Come September

I don't like the bill. Lots of people don't like it - including people like Pelosi and Obama and Clinton - the latter two, to give them their candidatorial due, voted against it (as did Pelosi). It's possible that it's the best we could get at this point in time - though I would have liked to see another vetoed bill to drive home the point.

But this one has some baby teeth in the form of benchmarks, and it promises that come September, when Petraeus says he'll know, that the whole funding issue will come up again. Come September, things had better go differently.

And if we want them to, we have to never shut up. Keep the pressure on.

As EJ Dionne points out (emphasis mine), Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.)

notes that the agreement to go forward with the funding bill passed yesterday (a majority of House Democrats, Pelosi among them, opposed it) included a promise to take up his withdrawal amendment this fall. This gives teeth to Pelosi's pledge -- "we'll see you in September" -- to continue to battle Bush on the war.

As a tactical matter, it could have been useful for the Democrats to move another bill containing timelines to Bush's desk for a second veto, simply to underscore the president's unwillingness to seek bipartisan accord on a change in policy. But these are the brute facts: Democrats narrowly control the House but don't have an effective majority in the Senate since Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) votes with the Republicans on the war and Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) is still too ill to vote.

Democrats, in short, have enough power to complicate the president's life, but not enough to impose their will. ...
What was true in January thus remains true today: The president will be forced to change his policy only when enough Republicans tell him he has to. Facing this is no fun; it's just necessary.

ps - I hope Lieberman still looks good to you guys who voted for him... no, I tell a lie. I hope you're choking on him.