Senate Democrats will forge ahead with votes on anti-war measures later this week, even though most of the proposals lack the Republican support needed to advance.

As a result, Congress appears no closer to passing bipartisan legislation that could challenge President Bush’s Iraq War strategy, despite a growing chorus of centrists on both sides of the aisle calling for change.

The decision by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to hold votes on war measures that are likely to fail suggested another Democratic effort to put both parties on record yet again on the Iraq issue.

Having failed to win over Republicans on compromise measures, Democrats appeared to be returning to a hard-line approach. They had considered bringing to the floor a measure by Democrats Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island that would set a goal, not a ­requirement, for withdrawing most U.S. troops from Iraq in nine months. That measure will have to wait while a version with a firm deadline is put to the Senate, Reid told reporters.

The Democrats have limited floor time to pass the appropriations bills and they can't really afford to waste it on debate over Iraq that will never translate into law. Yet, persistent criticism from the Netroots has, for now, prevented them from caving to the president before they even start negotiating.

The decision to go with a stronger version of Levin-Reed, at least to begin with, addresses concerns of the more liberal members of the Democratic Party.

“We believe it’s important to vote for something we believe in first,” Levin said.

The Dems intend to cause maximum pain and suffering to the GOP. There really is no other choice. The so-called GOP moderates are already starting to twist.

But moderates, many of them facing the possibility of difficult reelection bids next year, are dreading the expected showdowns.

"We are at a very significant juncture," said Rep. Jim Ramstad (Minn.), a moderate who on Monday joined seven other Republicans in announcing that he will not seek reelection. "I'd use a metaphor, but it can't be printed -- something about something hitting the fan."

The Dems have to get Republicans to turn away from the president. If they won't, the Dems have to end the careers of as many Republicans as possible. But, at the same time, Democratic and anti-war activists need to recognize the sacrifice Reid is making here. By forcing another ultimately hopeless debate on Iraq he is assuring that we will also have a showdown on the budget. There will be fights on continuing resolutions to keep the government running and the Republicans will say that the Dems can't get their act together and handle the basics of their job.

And, despite some positive signs, things are not all peaches and roses in the Democratic caucus.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) was expecting to go to the Democratic Caucus on Tuesday to complain that liberals are threatening to support primary challenges against Democratic centrists because of their positions on Iraq.

But when he found out the issue wasn’t on the agenda, he walked out...

Hours later on the floor, he saw three members of leadership — House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) and Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.). He buttonholed them and asked why Iraq and party unity weren’t on the agenda.

“I said, ‘Did Iraq fall off the table?’” said Abercrombie, a senior Armed Services Committee member. “There’s a lot of frustration and downright anger festering in the caucus.”

Abercrombie’s anger highlights the rising tensions within the Democratic Caucus as House leadership plots the next step forward and looks to reach out to Republicans. The party’s liberal wing has gotten frustrated at overtures that they consider “backsliding” on the Iraq issue.

That tension crystallized when word leaked that Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) had advocated running primaries against centrist members deemed insufficiently anti-war. That comment has provoked a backlash from those who want to reach out to Republicans, like Abercrombie and Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.).

“It shows what these folks know about the military, to call in fire on your own people,” Tanner told The Hill on Tuesday. “It’s the height of arrogance to think you’re the only one who knows how to achieve a goal.”

Abercrombie is a member of the Progressive Caucus, but he's also a member of the Armed Services committee and he chairs one of the subcommittees. But Tanner is just confused. He's not one of 'our own'. He's a Bush Dog Democrat and he fully deserves artillery fire. If he wants it to stop then he should stop voting for horrible legislation.