On not getting the point

US News & World Report claimed on Tuesday that

the meeting last week between President Bush and congressional leaders to discuss Iraq went better than some media accounts described. ...

[C]ontrary to some news reports, there may have been more ground for compromise than the skeptics thought. Bush won't accept any legislation that tries to dictate tactics to military commanders, which means he will veto the evolving compromise bill that provides for Iraq war funding but also includes a timetable for withdrawal. ...

But what about legislation that sets nonbinding "objectives and goals" for deciding when U.S. troops should leave? The official declined to tip the president's hand but said Bush in the end will accept legislation to fund the Iraq war as long as it doesn't tie the hands of the commanders in the field. That concept, he says, could leave more of an opening for compromise than many people think.

WTF? Leave aside the utter inanity of claiming that a withdrawal date is "dictating tactics" - which is much like claiming that a parent telling their son or daughter to be home by 11pm is "dictating" what they do while they're out - just how the hey are "nonbinding 'objectives and goals,'" that is, ones that can be freely ignored by an administration which has proved beyond doubt that it's prepared to ignore binding restrictions, a "compromise?" How is putting no actual restrictions on Bush's bloodlust a "compromise" from putting no actual restrictions on Bush's bloodlust?

Now, just today the Senate joined the House in passing the Congressional bill on funding the occupation, the one Bush insists he's going to veto (and which he assuredly is because even if he was by some miracle to decide he should sign it, it would be too much of a political comedown for his pride to take). The test comes after that.

One possibility was raised by House Defense Appropriations Chairman John Murtha last week, who suggested that in the wake of of a veto, a bill to finance the war for just two months would be "very likely.”

House Defense appropriator Jim Moran (D-Va.) said a two-month bill is intended to keep troops funded without giving the president too much latitude.

“Six months is probably too long,” Moran said. “One month — it takes longer than that to pass the thing.” ...

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) a founding member of the House Out of Iraq Caucus, said she expects there will be even more pressure to withdraw troops in two months if events in Iraq continue on their current violent course.

“In two months it might be really clear how bad it is,” Woolsey said.

Which, of course, is part of the idea for a short-term funding bill as opposed to Bush's desire for one that would fund it for over a year: Make Bush keep coming back for money and make war supporters in both parties have to keep voting for it in the face of rising domestic opposition. (Gee, where did I hear that idea about a month ago?)

So it comes down to this: If after failing to overcome a veto (which is what will happen), Congress funds the war for two or three months, there are some people in that body who are serious at least about grinding the war to a halt if not slamming on the brakes immediately. If instead some disgraceful "compromise" about nonbinding "objectives" gets pushed, it means they will have folded like a cheap suit, collapsed like a house of cards, take your favorite simile.

And while we debate and pick and posture, of course, people keep dying. It's so easy, so desirable, to forget that all this is not an abstract exercise.