Overnight reports on the House Dems' plans for war funding from the AP, W. Post and NY Times are a little conflicting.

But it seems like the plan is to change Rep. John Murtha's proposal -- preventing funds from being used to send new troops to Iraq without proper training and equipment -- by adding in a loophole:

Giving Bush the authority to waive such a requirement, albeit publicly.

Yes, it's a flinch, and a disheartening sign that congressional Dems still haven't learned how to stand together and pushback against conservative hit jobs.

But there's no need to lament that the flinch is letting Dubya go ahead with the escalation.

Because Dubya will escalate anyway, no matter what Congress does, as he fundamentally does not believe in checks and balances.

Since Dems cannot stop the war with a Oval Office occupant who will keep himself unchecked and unbalanced, the best thing Dems can do is:

Convey the alternative Dem strategy for Iraq and the region, and show how the Republican minority is blocking it and continuing the current failed strategy.

That's why the deliberation in the Senate over revamping the congressional authorization of force is arguably more important than the upcoming funding bill.

Because the authorization of force language can clearly articulate an overarching foreign policy vision and strategy.

Though that process is also hitting some obstacles.

The AP reports:

The Senate bid to narrow the 2002 resolution authorizing the war appears to lack the 60 votes it would need to be approved in the Senate, and action on it now is likely to be put off -- at least for the week.

It's not clear from the wording, but it appears that some leading Dems are trying to get 60, even at the expense of crafting clear language.

NYT reports the draft proposal, "faced skepticism on two fronts.":

Some liberal Democrats expressed unease at the prospect of approving a new military mission, even a narrower one, while moderate Republicans said they preferred to look ahead rather than revisit the past.

That would imply that Dems are seeking support from certain Republicans in hopes of getting 60 votes to break any filibuster.

That may not be the case. And obviously, there's nothing wrong without asking someone in any party to support your iegislation.

But there is something wrong in creating a meaningless bill just to get 60 meaningless votes.

Sen. Russ Feingold is concerned that the working draft would still allow Dubya to maintain a permanent military presence.. From the W. Post:

Sen. Russell Feingold (Wis.), a prominent war opponent, said he rejected a draft of the new resolution because it appeared to grant Bush too much leeway to continue the conflict. In effect, he said, Democrats would be reauthorizing a war while trying to end it.

He was particularly bothered by a provision that suggested an open-ended U.S. commitment to providing border security. "It's crazy to create a new military mission in Iraq when we should be getting out of there," Feingold said. "I didn't vote for it in the first place. I'll be darned if I'm going to vote for it now."

The W. Post also reports that other Dems believe Feingold's concerns can be addressed.

Hopefully, they are thinking of removing Bush's authority to keep permanent bases in Iraq.

That would show any border security mission will be a temporary one, not part of a back door strategy for permanent occupation.

And hopefully, there are not adding in wishy-washy wording in hopes of getting 60 votes.

Because there's a cost of getting to 60: a mushy bill that will be ignored by Bush, without conveying to voters what an alternative approach really looks like.

Senate Dems should not sweat 60. They should sweat crafting a compelling proposal that will impress the public.

If they do that, they might get to 60 thanks to public pressure. And if they don't, it's Republicans who will pay the price in 2008.

Which will really give Dems the ability to redeploy our troops out of a civil war.