As regards the war funding bill, Democrats are fatigued. So here's a word of non-partisan strategic advice- take a breather. Relax. Just do nothing for while and see if events on the ground change the politics back home. Anyway, it now seems that Democrats just don't want this fight. From CQ: "The problem is that we have to provide money for the troops, and if we don't, the Democrats will be blamed," added Rep. James P. Moran, D-Va., a war opponent. "Bush has the bully pulpit, so he will define who is responsible." Incorrect- there's plenty of funding for soldiers. The authority granted by the Feed and Forage Act is only one of a good number of options the Defense Department has to maintain troops in the field absent a re-up in appropriations. The most important one seems to be using its authority to transfer funds between accounts- in other words, taking money from one part of the budget and putting it in another. CRS has found that using the transfer authority alone could provide enough funding to keep the military supplied through most of July. If the transfer authority is used in combination with the Feed and Forage authority, DOD would probably have enough funding to last until August, though i haven't done the math. How long it would last depends on how Defense interprets the Feed and Forage Act- and I'm not quite sure how they would. But even the narrowest interpretation would give DoD a massive infusion of funding. Maybe Moran's right about how Bush would respond, and how hard it would be to rebut him. I don't know. It just seems that confrontation is inevitable, but maybe this is the wrong time. Who knows. But it won't be Congress's fault if the war effort isn't funded, as the President has alternative means, and somebody will probably have to make that case if Congress is to shape war policy within this President's term.