The House-Senate conference committee has prepared a $124 billion war funding bill that President Bush has promised to veto. His bone is with the bill's timetables for withdrawal from Iraq. If the bill doesn’t pass, whose burden is it? The pundits on the left and right debate that question.

The Washington Times argues that “by tying funding for the war to a surrender bill that the president will veto, the Democrats are showing studied contempt for our troops in the field.”

Joseph Morrison Skelly says we can’t leave Iraq until a stable government is achieved. Our national interests and honor demand it, he argues.

Bob Geiger expects Bush to veto the supplemental funding bill “unless he is struck by lightning or gets a conscience transplant.” The burden of troops without funding is on Bush.

The New York Times calls on Bush to stop pretending victory is still possible in Iraq. “The sooner Mr. Bush and his allies drop the pretense that military victory is still possible in Iraq and their charges of 'defeatism' against those who know better, the closer the nation will be to rescuing what can still be rescued from the debacle.”

Arianna Huffington reflects on General Petraeus’ blueprint for success in Iraq. He was on Capitol Hill this week and the Republicans presented Petraeus as a kind of Iraq War messiah. Huffington doubts the authenticity of their faith. If Petraeus is so good, why doesn’t the administration actually do what he says, she asks.