Kevin and I have been having a discussion in the comment thread to my earlier post about the Senate’s passage of an Iraq War funding bill that contains a timetable for withdrawal. The basic question is whether the Bush Administration or the Democ…

A few shifts of Democratic votes in either chamber could make a difference — and there were reports in the D.C. media this week that some conservative Democrats in the House were reluctant to toe the party line on anything stronger than what was passed.

That’s going to be the key, if conservative Dems stick with the leadership, than Pelosi and the anti-war Democrats have won. The Iraq War just simply won’t be funded and Bush will be blamed for it or he’ll be forced into accepting conditions.

Also, regardless, I think many if not most of the US forces are coming out of Iraq in 2008. Bush has quietly made a deal with the Saudis (notice their sudden opposition to the US presence in Iraq) to pull them out and the “success” of the surge (in reality, the bad guys are just lying low until US troops leave) will give him political cover to withdraw.

All of what you say is correct, and I may be mis-interpreting the politics of this, but I guess we shall see. The one thing I think is significant is how close the votes were in both the House and the Senate. A few shifts of Democratic votes in either chamber could make a difference — and there were reports in the D.C. media this week that some conservative Democrats in the House were reluctant to toe the party line on anything stronger than what was passed.

I do agree on one thing, though, the absence of Tony Snow will hurt the Bush Administration on more than just this issue.

Basically, it’s a higher stakes version of the game of chicken that Newt Gingrich played with Bill Clinton back in the 90s. The Congressional Republicans ended up getting burned that time and I think the Democrats are taking a similar risk.

Huge differences:

1) Clinton had the polling on his side, Bush does not.

2) The Democrats’ restrictions are popular with the American people, while Bush’s conduct of the war is not.

3) The media and blogs are on the Democrats’ side, where as Clinton had an allied media.

4) The Bush administration is not the Clinton administration in political skills and communicating with the public and going over the media’s head. Tony Snow’s absence exacerbates the situation.

5) Bush will have to contend with openly hostile media such as Keith Olbermann and the left-wing blogosphere and the major newspapers with millions of readers and viewers. Clinton only had to deal with Rush Limbaugh and he was easily marginalized.

What if the Democrats are trying to get Bush to cut off the funding of the war? Funding for the Iraq War ends on April 15 and this supplemental must pass before then. The Democrats intentionally send Bush a bill he cannot sign. Therefore, when money runs out on April 15, the Democrats, the left-wing blogosphere, and their allies in the media will blame Bush for defunding the war because he has been given a bill by the Democrats that would fund the war.

I can certainly see things playing out that way, but unless I’m reading the political tea leaves completely wrong, I think that the Democrats are on the wrong side of this one politically. The President and the Republicans will be the ones talking about funding troops.

Basically, it’s a higher stakes version of the game of chicken that Newt Gingrich played with Bill Clinton back in the 90s. The Congressional Republicans ended up getting burned that time and I think the Democrats are taking a similar risk.

There really is only one way for Congress to exercise authority over America’s policy in Iraq. They would have to exercise the power of the purse and vote to defund the war. By all indications, the Democrats on the Hill have neither the political courage nor the support among their own members for such a move. Additionally, polling seems to indicate that while the public wants American troops to come home, they would not support cutting off funding to those troops as long as they are there.

Play devil’s advocate here with me if you will. What if the Democrats are trying to get Bush to cut off the funding of the war? Funding for the Iraq War ends on April 15 and this supplemental must pass before then. The Democrats intentionally send Bush a bill he cannot sign. Therefore, when money runs out on April 15, the Democrats, the left-wing blogosphere, and their allies in the media will blame Bush for defunding the war because he has been given a bill by the Democrats that would fund the war. Therefore, the Democrats get to defund the war and they blame Bush and he takes whatever political hailstorm comes over the defunding of the war.