If Bush wants to play 'Chicken' with Congress over the troops in the war zone, Congress should accomodate him, because at the end it will be Bush who will not be funding the troops, refusing a generous offer by Congress.

Let's look at a few things:

Bush promised that he will veto any spending bill with conditions about the execution of the war attached to it. His sound byte is that 'politicians in Washington' should not tell the military on the ground - pointing at General David Petraeus to his right - how to run a war.

Generals John Abizaid and George Casey were in charge of the war until Bush decided to replace them with Admiral William Fallon and Lt. General David Petraeus respectively early this year. The reason for the change appears to have been that the two Generals did not agree with Bush's zeal of continuing a failed pursuit in Iraq.

This in effect was [ex] 1st Lieutenant Bush, an alleged AWOL National Guard officer with no war or battle experience anywhere in the world, telling Generals (Abizaid and Casey) that they were not performing. The only experience Bush seems to have brough to the table was drunk driving, drug consuming and running a baseball team - badly.

Now Congress, made up of many distinguished, retired, high-ranking military people with battle experience is telling Bush that he is following a failed policy.

What are we to make of this?

Bush has more knowlege running a war than many in the House and the Senate? We give more credibility to Bush? It will be the self-titled 'War President', an inept politician, who is running the folly that is Iraq.

General Petraeus, believed by some to be overrated is so far off what more than a dozen of Generals (Batiste, Zinni, Newbold, Eaton, Riggs, Shinseki are some) have stated, that one must wonder if General Petraeus' willingness to pursue a lost cause was in order to earn his fourth star [on 27 January 2007 he was promoted by above ist Lieutenant]. Petraeus himself had no war experience prior to 2003 in Iraq.

In his appearance on PBS (Jim Lehrer on 4 April 2007) General Petraeus did not seem very anxious to trumpet Bush's war, acting more like an obedient subservient [to the fluky Lieutenent]. He did state, that contrary to Bush's allegations, the troops don't appear to be affected by the goings-on in Washington. He avoided answering whether talk in Wahington was undermining the troops, saying only that it may or may not be debatable. When asked specifically if his effort is being hurt by Washington, he also declined to comment by saying that he wants 'to go around that 'minefield' rather than stumble into it'. What you get is a story much different from what you hear from Bush's mouth.

More comments an Petraeus [here]

Btw: It's 'an' artificial timetable, not 'a' artificial timetable