When news came out this weekend that Dem senators were working on a plan to rescind the authorization of the Iraq war, I know my hopes were raised just a tiny bit. Apparently for naught:

In the Senate, the armed services and foreign relations committee chairmen are writing a fifth Democratic proposal on Iraq aimed at getting U.S. troops out of combat operations while retaining a mission of training and support for Iraqi security forces. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, and Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, may offer their plan — in the form of a nonbinding resolution — as an amendment to the Surface Transportation and Rail Security Act, S 184. It is unclear how they will be able to overcome the main hurdle — the need for 60 votes to cut off debate in the 100-member Senate — that has blocked a final vote on other Iraq-related legislation.

Yet another non-binding resolution. Just what we need. Senator Feingold responds:

I am working to fix the new proposal drafted by several Senate Democrats, which at this point basically reads like a new authorization. I will not vote for anything that the President could read as an authorization for continuing with a large military campaign in Iraq. Deauthorizing the President’s failed Iraq policy may be an appropriate next step if done right, but the ultimate goal needs to be using our Constitutionally-granted power of the purse to bring this catastrophe to an end.

At this point, the Senate is a lost cause. The margins are too narrow and the political will among Dems too buffeted by that narrow margin. I have tremendous respect for Senator Feingold and his efforts, but any plan for defunding this occupation is going to have to come from the House.

And the news from that side of the Hill is discouraging:

House Democratic leaders are backing away from a plan to scale back U.S. involvement in the Iraq war by using Congress' most powerful tool--withholding money in the budget. Instead, party officials said Tuesday, leaders are weighing a proposal that would attempt to embarrass Bush into abandoning his war strategy. Under a plan discussed behind closed doors, Democrats probably would fund President Bush's entire $93.4 billion request for war spending this year but require that any troops sent into battle that don't meet certain standards receive a presidential waiver and that Congress be notified of the shortcoming. The compromise is an attempt to please members who want to end the war immediately by cutting funding and others who do not want to appear as though Democrats are turning their back on troops.

All due respect to those members, you will only appear that you are turning your back on the troops if you don't do everything in your power to get them the hell out of Iraq. That will have to come from some effort at defunding, whether it's Feingold's approach or the Wu/Ackerman approach that caps funding and sets a redeployment date. But any approach that will move us forward will have to come from the House, and it will require leadership that gets the Blue Dog Dems in line.