Bush doesn't hear subtlety so well

Democratic attempts to cut off war funding are best understood as an attempt to get the attention of a president who loathes negotiating.
Ronald Brownstein
LA Times

Through six tumultuous years in the White House, President Bush has demonstrated repeatedly that he responds to force, not argument. If he has the power to implement his ideas, he will, whether or not he has established a consensus for his course.

Think of Bush's initial decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein even after failing to win a second resolution from the United Nations explicitly authorizing the invasion. Or his move earlier this year to increase the American troop presence in Iraq despite opposition from the public, almost all congressional Democrats, a measurable minority of congressional Republicans, the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group and portions of the Pentagon. In each case, because Bush could move, he did move.

Bush does sometimes change direction, but almost always after opposing interests make it impossible for him to follow his first impulse. Despite initial resistance, Bush accepted the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill and the post-Enron corporate reforms because they had attracted decisive congressional majorities. He dropped the Supreme Court nomination of his White House counsel, Harriet E. Miers, when rebellious conservatives mobilized against her.

That backdrop is critical for understanding the escalating confrontation between Bush and the Democratic congressional majority over Iraq. An array of critics -- including this newspaper's editorial page -- have questioned whether the Democratic proposals to set a timeline for the withdrawal of American troops or establish performance benchmarks for the Iraqi government offer a realistic blueprint for ending American participation in the war.

(The rest is here.)