President Bush has signed the emergency supplemental bill funding the war in Iraq with no deadlines or limits on the use of military force, just a bit of pork and a minimum wage hike.

Finally.

The votes in the House (280-142) and Senate (80-14) have to be a little disconcerting for the retreat now coalition. Although President Bush's mishandling of postwar Iraq got them into power in 2006, many Democrats still aren't quite sure whether people were voting for a new direction for victory in Iraq or the new direction was supposed to be retreat and defeat.

Bush's post-election firing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his decision to put Gen. David Petraeus in charge of the counterterrorist surge he designed might have been the belated change the American right and a big portion of the political center wanted.

And I think there's quite a few Democrats that know this -- which is why so many of them refused to take a principled stand, based on their rhetoric, by defunding the troops.

And frankly, it's the rhetoric that's really been steaming me lately. There are very few Democrats who will own up to wanting to pull all American troops out and pulling them out now. The rest of them cover their hindquarters by talking about "redeploying" the troops to places like Okinawa. That's not a redeployment, that's retreat. Call it what it is.

Both Democrat frontrunners, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, voted against the supplemental. I searched Clinton's Senate Web site for some sort of statement on her vote -- and the only thing I could find was this press release patting herself on the back for a military funding bill for the FY 2008 Defense Authorization.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today announced that the Senate Armed Services Committee has approved two measures that she proposed to take care of our troops and military families. The provisions were included in the FY 2008 Department of Defense (DoD) Authorization bill.

Well, that's good to know. The day after she voted to strip funding from troops in the field, she was happy to announce "Approval of Measures to Support Our Troops and Military Families."

You had to go to her campaign Web site to find her statement on her vote on the supplemental.

Tonight I voted against the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill because it fails to compel the President to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq. I believe that the President should begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq and abandon this escalation. I fully support our troops, and wish the President had followed the will of the people and signed the original bill we sent which both funded the troops and set a new course of phased redeployment. But the President vetoed Congress's new strategy and so Congress must reject the President's failed policies. I will also continue to press with Senator Byrd for our legislation to end the authorization of the war in Iraq.

While I am deeply disappointed that the supplemental does not provide for a new course in Iraq, I want to recognize the many worthy parts of this bill: funding to help those sickened in the aftermath of 9/11, additional relief for Katrina and Rita victims, homeland security funds for high-threat cities like New York City, resources to protect parts of New York affected by recent flooding, $650 million for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and the first federal minimum wage increase in ten years. I support these measures but cannot support this Emergency Supplemental which will not change our course in Iraq.

Phased redeployment? Phased retreat is more like it.

And I loved the line about the President vetoing "Congress's [sic] new strategy." I wonder if Hillary-the-President as commander-in-chief of the armed forces will be as inclined as she is now toward a bunch of legislators dictating military strategy. Hillary attended War College where exactly?

Obama was quoted by the Washington Post as saying: "This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one. And I am demanding a new one."

Obama's new policy, left unsaid, is retreat.

And here's the big elephant in the room when it comes to most of the Democrats on this issue: What happens when we leave? I hope that the June 3 debate on CNN will delve into this issue. Just about every person with an ounce of experience and credibility -- on whatever side of this issue they're on -- acknowledges that a bloodbath will follow any precipitous U.S. withdrawal. The fledgling Iraqi government will likely be either impotent to do anything to prevent it, or be overthrown as Al Qaeda and their Sunni sympathizers battle the Shia and their Iranian backers.

Not to mention what such a move would do to U.S. credibility with our allies and around the world. How will China weigh trying to retake Taiwan if they believe they can get the U.S. to back down by sinking a ship or two and knocking out a few satellites. We've lost more than 3,000 fine Americans in Iraq in five years. What kind of stomach do our enemies think we have if they can successfully sink an aircraft carrier with nearly 5,000 sailors aboard.

Democrats have decried a lack of U.S. credibility abroad. What kind of credibility do they think we'll have after we've abandoned Iraq to death squads and genocide?

The Democrats need to be asked more than whether or not they want to pull the troops out now or wait six months. They need to answer what kind of mess they're willing to leave behind.