Abandoning a call to leave Iraq after an earlier veto by President Bush, the United States Congress sent a $120 billion war spending bill to the White House.

The bill replaces a vetoed version calling for the pull-out of U.S. combat troops by March 2008 with a series of political benchmarks for Iraqi leaders to meet.

Sharon Cobb writes, "Although they appeased the Democratic base, Clinton, Obama and Dodd did open themselves up to criticism from Republicans that they were denying 165,000 troops the resources they need — an argument that could be damaging in a general election."

Mom, Dad...I'm Gaelic says, "I've frequently wondered (to no avail) why most people want absolutely no part in speaking out against any wrongdoing... even if they are the ones who suffer. Why would silence be their choice? If they know that silence changes nothing and no change means they continue to suffer, why not take a chance on making change happen? What are people so afraid of?"

Jill at Brilliant for Breakfast writes, "But I think there's something else operative here: The Democrats may believe, plausibly so, that Bush will keep the troops in Iraq even if their is no money allocated to provide for them. Alas, I can't seem to find a video yet (though I have to believe someone will post it), but the odious John Boehner, his crocodile tears flowing, spoke about how not passing this bill means that the troops will go hungry over there. Is it my imagination, or did he confirm my worst suspicions about this president today? And is that why the Democrats caved?"

Contributing Editor Erin Kotecki Vest also blogs at Queen of Spain and the Huffington Post