Spring, When a Young Man's Mind Turns to...Politics?

So Dubya's all upset; it's kind of funny how this Washington Post article makes him sound like a petulant child: "He strode alone into the Rose Garden and complained that 'it has now been 57 days' since he asked Congress for more money for the Iraq war and still has not gotten it."

It's an interesting question; clearly, the legislative branches are well within their explicit, Constitutional powers over appropriations and funding. But there's a conflict in this instance with the President's position as Commander in Chief. You can't fight much of a war without money, so is Congress interfering with that perogative? Aren't generals always constrained by circumstances? If the administration doesn't get the money they want with their current situation, doesn't it behoove them to either work with Congress and convince them to give the money or scale back their plans so they're in line with the money they do get? Say, for example, they get half of the money they say they need for their current plans, and then they go ahead with those plans anyways, sending soldiers without enough armor (gee, where have I heard that before?), equipment and whatnot. Whose fault is it, then, if casualties which might have been prevented by full funding occur? Is it the fault of Congress for not providing the funds? Or the fault of the administration for sending soldiers out, knowing they lacked the proper protection? Who benefits from a political situation where both sides are like kids in a staring contest? Bush himself mentions, "'The Congress is exercising its legitimate authority as it sees fit right now,' Bush answered. 'I just disagree with their decisions.'" (quoted from this story) Isn't that a democracy? Man, it's too bad those Founding Fathers didn't think that maybe the legislative and executive branches might have disagreements from time to time. No other president's ever had to deal with a combative Congress, right?

There was a story a little while ago about a family who had lost relatives in both Iraq and Vietnam (as I'm sure many military-oriented families have), where a person was quoted as saying their relative had died in vain in Vietnam, and they didn't want that to happen again in Iraq. What is interesting is the notion that the death in Vietnam was for nothing. Why is it perceived that way? Is it because America pulled out of a situation which (to my admittedly uninformed view) was untenable, one which they arguably should not have been in in the first place? Or is it because America didn't "win"? Or did they? How's Vietnam doing these days, anyways? Those damn Commies won, right?

Right?