Putting aside the pork issue for a sec (which most would agree is bi-partisan in its habitual practice, nearly as old as Congress itself, but hardly responsible for "the destruction of America"), this bill is a long way from passage.
And not because of the pork, but because it includes the
Pelosi/Murtha language calling for a
"withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by August 2008 at the latest" (and sets requirements for unit readiness and lengths of deployments that may be waived by Bush under certain circumstances). What strikes me as interesting is how little press attention this provision received as opposed to the pork.
In any case, the bill faces its next hurdle on the House floor, where it is likely to be opposed by the more anti-war Dems who believe the language funding the war for another year+ is not strong enough and the Repubs who call it "a slow bleeding" strategy. Its not clear at all the Pelosi has the votes to pass the bill with her language. (More on the challenge Pelosi faces in the House to get this passed -
link)
And, then, comes the Senate, where the Repubs have already threatened a fillibuster if the bill includes any language counter to the Bush "surge" strategy.
Interesting weeks ahead in Congress. We shall see how Bush will ultimately get the funding he wants (along with some pork) ...but with what strings attached on the ongoing fiasco in Iraq?
If it takes a little pork to get a bill through both houses of Congress and on to Bush's desk that puts restrictions on the failing "stay the course and surge" war strategy.....it will have my support!