why Reid won't force the Republicans to actually filibuster if they want to block a vote on withdrawal from Iraq
Because part of filibustering is to attach amendments: second degree amendments, amendments to the amendment; third degree amendments, amendments to amendments to the amendment; and so on. As spackerman pointed out, the Republicans want to vote on weaker amendments, so Reid doesn't want to give them an opportunity. The game is not so much to pass a bill that, in any case, Bush will veto (a veto the House, at least, will sustain). The game is to make sure that the Republicans are seen as thoroughly committed to continuing the occupation against the wishes of their constituents. At some point, they'll break.
A. What I heard Reid saying at the press conference yesterday was that this would be brought up as part of Appropriations, as well as Authorization.
B. I'm not sure anyone miscounted the votes. They have to say they thought there was a chance of passage, or else it seems like a waste of time (to people who don't understand things).
C. It wasn't a waste of time. I could make a baseball analogy, but I haven't mastered the format called for by the House Rules for doing so.
"But I'm puzzled enough by Senate procedure not to be absolutely certain it would help."
It was suggested to me on ObWi that it also would be disadvantageous for the Democrats to surrender the floor all night, or for even longer, to the Republicans to make speeches attacking the Democrats on Iraq, while no Democrat got to reply for the length of the filibuster.
This seems like a good point, although I don't know that it should win. But I'm not likely to attempt to make a serious case that I'm in a better position to know what smarter Senate tactics are than Reid.
Whatever the answer, it's certainly frustrating, isn't it?