Bush disinterested in compromise - should Congress cave in?

The editors at the Chicago Tribune scold the Democrats for including deadlines in their latest legislation:

President Bush appears disinterested in compromise, arguing that "members of Congress need to stop making political statements," and pass a war funding bill he can sign.

The president is disinterested in compromise. The Democrats are disinterested in giving him a blank check. The Trib editors think that means that Congress must capitulate completely - which is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Lawmakers could have attempted to shut off funding for the war, but they didn't. So now they have a duty, just as important, to the tens of thousands of soldiers who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan: Pass a spending bill the president will sign.

The Democrats are shutting off funding. They're letting the President know that this is the end of perpetual emergency supplements. They're also giving him time to create a strategy around the final date. Why the Trib thinks it would be better for American soldiers if we cut off funding instantly is beyond me.

The president vows to veto legislation that dictates any deadlines. And neither the House nor the Senate is likely to muster the votes for an override. That leaves what? A stalemate? A constitutional crisis? An opening for a compromise, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has suggested?

Actually, it leaves President Bush with no money to continue his surge. He will have effectively cut off funding himself - which is what you seem to have wanted in the paragraph above.