RSS 2.0 FeedHouse Sustains Bush’s Iraq Veto; What’s The Plan Now ?
by Doug MataconisThe House of Representatives today failed to override President Bush’s veto of the Iraq War Spending Bill:
The House of Representatives today sustained President Bush’s veto of an emergency war spending bill, as the White House and lawmakers turned their attention to negotiating new legislation to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The 222-203 vote to override Bush’s veto fell far short of the two-thirds needed, effectively killing the $124 billion supplemental appropriations bill.
After the vote, congressional leaders from both parties met with Bush at the White House to start the process of negotiating a new bill. Afterward, the lawmakers said the meeting had been positive.
Before conferring with them, Bush told reporters: “Yesterday was a day that highlighted differences. Today’s a day where we can work together to find common ground.” He said he was naming White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley and Office of Management and Budget Director Rob Portman to work with members of both parties to reach agreement on a new funding bill.
Given that the original bill had a bare partisan majority when it passed, this outcome was hardly surprising. Now that the Democrats have accomplished their political goal, though, everyone has to figure out what to do next.
As I’ve said before, I don’t think the Democrats are going to let themselves be in a position where no funding bill at all is passed. Cutting off funds for the war has too much potential to turn into a political victory for the Bush Administration and risks alienating voters who want the Iraq war to end, but don’t want the troops left hanging in the lurch. At the same time, though, I think that a time is coming soon when Republicans, even the Bush Administration, will finally see the handwriting on the wall and quietly accept the idea that disengagement from Iraq is the right thing to do.
Here’s what I think might happen. The Bush Administration will never accept deadlines for withdrawal, so what I expect to see are benchmarks set for the Iraqi Government to meet in order for US military and economic aid to continue. In conjunction with this, I would expect to see the Bush Administration take a harder line with the Malki Government in Baghdad. If, and probably when, those benchmarks are not met, the United States will begin the gradual process of letting the Iraqi people commit national suicide.
A plan like this would satisfy Democratic (and Republican) opponents of the war, and it would provide the Bush Administration the cover it needs to get out of this quagmire. Instead of saying that America abandoned Iraq, the official line will be that Iraq failed to live up to it’s promises.
It sounds cynical, but this is politics.
[...] got my own theory, and I’ve written about it at The Liberty Papers. [...]
Pingback by Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » The Next Step On Iraq — May 2, 2007 @ 6:12 pmThe Democrats and the American people need to stop buying into the propaganda that defunding the war is the same as leaving the troops in the lurch. If Congress were to simply cut off all funds immediately, the troops would still have enough money to get out. It wouldn’t necessarily be pretty or orderly, but the funds would still be there to sustain them before all the money ran dry.
These appropriations aren’t for immediate need, they’re for future use. To truly win this and force Bush out of his illegal war, the Democrats need to remind people the truth: cutting funding does not abandon the troops, it forces the Pentagon to begin withdrawal sooner than Bush would like.
Comment by Michael — May 2, 2007 @ 6:44 pmMany war opponents will never go along with this. Also, war supporters, won’t go along with benchmarks.
My guess is, the Democrats, egged on by the nutroots and with some polls supporting their position of not enacting an Iraq bill without a withdrawal date; will not send a bill Bush wants. There will be a stalemate until the military is so broke it cannot fight any longer or Bush turns public opinion his way.
Comment by Kevin — May 2, 2007 @ 6:51 pmI’m happy to be a nutroot. The war is not going to end well, so we may as well bow out as gracefully as possible. No amount of intervention on our part is going to quell the insanity and violence over there, and we’ve already ignored requests from the Iraqi people and government to leave. It’s time to start the withdrawal, either through compromise or by simply denying additional funds.
Let the stalemate continue. Aside from bad press, the worst it will do is force the military to destroy sensitive equipment that it’s forced to abandon. No soldier will be left without food or ammunition because of it.
Comment by Michael — May 2, 2007 @ 8:16 pmKevin,
If you are right, then I’m thinking that this country will face a crisis unlike anything it’s ever seen.
Stalemate isn’t really an option. Leaving tomorrow isn’t an option either.
Anyone who thinks that withdrawal from Iraq will be easy is kidding themselves.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 2, 2007 @ 9:56 pmI apologize; I didn’t mean to imply that withdrawal from Iraq would be easy. The insurgents will dog our military every step of the way, just like the Afghan tribes did to the Soviets when they finally withdrew. I’m saying that forcing the issue of withdrawal is easy: keep up the stalemate if the President won’t sign a law enforcing a timetable for an end to our occupation. By denying the funds necessary for prolonging the war, the Democrats can force the Pentagon to use the money already allocated to them to begin the withdrawal. Our Glorious Leader can’t fund the war without the support of Congress unless he wants to add another impeachable offense to his growing list.
Stalemate IS an option, and it may be the only one given Republican support for the war. Don’t kid yourselves: this country is already in the grips of a crisis unlike anything it has seen in its history. We’ve never gone so far down the path of turning an elected Executive into a monarch, and I can only hope that we have the courage to turn back now.
Comment by Michael — May 2, 2007 @ 11:01 pmWhat they SHOULD have done is threaten to cut Bush’s pay by, I dunno, maybe 50% unless he got behind leaving Iraq.
“If you’re not going to lead, you won’t be PAID to be a leader.” It would have been a very effective rallying cry, because people secretly love punishment. It also might have actually moved Bush – he doesn’t give a fig what happens to “the troops,” but you can bet the piker watches HIS wallet.
Comment by Newt — May 3, 2007 @ 7:55 amMmm…I don’t know. I would consider cutting Dubya’s salary more of a threat if he didn’t have other sources of income. I will be sincerely surprised if he isn’t showered with lavish gifts after he no longer occupies the White House. His tax cuts have created a lot of grateful people among large corporations and wealthy families.
Comment by Michael — May 3, 2007 @ 8:29 am