Although he received wide praise across the blogs when he stated unequivocally his intention to vote against the Iraq, no-strings-attached, give-Bush-what-he-wants supplemental bill, the question of the rule that essentially streamines and fast tracks the bill through the floor process by insuring no amendments that aren’t friendly to the President’s no-strings-attached demand was hanging.

Presumably, Democratic supporters of the President’s Iraq agenda (which is what voting for this bill expresses, regardlesss of any hemming and hawing) want to guarantee that they will be on record as little as possible in support of Bush’s demands, and David Sirota (and others) speculated that this rule gives them that cover in a fairly underhanded way.

But the fact is that the rule has changed – and not simply in that it provides for another up-or-down vote on the war itself in Septemeber (as Sirota already noted). The final rule severed the provisions of the bill into two distinct votes; seperating the appropriation provision from the domestic spending elements (for example $6.4 billion in hurricane relief and $3 billion in agricultural assistance) of the bill, which many progressive legislators support. In this way, the rule passed by attracting the votes of the most solid anti-war liberals in the caucus, such as Reps. Woolsey, Lee, and yeah, Welch.

So the rule passes (and of course, the supplemental does too – which was inevitable), but I can’t get too bent out of shape. I can’t help but think I would’ve done the same thing, albeit grudgingly.