Today, national antiwar groups--including United for Peace and Justice and Code Pink--declared victory in announcing that for the first time the House of Representatives has denied a war funding request. The latest request, worth $166 billion, was defeated despite leading Democrats announcing that the funding request would likely pass.

United for Peace and Justice declared in an email that:

"In an amazing turn of events, the House of Representatives today voted AGAINST the supplemental funding for the war in Iraq!!

The bill would have provided $166 billion in war funding, the largest single provision since the war started in 2003. In a move that no one expected, dozens of Republicans voted "present," which is the same as abstaining on the vote. This meant that the 149 NO votes were enough to defeat the bill. (141 votes were cast in favor.)

This is a tremendous victory for the antiwar movement. The hard work of people all around the country secured those 149 clear NO votes."

Similarly, Code Pink declared:

"You have called, emailed, faxed, marched, organized office visits, teach-ins, sit-ins and die-ins, and been arrested.

Thanks to all of your efforts, Congress has defeated a bill to fund the war in Iraq for the first time in 5 years. The Republicans and cautious Democrats in Congress have been caught by surprise; they underestimated our influence on Congress to end the War in Iraq while supporting the Troops. Now the Senate will take up the funding bill."

However, the reality of what happened yesterday in the House of Representatives is far less clear than what these two groups would lead us to believe. The Republicans voted "present"--having the same effect as voting "no"--on the measure as a means of protest against what they saw as unnecessary spending inserted into the bill by Democrats, their votes were not a repudiation of the war. Rather, the vote showed that Democrats still lack the ability and the will to stop funding the war as a means bringing the occupation of Iraq to an end.

A better indication of where the Democrats are at politically on the Iraq War was the component of the vote--a separate amendment--that covered "withdrawal." The amendment, which will likely die in the Senate, set a "non-binding goal" of withdrawal from Iraq by December of 2009. It effectively set no date for the end of the occupation and in the unlikely event that it passes, would do little to push for an end to the war.