Interesting question

In his Washington Post column today George Will claims congressional Democrats lack the courage of their convictions. But he also poses a very interesting question.

Suppose Democrats write their restrictions on the use of forces into legislation that funds the war. And suppose the president signs the legislation but ignores the restrictions, calling them unconstitutional usurpations of his powers as commander in chief. What could Democrats do? Cross First Street NE and ask the Supreme Court to compel the president to acquiesce in congressional micromanagement of a war? The court probably would refuse to get involved on the grounds that this is a "political question."

Will says congressional Democrats plan to write restrictions into legislation because they haven't the courage of their professed conviction - that Iraq will become a haven of tranquility once American forces withdraw.  I disagree with Will.  I think the Democrats have great courage but no convictions.  In a situation such as the one Will suggests, Democrats would do everything in their power to cripple the presidency and they would get massive assistance from mainstream press outlets like the Washington Post.  The press would embark on a campaign of daily accusations that Bush is overstepping his constitutional authority.  The barrage would be intended to soften up the public to stand still for a bill of impeachment - a longstanding Democratic fantasy.