So President George W. Bush has exercised the second veto of his presidency, this time to reject an Iraq war funding measure because it contained a deadline to begin the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the midst of an Iraqi civil war.

The first veto came in July, when Bush vetoed a bill that would have lifted federal funding restrictions on research into embryonic stem cells.

The ironies are rich: Both vetoes were exercised on behalf of faith-based policies (theological objections to abortion; continued hope that an American presence in Iraq will produce something more than a higher U.S. body count). And while one ostensibly was done to protect innocent life, the other — essentially endorsing war without end — will most certainly end up with more innocents dead.

Members of Congress and even some presidential contenders (U.S. Sen. Barack Obama) have said that if Bush vetoed this bill, they’d send him a clean funding bill without timetables in order to keep money flowing to the troops. They shouldn’t do that. Instead, Congress should try to override Bush’s veto, or perhaps even pass a new resolution to revoke the war-authorizing legislation it sent Bush in the first place.

This is no longer a partisan issue, Republicans against Democrats. It’s now an issue between those who want to base policy on reality, and those who put their faith in theories that have been repeatedly disproved. There are members of Congress in both camps.

If the politicians who voted to give Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq could go back and cast their votes again, knowing what they know today, almost all would vote against give Bush warmaking powers. Today, they know it’s the politically savvy thing to do, and that history would have proven them right. Well, it’s the same thing with ending the war; history will eventually prove them right.

Sure, there will be chaos and bloodshed in Iraq. Then again, there’s chaos and bloodshed in Iraq right now. The difference will be, it won’t be American blood that is shed. You may say that we broke it, and thus we have an obligation to fix it. But we can’t. There’s nothing America can do, short of leaving and letting the current Iraqi government stand or fall on its own, to make the situation appreciably better. The only real way to support the troops is to get them the hell out of harm’s way.

Bush has said he’ll continue on his course even if the only support he gets are from his wife and his dog. It’s the same stubborn worldview he brings to the rest of his policymaking. His mind can’t be changed by reason, or evidence, or facts, or reality itself. Therefore, it must be changed by the force of Congress using its rightful authority to make policy. To do it, there must be two-thirds agreement in both houses. Congress owes it to the American people, the Iraqi people, and the rest of the world, to try.

Will reason prevail? We’ll soon see.

UPDATE: U.S. Sen. John Ensign rushed to put out a statement after the veto that deserves to be dissected here. Let’s take a look:

"The president is right to veto this legislation because it handcuffs our military commanders and sets a surrender date for our troops fighting in Iraq."

Now, this is patent faith-based nonsense. The United States cannot surrender in Iraq, because it already won the war in Iraq. The insurgency is not a war. And, as President Bush himself has often reminded us, terrorism itself will not be quelled with a surrender on the deck of a battleship.

Ensign and his fellows may argue that a departure from Iraq will embolden terrorists and give them a rhetorical victory. But this is making policy based on enemy propaganda. It also serves the rhetorical interests of terrorists for the United States to stay in Iraq for as long as possible, in that we are seen as an occupying, crusader power. If he were smart, Ensign would argue for pulling out of Iraq and renewing the hunt for Osama bin Laden and his co-horts, such that they would not have time to gloat about any perceived "victory" in Iraq. But that would only happen if he were smart.  

"It’s not just that this bill lets politicians micromanages the war, it also spends billions of dollars unrelated to our efforts in Iraq.  Democrats promised fiscal discipline but this blatantly disregards their campaign promises.  By adding this unrelated spending, Democrats are placing their own domestic priorities ahead of the needs of our troops on the front lines."

Yeah, those free-spending Democrats. How will we be able to give tax breaks to rich people and big oil companies if they’re spending all the money?

"Let’s put politics aside and pass a war spending bill that the president can sign because, if the Democrats continue playing politics, the welfare of our troops will be jeopardized. Now is not the time to try and earn political points. Let’s come together as Americans, support our troops and fight for victory in Iraq."

This is where Ensign demonstrates that he’s really not suited to the intellectual rigors of Washington, D.C., to borrow a Review-Journal editorial phrase. First, the war was begun for political reasons, so politics cannot be separated from it. Second, it was Bush and his key adviser, Karl Rove, who have turned support for the war into a political issue. Third, wasn’t it Bush and his ex-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who sent too few troops with too little equipment in the first place, and then further failed them with poor medical care when they returned? What the hell kind of support for the welfare of the troops is that? Fourth, Ensign’s very statement is designed to score political points.

Finally, fifth, since we’ve already achieved victory in Iraq, and the only remaining battles are of a civil or sectarian nature and cannot, technically, be "won" by us since we’re not participants but bystanders, Ensign’s last sentence makes the least sense of all.

We’re pretty sure it would be a good idea to get Ensign out of the Senate as soon as possible, but from what we’ve seen, he’s rarely there anyway because of the pressing demands of his intramural athletic schedule, so we suppose it doesn’t really matter in the long run.