Hoyer struck a pragmatic tone, pushing for Congress to adjourn for the year by the end of next week. He suggested that Democrats need to divorce their goal of ending the war from the battle over funding.

"We have to get to a point where the American public more clearly perceives our policy position and is not confused by whether or not the Democrats intend to support the troops that we've sent to Iraq. I don't think there's an option on that," Hoyer said.

You might think you know what that means. Hoyer is saying we have no choice but to give no-strings-attached supplemental funding for the war in Iraq because, otherwise, the American people will be confused about whether we support the troops that 'we've sent to Iraq'. Give him 'A's' for Cowardice and False Dichotomies and a 'F' in Framing. It's actually worse than you know. And it's going to be incredibly ugly. A car wreck.

House Democratic leaders could complete work as soon as Monday on a half-trillion-dollar spending package that will include billions of dollars for the war effort in Iraq without the timelines for the withdrawal of combat forces that President Bush has refused to accept, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday.

In a complicated deal over the war funds, Democrats will include about $11 billion more in domestic spending than Bush has requested, emergency drought relief for the Southeast and legislation to address the subprime mortgage crisis, Hoyer told a meeting of the Washington Post editorial board.

If the bargain were to become law, it would be the third time since Democrats took control of Congress that they would have failed to force Bush to change course in Iraq and continued to fund a war that they have repeatedly vowed to end. But it would also be the clearest instance yet of the president bowing to a Democratic demand for more money for domestic priorities, an increase that he had promised to reject.

"The way you pass appropriations bills is you get agreement among all the relevant players, among which the president with his veto pen is a very relevant player," Hoyer said. "Everybody knows he has no intention of signing anything without money for Iraq, unfettered, without constraints. I think that's ultimately going to be the result."

How is it going to work?

The Democrats plan to take a three-step approach to completing the deal. House leaders are considering an initial allotment of about $30 billion, ostensibly for the war in Afghanistan and some other military needs, which all sides in the deal recognize could be shifted to fund the Iraq war.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) then would allow Republicans to increase that amount to avert a filibuster of the spending bill in the Senate. The goal of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is $70 billion for the war, more than the $50 billion short-term funding that House Democrats initially proposed but far less than the $196 billion Bush has sought.

The Senate-passed bill would then go to the House for final approval.

Step One: pretend the money you are appropriating is for Afghanistan, even though everyone agrees it is really for Iraq. This is a concession to the Democrats because it allows them to pretend that they are not appropriating money for Iraq.

Step Two: the Republicans threaten to filibuster, so the Democrats cave in and increase the funding for the war in Afghanistan Iraq.

Step Three: the President agrees to sign appropriations bills that he had previously threatened to veto.

It's a swiss fucking watch, Walter...how could anything go wrong?

Start with the fact that we're not stupid. No one is going to fall for the idea that this money is really for Afghanistan, nor are they going to fall for the initial sum. It's not much of a concession at all by the Republicans. It's a total cave in by the Democrats in return for a paltry $11 billion in domestic spending.

At least, that's the plan. Except for a couple of problems. The Democrats in the House are going to hate this 'grand strategy' and huge numbers of them are going to refuse to vote for the bill. The Republicans in the House are going to hate it and huge numbers of them are going to vote against the bill.

At a White House meeting this week, McConnell presented the proposal to Bush, but House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) urged the president to reject it...

"I am adamantly opposed to it," Boehner said Thursday. "I came here to hold the line on spending, not to raise it."

The 'deal' would sell out House Republicans very badly. Their entire strategy has been to hold the line on increased spending and prevent the Democrats from passing anything. Any deal that allows the Democrats to pass their appropriations bills with increased spending (however paltry) allows the Dems to tick off their accomplishments and avoid the 'do-nothing' label that they can't achieve any results. Yet, the whiff of money is like nectar to Republicans.

Democratic leadership aides expressed confidence that Boehner and Blunt will not be able to keep enough Republicans away from a bill that funds the war, popular domestic programs and their own pet projects, known as earmarks. With a long holiday break beckoning, few lawmakers will be in the mood for a protracted standoff.

You see, the key is not just to give the Republicans all the money they want for Iraq, but to pay them off with lucrative pet project money to get them to vote for the money. Isn't that brilliant? And it just might work.

A bunch of cowardly Democrats will vote for the Iraq funding and a bunch of greedy Republicans will join them. And between the two, the president will get everything he wants.

Will this actually happen?

Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) vowed last month to oppose any additional money for the Iraq war that does not come with a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. In talks this week with White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and White House budget chief Jim Nussle, Reid signaled that he could accept the McConnell deal, according to Senate Democratic aides. But Pelosi is uncommitted, spokesman Nadeam Elshami said.

Now, I know the Democrats would like to get their spending bills done and go sing Christmas carols with their families. And Hoyer is right that the president does not intend to sign anything that has strings attached, nor give the Dems any of their spending priorities. But I ask Hoyer...who the hell do you think you are dealing with?

Washington D.C. is now officially a crime scene. The White House should be roped off with yellow tape to preserve the evidence.

We have a criminal regime running our country and all you can think to do is to throw more money at them. Congratulations.

This strategy is going to rip the Democratic caucus apart and create some rather severe riptides in the presidential primaries.