Aside from the little kerfuffle at the Department of Justice right now, the most substantive issue in national politics at the moment is the supplemental spending bill for the war in Iraq.

I am amazed at the corner Bush painted himself into on this one. Under the U.S. Constitution, not a penny can be spent without authorization from Congress--and what's more, Congress can't authorize more than two years' of money for the army at a time (this is a holdover from the suspicion our founding fathers had of a standing army).

In an apparent attempt to mask the true cost of the war, the President didn't include Iraq funding in his regular budget request, which means he needs Congress to pass a separate law to fund the war effort.

When Republicans were the majority, this wasn't an issue. But now that the Democrats control the agenda, it creates a huge opening for all sorts of political mischief.

The bill which looks likely to pass right now has a provision attached setting a hard deadline for bringing the troops home. This is a provision which may be somewhat unwise, but plays very well to the overwhelming unpopularity of the war. Bush says he'll veto the bill if it comes with strings.

The problem is that Bush needs the money. Sooner or later, he must sign a spending bill to fund the war--otherwise, the military can't buy munitions, feed the troops in Iraq (or pay them), or do much of anything else in Iraq. Sure, there are games which can be played by shifting spending authority from other places, but the war is just too expensive to fund for long with accounting maneuvers.

So when Bush vetoes this spending bill, he still needs Congress to pass another one.

And what assurance is there that the next spending bill won't come with other conditions, perhaps more onerous than the one he vetoed?

As long as the President insists on plowing ahead with the war no matter what, and vetoing any spending bill which comes with strings attached, he's just inviting the Democrats to see what they can pin on him.

Veto a timetable to withdraw from Iraq? That's in the bag.

How about getting the President to veto a law requiring all soldiers to have 12 months at home between deployments?

Or a law forbidding the deployment of units which don't have a minimum level of equipment and training?

These are all common sense ideas which most Americans support, but Bush is setting himself--and the Republican party--up as the guys eager to fight the war, but not take care of the soldiers. The 2008 Republican presidential candidate will likely wind up defending why his party opposed all these measures.

I have to applaud the Democrats, since as political gamesmanship this is brilliant. As for the Republicans, this is utter insanity. They should never have allowed themselves to be maneuvered into this position.