Once again, President Bush has won the political battle with Democrats over Iraq. Now if only he could win the actual war.

The funding bill Congress passed was a clear victory for Bush. He got the money he asked for and none of the timetables for troop withdrawal that led him to veto an earlier version. Its benchmarks for the Iraqi government are toothless because Bush can waive them. No wonder the president didn't flinch when a bird relieved itself on his arm as he discussed the legislation with reporters outside the White House. As a Bush aide put it, "It's our lucky day."

Agreed, but I'm not sure the Bushies will be so chirpy in the long run. Although most Democrats caved on the timetables for fear they would be accused of abandoning the troops, they have a big majority of the public behind them in opposing the war. And unless Bush can show real progress — progress the public sees and believes — he'll be forced to find an exit strategy.

In fact, he's already looking for one. He had scoffed at talking to Syria and Iran, but he's doing exactly that now. That was one of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, whose report Bush shelved last December. Yet on Thursday he went out of his way to say nice things about the report, especially its idea of having U.S. troops do more training of Iraqis and less fighting. He called that "a kind of long-term basis" for stabilizing Iraq. "I believe this is an area where...we can find common ground with Democrats and Republicans," he said.

Maybe the dirty bird whispered in his ear, too, because shifting our troops' mission also was one of the study group's ideas and it was in the first funding bill that Bush vetoed. So Democrats are already there — and now it sounds like Bush wants to join them.

He doesn't have much choice. Gen. David Petraeus has said he would publicly review the results of the troop surge in September, and, given the continued chaos, a negative assessment seems likely. When a reporter asked whether the fixed date gives "the enemy exactly what you've said you don't want them to have, which is a date to focus on, and doesn't it guarantee a bloody August?" the president ducked the first part but acknowledged the second. "Yes, it could be a bloody — it could be a very difficult August," he said.

All that suggests big changes are coming this fall, one where the president pulls back and effectively concedes there will be no clear victory. So Dems would get their way on the war, but, politically, they could still lose.

That's because they're approaching the war the way kids play soccer — everybody just chases the ball without a plan. Congressional leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are always a frazzled step behind the action. The party's leading presidential candidates, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are so obviously calculating their moves to keep the antiwar left happy that they look weak.

Their "no" votes on funding are a perfect example. The total was 80-14, meaning Clinton and Obama were in a tiny minority of their own party. Clinton has made it an article of faith that she and Obama vote alike on Iraq, which probably explains why she let him vote before her. Had Obama voted for the bill, Clinton probably would have, too.

That kind of game-playing with troop funding could get a candidate killed by voters.

Michael Goodwin is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the New York Daily News.