Why a vote on defunding the war is a bad idea for the Democrats

I understand the desire to hold a vote cutting off funding for "the surge" or the war, but I think that is a horrible idea. Because President Bush would gleefully veto any bill containing a funding cutoff, any such legislation would, in the end, be no more effective than the non-binding resolutions currently under debate in the House and Senate.

In fact, because of the way defunding legislation would likely split off Democratic votes, I would argue that defunding legislation would be far less effective than the current non-binding measures.

If whatever is passed is to be vetoed and does not have any real impact anyway, a non-binding resolution that gains broad cross party support is actually the more effective strategy.

I understand that that's not what we want to see happen in the world, but if the choice is a non-binding resolution with political impact or an ineffective defunding measure that splits support, I think the current path is the right one.

(Why do you think the pro-Bush forces keep trying to move defunding into the center of the debate?)