The separation of powers: Well, we've just been treated to the spectacle of Congress passing a war funding appropriation with a timetable for withdrawing the troops, the President vetoing the appropriation (as he said he would), and the House failing to override the veto. Everyone's blaming everyone else, as usual; politicians are trying to score points, as usual; commentators and protesters are broadcasting their views, as usual. Am I the only one who remembers something called the Constitution, or that quaint notion of the separation of powers?

Congress' mistake was in tacking on that timetable. According to the Constitution, the President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Along with that power comes the ultimate authority on deciding strategy and tactics -- including when to withdraw troops. Congress overreached, possibly spurred by the unexpected shift of both houses to Democratic control last November. (Yes, it was unexpected -- at least as far as the Senate was concerned; everyone expected the House to shift party control.) And when Congress overreaches, the President gets to use another one of his nifty Constitutional powers -- the veto -- which he did.

The President's mistake was in not trying to negotiate something better with Congress before the bill came to him for his signature. Yes, as commander-in-chief he gets to lead the armed forces. But the Constitution gives the power of the purse -- the ability to decide how much money is going to be spent for which projects -- to Congress. The shift in control of both houses should have been a clue that he could no longer play with the troops like tin toys in a sandbox and expect to have money for those troops given to him at his whim and pleasure, in the amounts he wanted. Congress was willing to give him money for the troops -- but correctly read the 2006 election as a mandate from the people to end a mismanaged and unpopular exercise in military might. (No, it's not a war -- only Congress can declare war, another one of their nifty Constitutional powers -- just like Korea and Vietnam were not wars.)

So what's the answer? Publicly, Congress needs to pass another appropriation bill (they've promised to do so by Memorial Day -- how fitting) to give the President just enough money to fund the troops until some specified time -- say, the end of 2007. (Let the GAO figure out what that amount is.) Privately, Congressional leaders need to tell the President that when that time runs out, so does the additional money. If he wants to keep playing in the sandbox, he'll have to shift the money from other areas.

Why will this not leak all over Washington? On the Congressional side, if they let the time limit news leak out, the President can publicly declare the Democrats in control as not being supportive of our forces. On the Presidential side, if they let the time limit news leak out -- well, they won't, because it makes them look like they caved to Congress.

Now, what are the chances this will actually happen? Snowball. Hell. You do the math.