Bush Won't Veto Iraq Spending Bill w/poll

We all rightfully applauded Nancy Pelosi's excellent leadership as she managed to get the Iraq supplemental spending bill passed including a binding timeline for the withdrawal of American troops.  Bush's rush to condemn this as "political theater" demonstrates how nervous the White House is about this.  Although they have issued what seem to be iron-clad veto threats, I think the reason they are so afraid is that if the Senate manages to pass similar legislation (and I think it is possible, the GOP can't fillibuster this), Bush will be forced to sign this bill.  Here is why:

As noted in EJ Dionne's column the passage of the legislation in the house, while facing an uncertain future, signals that the momentum has shifted against Bush.  Also, Bush's my-way-or-the-highway refusal to accept any limitations on his warmaking powers is putting congressional Republicans in a tough spot:

Oddly, the president's harsh rhetoric against the House version of the supplemental appropriations bill to finance the Iraq war may have been decisive in sealing Pelosi's victory. "The vehemence with which the president opposed it made it clear to a lot of people that this was a change in direction and that it was significant," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

[. . .]

Now, Van Hollen argues, Bush's "take-it-or-leave-it" approach to the bill is also "hurting the political standing of his Republican colleagues" in Congress by forcing them to back an open-ended commitment in Iraq at a time when their constituents are demanding a different approach.

As we alll know, 59% of Americans back the troop withdrawal deadline.

Bush has also set a drop dead date of April 15th, after which "our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions."

How quickly the tables turn.  If the Senate passes a similar bill next week, with the easter recess coming up, a Bush veto will almost certainly mean that the April 15th deadline will not be met.  Thus you will have The President refusing to accept funding for his war because he refuses to accept conditions supported by a vast majority of Americans.

I suspect what Bush would do is sign the bill with some type of signing statement saying that the deadline is an unconstitutional infringement of his C in C powers and therfore he is not bound by it.  He'll figure once they've appropriated the money there's nothing else they can do and by the end of 2008 it'll be someone else's problem anyway.

So the Dems should go ahead, have the Senate bass a similar bill, call the president's bluff.  He'll blink.