I've been thinking about the Move-on-sponsored "get out of Iraq" war funding bill, and how President Bush should react to it.

Before going anywhere, let me say that President Bush is a much better politician than I am, and has access to much better advice than I can give. So, while I don't know what he will do, I know it will be better than what I can recommend.

In negotiations, one big source of power is the ability to walk away. President Bush doesn't have much of an ability to walk away. "Everybody knows" that the military has squirelled away money just in case Congress cuts funding. But I'm not sure how much truth there is to that idea.

The President could try moving funds from, say, what the government "donates" to PBS to the military. But (1) there isn't enough money being donated to PBS to fund the war; for that to work, the President would have to take money out of Social Security or other "big" accounts, and (2) although every President does move money around like that, it's not Constitutional; every time that has been challenged it's been declared outside the President's power.

So, what to do? The best solution I can think of (aside from letting the bill become law without signing it) would be to play tough with Democrats representing conservative districts; especially districts with big military bases. Simply put, the President could visit specific districts, give speeches about Al Qaeda's (and Al Sadr's) lack of true military hope unless we unilaterally surrender, and then point to the bill as the Democrats tripping over themselves to be first to surrender. Since the media wants to draw parallels to Viet Nam, embrace those ("In Viet Nam we heard that it was possible to leave with honor before the job was done. When we did leave, those who had believed in us were tortured and killed. The US Congress watched in silence. Other Viet Namese starved to death when it was shown that Communism, like radical Islam, is a dead-end path. For years, the US was at a disadvantage in diplomatic concerns. Iranian students were able to capture the entire US embassy staff because they believed Viet Nam showed the US to be a paper tiger. A lot of suffering would have been avoided if the US had finished the job.").

Add on a district-specific discussion of the pork ("Your Congressman didn't want to put American soldiers at risk until the bill brought home $X million for the Strategic Helium Reserve. At that point, he decided the soldiers could take care of themselves."), and I think you've got a winner. (UPDATE Or he could use Senator Lieberman's speech: "When we say that U.S. troops shouldn't be 'policing a civil war,' ... what does this actually mean? ... In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the slaughter of innocent civilians—men, women, and children singled out and killed on the basis of their religion alone. ... This makes no moral sense at all. It also makes no strategic or military sense either.").

Especially since the President has a proven ability to raise money. If PACs with names like "Victory in Iraq" started cropping up in these districts just after the president's visit, enough Democrats might break ranks to scuttle the Blame America First funding bill.

UPDATE II Well said.

My last comment on the Virginia Tech shotings will be to link to Massbackwards. Although, three other links, and a link to TJIC, should make my point about gun control.