War spending bill

[Enigma]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democrats ignored a veto threat and pushed through a bill Thursday requiring President Bush to start withdrawing troops from "the civil war in Iraq," dealing a rare, sharp rebuke to a wartime commander in chief.
In a mostly party line 51-47 vote, the Senate signed off on a bill providing $122 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also orders Bush to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage while setting a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008.

I'm very conflicted on this whole thing, and im hoping ( ) that we can have some decent discussion about it. Conflicted, admittedly because of my own lack of understanding about what will actually happen here. As far as troop withdrawls, I'm sure I've made it clear in other posts that I did'nt think we should have been there to begin with, let alone still there 4 years later in a no-win situation. However, I dont know what actually happens if this bill were to pass. The Repubs make it sound like we cut off funding and all of a sudden the Military is out in Iraq with no money to spend on equipment, food, housing, or even a plane ride home. Obviously this isnt entirely true, as it would be complete political suicide for the Dems. I also dont believe that "setting a timetable" for leaving is a big disaster as the Repubs suggest. Any withdrawl, at any time, under any circumstances will yeild the same results. At some point, someone will present a date. I dont see what difference the timing makes when there is clearly no end in sight. (60 dead today in a Baghdad car bombing). I also have a hard time recognizing a downside to reigning in from a disaster of a war that has cost the lives of more than 3,200 American troops and more than $350 billion, to seemingly no advantage to the American people, and no end goal in sight, or within realistic grasp. Not to say I dont understand what could happen to Iraq if we all left today, but...where do we draw the line?

I guess in the end I just dont know that this is a good solution that the Dems are proposing. But, maybe it is, and I misunderstand it.
The norm around here is for guys like me who speak openly about their personal lack of faith in the current administration to the point where it's obvious that I feel them to be incompetent liars, to put it nicely, automatically makes me a bleeding heart liberal, leftist, whatever. It's simply not true in my case. I think i'm taking a pretty hawkish stance towards Iran in other threads. The only reason I point this out is to make clear, just because I know (in my mind) the current Repubs get almost everything wrong, I am in no way convinced the Dems are right, or better, or anything else. They happen to be making more sense to me right now than the right, thats for sure. But on this specific issue, I dont feel like I understand the end results enough to make an informed decision either way. Anyone willing to take the time to try to explain, Im listening. I'd love to avoid the partisan spin that we so frequently find here on these forums n the responses, so I guess all I can do is ask to avoid it.