NBC’s Mike Viquiera: “Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her allies in the House now appear to have the Democratic votes necessary to pass the measure that requires American combat troops to be out of Iraq by Fall 2008 at the latest.”

UPDATE: Watch video of today’s House debate HERE. MissLaura and Kagro X are following the debate online.

UPDATE II: Atrios writes:

It isn’t perfect, but the choice isn’t between nothing and a pony, it’s been nothing and this. From what I understand Pelosi has called in every chip she has (and thrown some elbows) for the Bill. Whatever its imperfections, it’s better than the realistic alternative. Let’s hope it passes.

UPDATE III: Greg Sargent reports, “Less than 24 hours before the House Dem Iraq supplemental spending bill is set to go to a vote, the key liberal House Dems holding out against the bill have decided to back it, making its passage far more likely.” From the progressives’ statement:

After two grueling weeks of meetings, Progressive members of Congress brought forth an agreement that provided the momentum to pass a supplemental spending bill that, for the first time, establishes a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Congresswomen Barbara Lee (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Diane Watson (D-CA) have led Congressional opposition to the war in Iraq since before it started and have consistently voted against funding for the war as a matter of conscience. Still, they decided that they could not stand in the way of the passage of a bill that would establish a clear timeline for ending the war, especially if the failure of that bill would mean the passage of a supplemental without any restrictions.

On January 23, 2007, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said on CNN that he supported benchmarks for Iraqis and a timeline of “60 to 90 days” for the escalation to work:

KOPPEL: How long can you and your membership give the president and give the Iraqi military, before you say, you know what, you’re not doing your job?

BOEHNER: I think it will be rather clear in the next 60 to 90 days as to whether this plan is going to work. And, again, that’s why we need to have close oversight, so that we just don’t look up 60 or 90 days from now and realize that — that this plan is not working. We need to know, as we — as we’re — we move through these benchmarks, that the Iraqis are doing what they have to do.

Time’s up.

Fifty-nine days later, the escalation isn’t working. A senior Bush administration official acknowledged recently to the Washington Post that “right now there is no trend” showing the escalation is working. While sectarian attacks in Baghdad are down, “deaths of Iraqi civilians and U.S. troops have increased outside the capital”:

If violence is down in Baghdad, analysts said, it is likely because the Shiite militias operating there are waiting out the buildup in U.S. troops, nearly all of whom are being deployed in the capital. At the same time, Sunni insurgents have escalated their operations elsewhere.

Meanwhile, Boehner is leading opposition to the House Iraq plan (which imposes strict benchmarks on the Iraqi government) claiming it will lead to “micromanag[ing] the war on terror, undermining our generals on the ground and slowly choking off resources for our troops.”

How many more periods of “60 to 90 days” before Boehner admits the Iraq strategy is failing?