IMPEACH BUSH

President Bush, having dispatched top officials to Capitol Hill to shore up support on Iraq, saw defections occurring instead and ended up in a high-stakes power showdown on Thursday. After lecturing Congress on its role (consultation, by his lights), he emphasized his power as chief decider. But it's way past time for all that. Members of Congress must counter his stance with a strong new, and newly bipartisan, effort to responsibly end this war.

As the president stays in wishing/hoping/believing mode, it has become clearer by the day that leaders in Congress -- senior members from both parties -- will have to use their collective power to affect what the president perceives as the reality of Iraq and the reality of Americans' wishes.

There is no clear line of logic in the president's thinking; he wants two months longer, though few believe eight weeks are going to make a big difference. Indeed, even the president spoke of hoping only "to see further improvement in the positive areas, the beginning of improvement in the negative areas." That won't be enough to justify an ongoing strategy of "just a little more time."

The big change that is required, after all, isn't a military victory by the United States. It's progress on several crucial political requirements: a greater sharing of power by Shiites and Kurds with Sunnis, an agreement on how to manage oil revenues, and so on. Yet, as Hachim al-Hassani, former speaker of Parliament, told the Washington Post, "We have not made enough political progress, whether by presenting the oil law or amending the constitution or the de-Baathification law." And those in power now "don't want to give up those gains; they don't want to share the power."

That is a key observation. Helping -- i.e., pressing -- the Iraqis to accomplish those goals requires a huge, tough international diplomatic effort -- one that shows no signs of taking place, despite Bush's stated commitment to it.

Instead, Bush continues to stress "encouraging signs" in his interim progress report and his belief -- not assessment, but belief -- that "we can succeed in Iraq."

Perhaps strangest -- if he truly believes what he said -- were the president's repetitive attempts Thursday to portray the struggle in Iraq as principally a fight against Al-Qaida. This is getting old, and it suggests acute persuasion desperation. We all know that Al-Qaida in Mesopotamia is one of the extremist elements in Iraq, that it is responsible for a high percentage of suicide attacks there. But it is neither the principal problem in Iraq nor connected to the 9/11 attacks in 2001, as he continues to imply. In fact, it didn't exist then, and has enlisted support largely because of the U.S. occupation.

Since Bush is having his logic all ways and clearly is in denial about the state of affairs in Iraq, senior members of Congress -- despite Bush's implication that they are overstepping their authority -- must get beyond their party interests and/or 2008 campaign maneuvering and craft a firm, joint message to Bush. Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman, who has shown at least a limited willingness to differ with the president on Iraq policy, is in the right position to be a player in such an effort. But it can't be Sen. Levin this and Sen. Warner that. Just as it took truly bipartisan cohesion to get out of Vietnam, it will take more than a determined majority and a few straggling Republicans to turn Bush around.