Informed Speculation

Senator Mitch McConnell, who has been nothing short of brilliant in outmanuevering his Democratic colleagues on Iraq thus far, in particular ‘Dirty’ Harry Reid, is signalling a temporary retreat on the language requiring troop withdrawals, predicting it will be in the supplemental funding bill that passes the Senate in the expectation that the President will veto it.  Confused? Here are the details:

The Senate’s Republican leader yesterday left the door open for his conference to allow the Democrats’ emergency war supplemental to proceed to the president’s desk for a veto, even if the GOP fails in its bid to strip the measure’s target date for troop withdrawal.Finishing the Senate supplemental this week is integral to preserving prompt funding for active-duty troops, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters. While McConnell and his fellow Republicans are confident that the Democrats’ 120-day window for the first redeployments from Iraq will not become law, the Kentuckian acknowledged the likely political endgame.“The final bill is likely to have the offending language in it because that’s in the House version,” McConnell said. He added later: “If that’s to be in the final bill, which the majority will be able to determine in conference, we need time to re-pass the bill without the offending language.”

The growing probability that the $124 billion supplemental will continue on course for a veto raises the stakes for the GOP motion to strike the bill’s Iraq withdrawal language. That will be offered by Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and could come to a vote as soon as today. The bill’s success may depend on whether Republicans try to remove the benchmarks for progress by the Iraqi government as well as the timeline for troop redeployment.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) supported the bill in committee after Democratic leaders added his benchmarks proposal. But he and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) — the only two Democrats to oppose this month’s non-binding withdrawal resolution — are on record as ultimately opposing a fixed date for leaving Iraq.

“Public timetables are a problem for Sen. Pryor, and not funding the troops is a problem for Sen. Pryor,” Communications Director Michael Teague said. He predicted that keeping benchmarks in the bill “will be supported by everyone.”

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), who has sided with Republicans on every war vote thus far, said late Friday that the GOP’s motion to strike was unlikely to touch the Nelson benchmarks provision.“In the end, it will pass without this [withdrawal] language in it,” Lieberman said, urging both parties to “declare a truce in the political wars” over Iraq.As for Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), his goal is “to have the supplemental leave the floor with the withdrawal language in it,” said spokeswoman Liz Oxhorn. “As far as getting it to conference, the House version already contains Iraq language, so it will be an issue [regardless of the Senate outcome].”

In other words, get this one approved quickly, so it can be vetoed quickly, and a new vote can be scheduled on a bill without the withdrawal language ASAP…