Earlier this month, when endorsing the overall congressional Dem strategy on Iraq, LiberalOasis noted that the Senate Dem plan was "less firm" than the House Dem plan.

The House bill has a binding deadline of August 2008 to redeploy combat troops out of Iraq, while the Senate bill has a nonbinding "goal" of March 2008.

However, the Senate bill headed towards passage -- after Dems defeated a GOP attempt to strip out the any goal for redeployment, and the Senate Minority Leader announced there would be no filibuster -- shares the House language banning funds "made available by this or any other Act" for permanent military bases in Iraq.

That's more important than the difference over a firm or flexible deadline when combat troops leave, especially since we're only talking about combat troops leaving anyway.

Technically non-combat, yet still quite armed, troops can still be part of a destabilizing permanent occupation, helping White House neocons exert illegitimate influence within Iraq and beyond its borders.

But banning permanent bases is an unequivocal policy shift, ensuring the eventual withdrawal of all troops and rejecting permanent occupation.

Without the permanent bases ban in the bill, a mere "goal" would be too big a loophole.

Dubya could sign the bill, make Dems effective partners in his strategy, maintain the bases, and shrug his shoulders when the redeployment goal wasn't met.

(Of course, a determined Dubya could try semantic moves to work around a permanent bases ban. But Dems would have oversight opportunities to expose attempts to circumvent the law.)

This is worth noting at this point for two reasons.

1) With this common ground, the eventual House-Senate conference need not become another tense, drawn-out, intra-party battle.

All factions can unify around the unequivocal rejection of permanent occupation.

2) There's going to be a major public opinion battle after Dubya vetoes the final bill, with Republicans trying to blame Democrats for "holding up funding for the troops."

To keep public opinion of their side, Democrats cannot be seen as low-brow "playing politics" with troops caught in the middle.

Tit-for-tat arguments ("No, you're holding up funding!") won't do. They need to keep the debate on a plane of big picture importance.

They need to make clear their fight with Dubya is essential for both the security of the troops, and the success of our national security strategy.

They need to make clear that any funds should only be approved as part of a strategy for success, not for continued failure.

And only with a renouncement of permanent occupation can we dissuade Iraqis from attacking our troops, and can we achieve any diplomatic effort to resolve sectarian differences and win regional cooperation.