http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/26/1811 1/4501

Maybe they've counted the votes and determined that the supplemental will lose straight up without a veto?
If Leiberman votes against and Tim Johnson is indisposed, which Republicans are going to vote for the bill? Hegel? Maine's senators?
Probably McConnell's a good whip and he's got his votes counted.

Say Bush gets nothing. The occupation is suddenly entirely unfunded.

But he doesn't care: he keeps the troops in Iraq. (We can stop the funding, but we can't issue the actual orders to bring the troops home, yes?)

Two days after the defunding, we start reading stories about troops running out of ammunition. About the lack of MREs. Our troops are starving and outgunned in Iraq, because THE WAR IS NOT BEING FUNDED!

Two days after that, the stories become horrific. The cover of Time shows troops dying for lack of funding.

Furious fingerpointing, as Ds remind the country that Bush vetoed the funding, and loyal Bushies demand: "Fund our troops now! Fund our troops now ... or you're responsible for every death."

One side will cave. The side that cares more for the actual troops than political victory will cave. The side that refuses to sacrifice soldiers will quickly issue an emergency funding bill of some sort, yes? This is like the story of King Solomon and the baby: the people who care most are willing to accept defeat because they don't want the baby cut in half.

Am I wrong in how this would play out? Does anyone believe that Bush is above playing chicken with American lives for political gain and his grandiose and deluded self-image?  

What's to stop this from happening?

I believe that Bush did not threaten to veto the minimum wage bill, only that he "preferred" that it pass with some sort of tax cut package for small business.  The Republicans in the Senate may have filibustered because they weren't confident in Bush vetoing the bill.

So what happens after Bush vetoes?

McConnell thinks the Democrats don't have a majority to pass the bill in the Senate; otherwise, he would try to filibuster.  If McConnell is right, this would be a huge defeat for the Democrats.

They have sold this war on so many lies, It is time we put them under oath about their actions and hold them accountable. It is the only patriotic thing to do

Watch them in The Masters of War here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1TugPlEo ho

There is an old saying in the law: "If you can't argue the facts, argue the law."

The GOP does not want to talk about the facts on the ground in Iraq.  Much better from their perspective to argue over process (ie what role should Congress have in the Iraq debate).

I don't think the liberal blogspere gets this distinction.

how do you count the D votes?

webb has said he is against a withdrawal timeline while pryor and nelson (ne) voted against the most recent iraq resolution.

any idea how they are planning to vote?

Maybe the reason the Republicans will not stop the passage of this bill is because Bush will give them political cover.  Bush will the sign the bill into law with a signing statement that Congress has no authority to tell him what to do.  Then he ignores the part of the law that he doesn't like. What's the difference to him?  Bush does what he wants, when he wants.  What does the law mean to him?

there wont be any funding ofr Iraq come mid-April. he needs congress to give him a spending bill for his war. period.  by refusing a funding bill with a timetable for withdrawal he could potentially force an immediate withdrawal due to no funds available for the war (think the 1994 Govt shutdown: Iraqi-style.  Its now a game of hot potato with regard to who is holding up funds when the deadline is immediately imminent.