Iraq

BAGHDAD - A suicide car bomber rammed a truck carrying Shiite pilgrims returning from a religious commemoration Sunday, killing at least 32 people a day after Iraqi leaders warned sectarian violence could spread through the Middle East.

Hundreds of pilgrims were killed by suspected Sunni insurgents as they traveled to the ceremonies in the holy city of Karbala, where millions had gathered for two days of commemorations, and their return journey was equally treacherous.

Meanwhile, back on the Hill:

[Democrats are making] slow but deliberate headway . . . in their efforts to cobble together the 218 supporters they need to pass one of the most consequential pieces of defense legislation in decades, a $105 billion war-funding bill that would impose strict standards of rest and readiness for the military, establish clear benchmarks for the government of Iraq and set a timeline to end U.S. involvement in the war.

It's that cobbling together a coalition that's the rub:

For the backing of Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), it was language prohibiting an attack on Iran without congressional authorization. For the support of Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), a National Guardsman who trained troops for Iraq, it was the inclusion of a waiver that the president could invoke to get around strict standards of troop readiness.

The cajoling will continue tomorrow as lawmakers return to Washington and the legislation is readied for markup later in the week. But there are roadblocks: Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) said some conservatives are withholding their support until the language McDermott wanted is removed.

Ultimately, though, the McDermott wing of the party is getting a harsh message:

Miller's pitch was blunt: If the liberals team up with Republicans to bring down the Iraq bill, Democratic leaders would have no choice but to come back with a spending bill that simply funds the war, without any policy restrictions. It would pass easily, with Republican votes and the support of many Democrats.

Given that McConnell has vowed to filibuster anything that has restrictions, and Bush has vowed to veto it should it somehow emerge from a filibuster, it's hard to see what's particularly helpful in presenting that kind of ultimatum to the Progressives. Not to mention letting the GOP know that they're basically prepared to throw over the Progressives and capitulate on just about everything at the drop of a hat.

So the kabuki continues. As does the bloodshed. Democrats might not be able to win this round on policy terms. It seems they are also determined to lose this round on political terms. If they can't make policy, they should at least be making the effort to make a statement. Miller's wasn't the one to be making.