Latest: Maybe Dems aren't falling into the "compromise" trap

On the subject of the Democratic post-veto strategy for re-establishing some control by Congress (and the American public) over Bush's failed Iraq occupation, this morning's news gives cause for cautious optimism:

Congressional Democrats have signaled they're not ready to back down in their confrontation with President Bush on Iraq, spurring Republicans to accuse them of causing political gridlock.

Bush and Congress have been discussing a possible compromise on a war spending bill needed to finance combat operations through September. [Note: They've been "discussing compromise?" On what planet? Congress might have been discussing it, but Bush certainly hasn't. -bn] The president demands the money without strings attached and so far has found strong Republican support. But Democrats say Bush eventually will have to accept some conditions on the U.S. commitment in Iraq because of the war's unpopularity among voters.

For the first time, Bush dispatched his top aides to Capitol Hill this week to sit down with Democratic leaders to discuss the war.

"It has taken almost four and a half years, but it appears the president finally is willing to consider what most Americans and members of Congress have long known: we must change course in Iraq and move toward a strategy that will make our country more secure," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in a statement released Friday.

And what kind of funding measures might come out of this new, and possibly quite short-lived era of grudging civility from the White House? Georga10 has some thoughts.