And Another Thing on Iraq...

I think that many people (including what appears to the be the Democratic leadership) are mistaken on the terms of this debate. To put it simply, Congress is in the sole position of providing money for the war. The House is moving forward with a bill to provide that money. If the Republicans derail it, or the President vetoes it, no money is given. A bill must be passed for the appropriation to be complete.

So the White House has all the pressure on them, not the other way around. Sure, they can try to pressure the Congress into giving that money, claiming that they're de-funding the troops in the field, but the only one who would be de-funding in that scenario is the President himself, by use of the veto pen. We would in effect have a Mexican standoff, with the White House wanting to re-submit the bill without any restrictions on them, and the Congress wanting the bill they passed signed into law. I have little doubt that the Congress, given their mushiness already, wouldn't withstand the invented firestorm of criticism from the right-wing noise machine and give in. But they certainly don't have to. They can stand their ground and accuse the President of hurting the war effort by refusing to take money provided for the troops. The Democrats are doing a terrible job of explaining this to people, and the media certainly aren't going to help.

I also think that it's good to have a standalone bill on Iran, which Pelosi is now vowing. Of course, the bill on Iraq is larded up with all kinds of pork and spending projects in an effort to push them through. Can we have bills that are singleminded of purpose, please?