Robert Byrd has put forward the Senate version of a supplemental appropriation for Iraq. It has slightly less money in it than the House version ($121.5 billion vs. $125 billion). It has nothing binding.

‘United States troops should not be policing a civil war, and the current conflict in Iraq requires principally a political solution,” states a copy of the draft bill, obtained by The Associated Press. Like the bill the Senate defeated, it would set a nonbinding goal of pulling out combat troops by March 31, 2008.

The Senate proposal also would urge the Iraqi government to meet certain benchmarks, such as disarming militias and amending the constitution to protect Sunni minorities.

It would set no consequences if the Iraqis fail to achieve those goals. Under the House bill, combat troops would have to begin coming home as early as this fall if the president cannot certify that the Iraqi government was making progress.

Both the House and Senate bills will see a vote on Thursday. The President has vowed to veto either of them. The Senate may not even pass Byrd’s bill.

Senate Democrats have drafted a $121.5 billion war spending bill that would direct President Bush to begin bringing home troops from Iraq with the goal of ending U.S. combat missions there in just over a year.

The provision is similar to a resolution the Senate narrowly rejected last week. It failed on a 50-48 vote, falling 12 votes shy of the 60 needed to pass, after President Bush vowed to veto the legislation.

Has anything changed? Why, yes.

…some Republicans might have a tough time turning the proposal down because it is attached to a bill that provides much-needed funding for troops in combat, assistance for fishers and farmers, hurricane reconstruction and other popular spending projects.

Most progressives are dissatisfied with these appropriation bills because they provide funding for the war and do not provide anything binding that will force the end of the war. Some, like Armando, insist that no bill should even be offered. The Dems should just refuse to put any supplemental on the table. As we can see, that isn’t happening. There will be votes on these bills tomorrow. That will put everyone in Congress on the record (except for St. McCain, who doesn’t seem to cast votes anymore). And, we’ll know where all the members stand.

I cannot say whether either bill will pass. It’s possible, although I think unlikely, that both will pass. It’s possible that neither will pass. If I were a betting man, I’d put my money on the House version passing and the Senate bill falling short of the 60 votes it needs to avoid a filibuster.

Then it will be back to the drawing board, weakening the bill (and/or adding pork) to gain more Republican support in the Senate. That’s where we’re headed, I think. But, if both bills pass and then can be reconciled in conference, the President will have to decide whether or not to veto the bill. He has said he will, but he might not.

If he does veto the bill, then I would join Armando in recommending that no further supplemental be put forward until the Republicans agree to binding terms.

At present, we should hope that Reid and Pelosi succeed in passing these bills. It will put everyone on the record, and it will force the President to back down on his veto threat or take responsibility for the lack of funding. The time to make a stand will come after the veto.

There was never a chance that Congress would refuse to provide supplemental funding. But there is still a chance that the supplemental funding will fail to pass or get vetoed. And, if it does pass, the Democrats can take up war-ending resolutions and other strategies as the year progresses.

Tomorrow will be an interesting day.