There is a creative way for the Democrats to handle the Iraq War funding issue. Make the money contingent on Bush stepping down, enlisting in the U.S. Army, and serving in Iraq. Bush puts his neck where his mouth is, or else no more funding for the war. Think about it.

Vetoing the bill would not help Bush. If he does not sign a war-funding bill of some kind, then the war will automatically end when the money runs out.

If Bush is the superpatriot he wants us to believe, and if he really thinks that the Iraq War is absolutely essential for our national security, then he would rise to the challenge without hesitation. What about the other major player in his administration?

Dick Cheney has always been on the same page with the Grand Poobah, and has been very active in advancing the Bush agenda. And Bush has full confidence in Cheney's abilities. If Bush shipped out to Iraq, he would have peace of mind, knowing that all of his policies would remain in place at least until the next election.

The Democrats can tell Bush: Put up or shut up! And most of the war-weary American public would cheer them on!

What about the Republican Congress critters? They get the war funding that they want. And they can say goodbye to the village idiot that has been such an embarrassment to them.

Of course, Bush will make the argument that he'd be more effective staying in the White House, but nobody would take that seriously. Second-banana Cheney has Bush values and a larger brain than The Chimp. Until the next election, Bushism could be at least as successful with Bush out of the country.

One could make the argument that Bush knows too much to be separated from his Secret Service detail. But given Bush's alcohol-pickled brain, and his notorious lack of attention to detail, I don't think that that would fly. The proposed bill should pull the plug on W's Secret Service detail. Private Georgie could be a real soldier in a real war zone. However Secret Service protection would remain in place for all three of the former real presidents.

The Democrats' oh-so-pedestrian approach, attaching timetables to the war funding, could be a two-edged sword. The Bushies' response could be to cut back on spending for body armor--ostensibly to save money--and then blame the Dems for not caring enough about the safety of U.S. combat troops in Iraq. On the other hand, my proposal would put the ENTIRE onus on Bush. Zero funding for the war unless he personally steps up to the plate. What is the most likely outcome?

Republican leaders would pressure their albatross to be a man for a change, and do his bit in the Army. Bush's response would be to change his tune, and express a willingness to accept a compromise that did not put his own butt on the line. Then we would see a face-saving, Nixonesque process of Vietnamization in Iraq. Bush may even ask other nations in the region to play larger roles in stabilizing that country.

One last detail. Since he is a serious physical fitness buff, Private Bush should have no problem running 3 miles (5 km) every morning with the rest of the troops--even at his age.

The obvious question: Does Nancy Pelosi have the cojones to get behind my modest proposal? And can she keep a straight face while doing so?