The US Congress will be debating resolutions regarding the war on Iraq this week, but President Bush made his position clear Friday: "I'm the decision-maker!" and practically told the legislators they can stick their non-binding resolutions wherever they please.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates played the patriotic card on Capitol Hill warning congress members that failing to support the president's troop build-up would "certainly embolden the enemy and our adversaries," tantamount to treason.

That's powerful stuff for legislators worried about how they will be seen by the voters in 2008.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued a joint statement saying ""While the president continues to ignore the will of the country, Congress will not ignore this president's failed policy."

But will they have the backbone to put an end to the senseless killing?

The democrats may well be in the majority but it appears very unlikely that those truly wanting an end to the fiasco can muster the votes to pull the plug. Bush knows that and feels confident with his hardball politics.

That same logic worked for the president in 2004 when he was reelected. He stood firm on Iraq while his wishy-washy opponent, John Kerry, criticized the White House pretext for going to war, after the Senator himself had voted for the billions to fund it.

So how can legislators wanting a withdrawal of the troops, but too scared to vote for it, make the most of the situation? One way is to play politics with the president and try and get something in return.

There are several pending issues -from stem cell research to the nearly half-century blockade on Cuba- that have faced a presidential veto or threats to them that could be attached to a war funding bill. That's how US politics works. If you need a favor, you better be ready to give one in return.

Let's take the Cuba blockade as an example. In the last few legislatures a growing number of representatives, at times a majority, have asked that all or part of the archaic policy towards the island nation come to an end, regardless of whether the US government approves of its political and social system.

The travel ban on US citizens; a prohibition on educational, scientific, sports and cultural exchange; and preventing US companies from supplying Cuba with a potential several billion dollars a year in trade and services makes no sense.

The blockade only exists today because of a minority of wealthy and politically powerful rightwing groups based in Miami. These, have effectively hijacked US foreign policy for decades and even make a thriving business out of it at the taxpayers expense.

If the Democratic Party majority doesn't have the courage to pull the plug on the Iraq War, tagging on an amendment to end all or part of the blockade on Cuba would be a perfect trade off to take advantage of the administration's weaker position.

Later, when the new Iraq offensives fail, like the past ones, the Bush government, or whatever follows it, will have to pull out anyway or risk panic in the Baghdad Green Zone as occurred in Saigon during the last week of April 1975.
 

*Circles Robinson is a US journalist living in Havana. His articles and commentaries can be read at www.circlesonline.blogspot.com