What I don't understand about Sirota's theory of the Rule vote

[CTLawGuy]

here it is to refresh your memory or inform you for the first time: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3280358

According to him, the Dems are going to somehow pass a substantive bill (the blank check) in a rule (this can only happen in the House as the Senate rules do not provide for passing a rule to go with each bill).

This doesn't make sense because a rule just determines how a substantive bill is debated (what amendments can be heard etc), it doesn't actually become a law. Also, they couldn't even do that in the Senate, so senators could not even take "advantage" of whatever benefit was supposed to come from this tactic.

Then, once the blank check is "secretly" passed, then Republicans are somehow going to pass funding in a bunch of amendments while the Dems vote against it, but REALLY, they voted FOR IT in the rule. This doesn't make sense.

If we are supposed to be fooled into thinking they oppose the funding, when they allegedly do not,

how are the Dems supposed to look, to everyone else, like they "support the troops?"

Wouldn't the point of supporting funding be to appear as if you support the troops? Don't the Dems look like they "oppose the troops" with this tactic?

My question is "Why would they do this???? Cui bono?"

I know cui bono from this "theory".. John Edwards