On The Other Hand

I'm not sure I agree with this, but it's the only decent argument I've seen in support of a war funding bill:

The one thing that gives me pause: Maybe I am, as they used to say, Blinded by Bush Hatred, but for what it's worth: I do not put it past Bush to respond to any actual cutting off of funds by leaving the troops high and dry in some utterly avoidable way and blaming it on Congress. I don't even put it past him to respond in this way to some sort of waivable deadline such that if he doesn't do something or other (e.g., certify progress of some sort), funds will be cut off. Nothing in Bush's record suggests to me that he would be above, say, letting the troops run out of money, or bullets, or gasoline to make a political point. If I were in Congress, I would rather give Bush the money than risk that. It's succumbing to blackmail, but there are worse things to do.

That was a commentor on Anonymous Liberals site. The entire post is a good read and the best argument for supporting the war funding bill. And I wouldn't put it past Bush to do such a stunt either, using American soldiers lives for political gain (hasn't he been doing that for years already?). I just don't think we're at that point yet. Pentagon leaders would not let that happen and would scream bloody murder if that was policy. In the meantime, it has already been demonstrated that money is available through September. In either case, the post concludes with the same point that is clear. The Republicans in Congress hold the cards. I'm just sorry the Dems are playing their cards in such a way that give them the possibility for a PR victory in the end.