Barack Obama said:

I have concerns about cutting off funding . . . I think there is a possibility, given how obstinate the Administration is, that if we try to cut off funding, Bush is hellbent on doing what he is doing . . . he may decide to play chicken and say 'you guys do whatever you want [I'm keeping the troops there]' . . .

John McCain said:

When the President vetoes . . . I hope Democrats in Congress will heed the advice of . . . Senator Obama, and immediately pass a new bill to provide support to our troops in Iraq without substituting their partisan interests for those of our troops and our country.”

Obama replied:

See also C&L.

The evidence:

Q: If George W. Bush vetoes the legislation, do you think Congress should pass another version of the bill that provides funding for the war without any conditions for troop withdrawal, or should Congress refuse to pass any funding bill until Bush agrees to accept conditions for withdrawal?
Fund the war without conditions: 43%
Withhold funding until Bush signs: 45%
Don't know: 12%

I am more moderate than the American People - I support the Reid-Feingold bill, which calls for funding to a date certain, March 31, 2008.

Move On had its virtual town hall meeting last night. John Edwards won the Big Tent Dem sweepstakes, with the caveat that he still has not endorsed Reid-Feingold. How did the others do? Let's take a look. Here's my description of part of Hillary's answer:

There are two ways of thinking about this, what to do when Bush is President and what to do when a new President is in office. For the present, Hillary discusses her own bill, a bill that places conditions and benchmarks on funding, among other things. As for what is going on now, Hillary said this Congress was elected to end the war and bring the troops home. However, to do this Republican support is necessary. . . .

I stop here because this is the wrong answer. Democrats can end the war without Republican support. What is required is the courage to announce a date certain when DEMOCRATS will no longer fund the Iraq Debacle. Hillary is not for ending the war because she has placed an impossible condition on ending the war, garnering sufficient Republican support. That will not happen. There is one way to end the war while Bush is President -- do NOT fund it after a date certain. The Reid-Feingold bill need not pass in order to end the war. Democrats need only abide by its provisions.

John Edwards tonight at the Move On event:

. . . President Bush has promised to veto that funding, calculating that he can use the bully pulpit to intimidate Congress and get them to back down.

But this is not the time for political calculation, this is the time for political courage. This is not a game of chicken. This is not about making friends or keeping Joe Lieberman happy. This is about life and death—this about war. We are done letting George Bush manipulate the rhetoric of patriotism, only to use our troops as political pawns. If Bush vetoes funding for the troops, he's the only one standing in the way of the resources they need. Nobody else.

Congress must stand firm. They must not write George Bush another blank check without a timeline for withdrawal—period. If Bush vetoes the funding bill, Congress should send another funding bill to him with a binding plan to bring the troops home. And if he vetoes it again, they should do it again.

The American people are overwhelmingly in favor of ending this war. If our side stands firm, if we show courage now, we can finally bring our troops back home and bring this war to an end.

Pretty well done:

The American people want the President and the Congress to work together to bring this war to an end, safely and responsibly. Congressional Democrats are willing to meet with the President at any time, but we believe that any discussion of an issue as critical as Iraq must be accomplished by conducting serious negotiations without any preconditions. Our goal should be to produce an Iraq supplemental bill that both fully funds our troops and gives them a strategy for success.

"With his threat to veto such a plan for change in Iraq, President Bush is ignoring the clear message of the American people: we must protect our troops, hold the Iraqi government accountable, rebuild our military, provide for our veterans, and bring our troops home.

"The President is demanding that we renew his blank check for a war without end. Despite the fact that the President persists in trying to score political points at the expense of our troops, congressional Democrats have repeatedly reached out in the spirit of cooperation. We renew our request to work with him to produce a bipartisan bill that provides our troops and our veterans with every penny they need, but in turn, demands accountability."

Via Bowers, Move On hosts a Virtual Town Hall on Iraq with Dem Presidential hopefuls:

We're organizing three “Virtual Town Halls” to hear from 2008 Presidential candidates on the issues MoveOn members say are most important: Iraq, health care, and energy. On April 10th, we're focusing on Iraq. MoveOn members are asking candidates the tough questions about their Iraq plans, and we're gathering in living rooms from coast to coast to hear the answers directly. . . .

In case you have any doubt what my question would be, I want to know who supports the Reid-Feingold bill:

U.S. Senator Russ Feingold introduced legislation today to effectively end U.S. military involvement in Iraq. The bill, supported by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill passed by the Senate. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008. In addition to Reid, the bill is cosponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), John Kerry (D-MA), Pat Leahy (D-VT), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

As of today, I (speaking only for me of course) support Chris Dodd for President.

My offer is this: nothing. Not even the $20,000 for the gaming license, which I would appreciate if you would put up personally. -Michael Corleone

So Bush has made his Michael Corleone offer to the Dems on Iraq:

President Bush on Tuesday invited Democrats to discuss their standoff over a war-spending bill, but he made clear he would not change his position opposing troop withdrawals. The White House bluntly said the meeting would not be a negotiation. [Bush said:]

It's time for them to get the job done, so I'm inviting congressional leaders from both parties — both political parties — to meet with me at the White House next week. At this meeting, the leaders in Congress can report on progress on getting an emergency spending bill to my desk. We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill, a bill that funds our troops without artificial timetables for withdrawal and without handcuffing our generals on the ground. I'm hopeful we'll see some results soon from the Congress.

Levin and Obama have already caved. So why should Bush negotiate?

How can the Iraq Debacle be ended? Some say only after the 2008 election:

Matt Stoller makes it explicit:

My strategic end goal is to end the war. To do that involves a process of showing that the Democratic caucus is unified behind putting restrictions on Bush and his ability to fight the war, and then using that pressure to remove Republicans (and wayward Democrats) from office in 2008.

Some think that the House Iraq supplemental funding can lead to a confrontation with the President in the Supreme Court:

If [Bush] ignores [the House proposal], we sue and the courts enforce it. if he ignores that, we're in massive constitutional crisis.

Gov. Bill Richardson thinks deauthorizing the Debacle and invoking the War Powers Act can lead to a Supreme Court resolution:

the Congress authorized the war and the Congress should deauthorize the war. Then, there will be a legal fight - the administration will say "well, we don't recognize the war powers act." Then you go to the Supreme Court.

Are any of these options realistic? Or acceptable? Waiting for the next election could work but it is morally unacceptable and, imo, not likely to work. As for counting on the Supreme Court, assuming a bill could be enacted, issues of standing and the political question doctrine preclude these avenues. The reality is, as it always has been, the Congress' power to end the Debacle lies in the Spending Power.

Carl Levin and Barack Obama must be pleased to have gotten the David Broder Seal of Approval:

From the start, Democrats ought to concede one big point: Absent any readiness on their part to cut off funds to the troops in Iraq, those forces will be there as long as George Bush wants them to remain. Once that point is conceded, Bush should be called upon to pay some attention to the Democrats' demands -- and the public opinion that supports them.

Levin and Obama are one step ahead of you Broder:

We're not going to vote to cut funding, period," Levin said. "But what we should do, and we're going to do, is continue to press this president to put some pressure on the Iraqi leaders to reach a political settlement."

Obama is not going to play chicken, he'll just be chicken. Of course, as Matt Yglesias points out, bargaining with the Decider is just plain ridiculous.

The Army is cracking down on deserters. Many of them have already been to Iraq or Afghanistan, and are just stressed out.

“They are scraping to get people to go back, and people are worn out,” said Dr. Thomas Grieger, a senior Navy psychiatrist. Though there are no current studies to show how combat stress affects desertion rates, Dr. Grieger cited several examples of soldiers absconding or refusing to return to Iraq because of psychiatric reasons brought on by wartime deployments.

At an Army base in Alaska last year, for example, “there was one guy who literally chopped off his trigger finger with an axe to prevent his deployment,” Dr. Grieger said in an interview.

Others may not have been true volunteers in the first place, but a result of high-pressure tactics and decreased enlistment standards:

More....

Sometimes I just feel like shouting "Wake up, people." Ten U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq this weekend.

Among the 10 U.S. deaths announced Sunday were three soldiers killed by a roadside bomb while patrolling south of Baghdad; one killed in an attack south of the capital; and two who died of combat wounds sustained north of the capital, in Diyala and Salahuddin provinces. On Saturday, the military said, four U.S. soldiers were killed in an explosion near their vehicle in Diyala.

At least 3,280 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians.

It's way past time to get the hell out of there.

This is not the idea behind the Surge I think:

The renegade cleric Muqtada al-Sadr urged the Iraqi army and police to stop cooperating with the United States and told his guerrilla fighters to concentrate on pushing American forces out of the country, according to a statement issued Sunday. The statement, stamped with al-Sadr's official seal, was distributed in the Shiite holy city of Najaf on Sunday — a day before a large demonstration there, called for by al-Sadr, to mark the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. "You, the Iraqi army and police forces, don't walk alongside the occupiers, because they are your archenemy," the statement said. Its authenticity could not be verified.