A little background on the alternative Iraq supplemental mentioned in my story today:

Several Democratic sources have been quick to point out to me that the Feingold/Reid/Kerry bill would not "cut off funds for the troops" in the most literal sense.

Rather, the bill puts serious constraints on the available mission objectives in Iraq, essentially limiting them to some of the recommendations outlined in the Iraq Study Group's report and what many Democrats have called the "original reasoning" behind the initial effort to topple Saddam Hussein.

As Harry Reid's spokesman Jim Manley put it in an e-mail to me this morning:

"The Feingold bill is consistent with the language included in the supplemental and will not cut off any funding for our troops. It will limit the mission after March 2008 to three specific areas: 1. conducting targeted counterterrorism operations, 2. protecting U.S. infrastructure and personnel, 3. training and equipping Iraqi security forces"
"This is another in a series of attempts to change course in Iraq, a change the American people, a bipartisan majority in Congress, the Iraq Study Group and top military personnel have all recognized is needed."

And from another Democratic source: "Under the legislation, troops would still receive all of the resources, salary, body armor, ammunition, etc. What the legislation does is prohibit funding for the military operation in Iraq after March 31, 2008 affording the President the time and funding he needs to safely redeploy the troops by that date."

While some leading Democrats have distanced themselves from the bill, it has also picked up support from other leading Dems, including Chris Dodd, Patrick Leahy, Barbara Boxer and Sheldon Whitehouse.

So, the debate over whether the bill cuts off funding for the troops may to some extent also be a debate over semantics. After all, Dem supporters have a cohesive rebuttal to accusations that the bill cuts off funding for troops in the most literal sense. But to most Republicans, that's just how it reads, no matter how much is included for body armor or other essentials. How the bill affects the overall war debate remains to be seen.

You can read Russ Feingold's official press release on the bill here.

-- Eric Pfeiffer, Capitol Hill correspondent, The Washington Times