Just saw this piece from the AP: Dem unity raises questions on Iraq bill
The headline is a bit vague, so here's the meat of it:
WASHINGTON - Anti-war liberals worried about party unity are reluctant to mount opposition to war spending legislation in the House even if it does not set a firm date for troop withdrawal.
Choice quotes from the "Out" of Iraq Caucus below.
Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia, a freshman Democrat who represents a district strongly opposed to the war, said lending his support to a bill that funds the war without setting a firm end date will be difficult. On the other hand, he added, Democrats might be in a tougher spot if they can't pull the caucus together long enough to act against Bush.
"We have to look at the political realities of being the party that's in control, and prove to the American people we can govern," he said.
Last month, Watson was one of several liberal Democrats who threatened to block passage of the House bill because she did not think the measure went far enough to end the war. Watson and California Democratic Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters said they refused to fund the war and wanted language that would end combat before the end of 2007.
Last month, [Rep. Diane] Watson was one of several liberal Democrats who threatened to block passage of the House bill because she did not think the measure went far enough to end the war.
...
On Thursday, Pelosi, D-Calif., summoned Woolsey, Lee, Waters and several other of the party's more liberals members to her office to discuss the issue. According to aides and members, concerns were expressed but there were no loud objections to a conference bill that would adopt the Senate's nonbinding goal.
Watson said she would personally oppose the final bill, as she did last month, but would not stand in Pelosi's way if the speaker agrees to the Senate version.
"It's still a timeline," [Watson] said. "We're not backing down from that."
You're a real profile in courage, Rep. Watson.