running until a long-delayed appropriations process is completed -- probably in November -- the Congress has just approved a massive increase in war funding.

So ... this is an email the campaign just sent out to our entire list of supporters.  We're not asking you to pick our campaign theme song, we're asking you to help prevent bad legislation on Iraq from seeing the light of day in the Senate.

And we can ...

chrisdodd.com/stopthebill

If you have your own blog, please encourage your readers to contact their Senators on the reported "compromise bill."

It's also important to note, there is a solid alternative that ALL Democratic (and Republican) Senators should be rallying behind during the upcoming Defense Department Authorization bill.  More information on that below the fold.

Tim

On June 13th, mcjoan reported on a conference call with Harry Reid:

Reid also broke the news that the Magical September was likely to bring just one thing--another supplemental request by Bush. So we can look forward to another round of the "fund the troops" canard timed for exactly the moment at which Republicans keep telling everyone they're going to give up on Iraq if it's "not working."

So, we knew another supplemental was coming. And we knew that we would be facing another round of the "fund the troops" canard come September. And we were told that the summer would be about ratcheting up the pressure on Republicans, so that come Magical September, they'd find it politically impossible to cling to Bush and his insanity any longer.

So how did it happen that on August 30th, Dick Durbin ends up making these comments on the very supplemental correctly predicted by Reid?

In the debate in Washington, the White House reportedly will ask Congress for an additional $50 billion to expand funding for the war in Iraq, a request that seems likely to prolong troop levels at their current elevated number into the spring of 2008, Durbin said.

Even opponents of the war, as Durbin calls himself, find themselves likely to vote for the extra money, he said. "When it comes to the budget, I face a dilemma that some of my colleagues do," he said.

He voted against the war "but felt that I should always provide the resources for the troops in the field," Durbin said. "But it's now reached a point where we have got to change the way we appropriate this money."

Though he said he is likely to approve the increased request -- it would accompany a pending request for an additional $147 billion in war funding -- Durbin said he would work to attach conditions to it that would require troops to begin coming home in the spring.

How did our legislators spend their summer vacation?

FISA.  Iraq funding.  How confident are we that our Democratic majorities will do anything close to the right thing on those issues?

My fear is that they will cave to the new gestalt brewing that the surge is somehow achieving anything meaningful.  They will fall into the trap and provide more no-strings-attached war funding.

As to FISA, they always seem to chicken out when the terrorism bogey-man spectre is raised.  And to a very small degree, I have a bit of sympathy - they think they will be blamed if there is another terrorist attack for having denied the Administration some "vital" tool to catch terrorists.

While no one blames our nation’s troops for not pacifying Iraq solely through military actions, critics everywhere have hounded our Democratic soldiers in Congress for not quickly, successfully, and single-handedly pacifying our nation solely through boisterous legislative conflict. Especially on funding for the Occupation, these critics want "backbone," "accountability," or "courage," and, when they think that these are somehow lacking in others, they promise to simply stay home with their like-minded friends or to take later electoral vengeance on those they consider unprincipled, uncooperative, and cowardly. How Bushy.

Sitting at my mechanic’s yesterday waiting for car repair;  Frankie has pro-NRA posters on his garage walls accompanied by Rebel Flag posters.  Yet, we always have genuinely pleasant conversations with nary a mention of politics.  Life is strange...  Anyway, I can’t buy this "We don’t have enough votes" meme; it reeks of status quo, complacency, defeatism, and/or collusion.  I guess naiveté as well:  After having been spanked for at least a decade, you think our elected Democratic "leaders" would at least have a clue that getting their agenda on track might be somewhat of an uphill struggle.  

The passing of the blank-check Iraq Supplemental Bill has baffled and enraged millions of Americans of conscience.  We just cannot fathom how our Democratic representatives could have capitulated on such an obviously binary moral issue.  We feel bewildered and betrayed.  We believe they folded their cards just as Bush called their raise and let him steal the pot.

I am writing to request a check. With your vote to approve more funding for President Bush’s war in Iraq, it seemed you are in a giving mood. Also, seeing as how the war in Iraq is soon to top a half trillion dollars with still no strings attached (ok, you snuck a few twist-ties on, but you were nice enough to tell Bush that he could take them off), I figured, as one of your constituents, I could request just a couple hundred million for my own war as well and not worry about Congressional influence.

So, when can I expect that check?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Murtha votes "yes" then says --

"I feel a direction change in the air," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House panel that oversees military funding.

Setting: Fictional small college, 1962 as portrayed in the classic 1978 film "Animal House".

Scene: Two Delta house brothers have returned from taking two of their pledges, Pinto and Flounder, on an infamous "road trip" in which they hit on young women from a liberal-arts college, attempt to see their favorite band, Otis Day and the Nights, and flee an all-black bar/club.  In the process, they trash Flounder's brother's brand spanking new, suh weeeet Lincoln Continental.

By now, you're probably asking yourself "Self, wtf does this have to do with Democrats and the Capitulation Bill?"  

As Bill in Portland Maine would say, you'll find the answer in There's Moresville.

You three represent me in the Senate and the House of Representatives. I have supported each of you and was once proud to say you represented me and my neighbors in the face of the Republican mismanagement of Iraq.

Today I am ashamed of all of you.

And it is even worse than I thought.  Over the fold, please.

Update:  james risser has the House roll call as well.