it's that he looks bad if things continue to deteriorate in Iraq and he does nothing other than "stay the course".

Anyone who asserts this is true is being extremely disingenuous. Bush has made changes: he (eventually) dumped Rumsfeld, he started listening to the generals, he provided more troops -- all the things Democrat war critics were asking for in 2006, save pulling out completely.

I agree that it looks like a cop-out bill, but on the other hand, what else makes sense at this point?

Not passing a cop-out bill? Giving time for the above-mentioned changes time to work? Heck, how about even meeting with the top general in the field to see what he has to say?

Would it really be responsible leadership to put the country right on track for a showdown like that?

Technically, yes. It would certainly be more responsible than asserting repeatedly through every channel except the Constitutionally-provided one that the Congress has that authority. The non-binding resolution is a means of continuing that same showdown perpetually, which is ultimately more harmful.

   I have to wonder if the real negotiation here is less with the White House, which has shown little desire to listen to Democrats, and more with the Republican minorities in the House and Senate. Bush will be gone in less than two years, but most of the legislators will still be around, especially in the Senate. The leadership (presidents and policy makers) of both parties has benefited from the gentleman's agreement between the branches that Congress won't exert their constitutional powers so long as the president doesn't do anything too rash. It may not be right, but it's "the way Washington works", near as I can tell. Personally, I'd like the issue resolved one way or the other, but politicians haven't exactly followed what I thought best for years :)
    Would the Dems have enough Republican votes to avoid cloture if they went for a full on confrontation at this point? No, and Republicans could- rightly- respond that there hadn't been enough negotiation between the branches yet, seeing as the election was only 5 months ago. This bill might be that negotiation, an attempt to kick the can down the road one more time (a bureaucratic solution at its finest) if the administration accepts this rather weak compromise bill.
   This way, six months or a year from now, if Harry Reid decides to push the issue (Pelosi has less to worry about), he can go to Senate Republicans and argue- convincingly or not, depending on where you sit*- that he tried to avoid a showdown, but that Bush wouldn't budge. Would it peel off 8 Republican Senators?  Maybe not, but it would be a better institutional move than going for a showdown now-- and Reid strikes me as very much a creature of the institution of the Senate.

   *If you've already decided that Democrats are the enemy, for instance, this argument won't go far. The Senate, at least, works very hard at keeping a veneer of collegiality, so Reid might get at least a few listeners.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

All Congress controls is funding - Bush could refuse to withdraw the troops and dare Congress to cut their funding off

Well, binding is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.  "The bill sets a nonbinding goal of completing the troop pullout by April 1, 2008" doesn't sound particularly binding to me - it seems like Bush could withdraw some troops starting in October, but still leave a lot of troops in Iraq and stay within the letter of the bill.  I agree that even as written it could provoke a constitutional crisis, but the chances are much lower than in the case of a bill that had a 100% firm tripline style end date (i.e. "if troops are still in Iraq as of January 1st, 2008, all funding will be immediately suspended, or something like that).

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

I'm referring to HR 1591 (just to make sure we're talking about the same bill), which says, in part,

(c) If in the transmissions to Congress required by subsection (a) the President determines that any of the conditions specified in such subsection have not been met, or if the President is unable to make the certification specified in subsection (b) by the required date, the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq and complete such redeployment within 180 days

The war itself is extra constitutional in that it's not technically even a war. If the Congress doesn't declare War but goes on a nationa building exercise what control can Congress exert over that? Seems to me like a Constitutional question that's never been seriously contemplated during the life of our Constitutional. Would this Court find it Constitutional? I doubt it. Will it get to that point? I also doubt it.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's