Dialing for Pentabucks

Perhaps I'm not paying enough attention but the Congress' votes to restrict Iraq funding have implications I haven't seen mentioned, let alone drawn out. Let's say the Tyrant does as he says and vetoes legislation containing restrictions. Then what? The administration has but few options, none good: (1) a number of different funding sources (as I understand it) wind up in the same Pentagon pot, thus other accounts in the regular defense budget could make up Iraq spending, probably for several months; (2) the Tyrant could request non-defense funds be used for Iraq, but that again requires congressional approval, or he could try to secretly transfer funds dedicated to other purposes, which is in fact precisely what happened in the spring/summer of 2002 when the administration shifted $200 million for Afghanistan to fund the pre-invasion Iraq buildup, except that then Congress was compliant, whereas now it is unlikely to be; (3) the Tyrant could seek arcane legislative loopholes — like the 1862 Feed and Forage Act, broadly used in the first Gulf War and several times since — but that would be ridiculous; (4) he uses the veto or signs the legislation while issuing a signing statement that he'll ignore its provisions, in either case spending money on Iraq anyway, breaks the law and sets up a huge constitutional crisis; or (5) he asks for a "do-over".