On March 8th, Jonathan Allen of Congressional Quarterly reported:
Hawkish pro-Israel lawmakers are pushing to strike a provision slated for the war spending bill that would, with some exceptions, require the president to seek congressional approval before using military force in Iran. The influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee also is working to keep the language out, said an aide to a pro- Israel lawmaker…
But a Democratic leadership aide said there are no plans to remove the provision. “There’s heat,” the leadership aide acknowledged. “We’ve heard their concerns, but we think it’s likely to remain on the bill.”
Well…
Not only did the language get pulled, but, in Greg Sargent’s version, AIPAC’s fingerprints have been removed too.
…in another disappointment to House liberals, key language mandating that Bush get Congressional approval before going to war with Iran has been taken out. This was a concession to Blue Dog Dems who fear that if they vote for any measure tying the Commander in Chief’s hands in any way, it will make them vulnerable in their moderate districts, a House staffer says.
So, all the blame for pulling this provision is being laid at the feet of the Blue Dogs, most of whom would have to do a dragnet in their districts to find a Jewish-American. (The Associated Press did a little better).
Rep. Shelley Berkley D-Nev., said in an interview there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state.
“It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran,” she said of the now-abandoned provision.
“I didn’t think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you’re trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize it in a civilized way,” said Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York.
Despite that, I don’t dispute that many Blue Dogs may have been skittish about ‘tying the President’s hands’. It’s just that I suspect that skittishness had more to do with pulling funding for Iraq than it had to do specifically with Iran. As in…this part:
…though the bill mandates withdrawal by Fall 2008 at the latest, it’s going to be at least partly a disappointment to some House liberals. That’s because language that was in earlier drafts that would have clipped funding after the deadline — as opposed to merely declaring the war illegal — has been taken out.
House leaders will argue that the bill does do its job, because it declares the war illegal beyond a certain date. But liberal House sources say this removed language was critical in ending the war in practice, because it would enforce the war’s end with the power of the purse rather than requiring a trip to court to force an end to the war should Bush insist on keeping it going in defiance of the legislation.
The limited value of this bill is that it forces the Pentagon to certify that all troops deployed to Iraq are ‘fully mission capable’ at least 15 days prior to deployment. If the Pentagon will not certify that, the President must sign waivers on a unit-by-unit basis. Beyond that, the President must submit a report by July 1, 2007, determining whether Iraq is meeting certain benchmarks. On October 1, 2007 the President must ‘certify’ that Iraq has met all the benchmarks. If he can not or does not, the Secretary of Defense has 180 days to redeploy our troops out of Iraq. If the President does certify that Iraq is meeting their benchmarks, starting on March 1, 2008, the Secretary of Defense has 180 days to remove our troops from Iraq (September 2008). After September, American troops will be prohibited (by law) from occupying Iraq for any purpose except:
- Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions.
Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qeada and other terrorist organizations with global reach.
Training members of the Iraqi Security Forces.
So, what are we to make of this? Number one: I hate saying this because there is no good way to say it. I don’t like subsuming concern for Israel under a term like AIPAC or the ‘Israeli Lobby’. But, however you want to define it, advocates of Israel’s interests have prevailed on the Democratic leadership to strip any prohibition on the President taking military action against Iran without prior congressional approval. I think that is a problem. And I just don’t think this is a good way of protecting Israel’s real security concerns.
Number two: the bill doesn’t end the war. It makes it more politically expensive to continue the war by making (or attempting to make) the President certify that non-combat ready troops are needed in theater before he deploys them. It requires him to determine this summer whether Iraq is meeting their benchmarks (they will not be meeting them). It requires that the President certify that they are meeting them in March of next year (they won’t be). And then it restricts what the military can do in Iraq after September 2008 (provided that the President hasn’t certified that Iraq is meeting their benchmarks).
How will the Republicans respond to this watered down bill?
The White House has issued a veto threat against the bill, and Vice President
Dick Cheney attacked its supporters in a speech [ed note: before AIPAC], declaring they “are telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out.”House GOP Leader John Boehner (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio issued a statement that said Democrats shouldn’t count on any help passing their legislation. “Republicans will continue to stand united in this debate, and will oppose efforts by Democrats to undermine the ability of General Petraeus and our troops to achieve victory in the Global War on Terror,” he said.
I just want add, as an aside, that I do not like (politically) the Boren family and we need an alternative to Dan Boren to run against James Inhofe in the 2008 Oklahoma senate race.
“This supplemental should be about supporting the troops and providing what they need,” said Rep. Dan Boren (news, bio, voting record), D-Okla., on Monday upon returning from a trip to Iraq. Boren said he plans to oppose any legislation setting a clear deadline for troops to leave.
Thank you, Joe Lieberman Dan Boren.
Here is my take on this. I’ve gone back and forth on it even as I have been writing this column. I’m obviously disappointed with this legislation. Has it been watered down because the Democratic leadership is convinced that it could not pass stronger language? I’m not clear that they can pass this version. Sure, this version will pass the House, but will it pass the Senate?
And if Bush is threatening a veto, how do we avoid the scenario laid out by Rep. George Miller?
A meeting in Pelosi’s office Thursday stretched from 1:30 to 4 p.m., as 35 to 40 Democratic liberals hashed over the legislation with Pelosi, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) and Pelosi’s political consigliere, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.).
Miller’s pitch was blunt: If the liberals team up with Republicans to bring down the Iraq bill, Democratic leaders would have no choice but to come back with a spending bill that simply funds the war, without any policy restrictions. It would pass easily, with Republican votes and the support of many Democrats.
If the President vetoes, then won’t we still have to ‘come back with a spending bill that simply funds the war, without any policy restrictions’? Maybe I am missing something. Obviously, the leadership had to make enough concessions to make sure the bill passed the House. Once it passes the House it puts pressure on Senators and the administration. But if the whole thing is going to be vetoed anyway, then the question is: ‘will you withhold funding for the war, or will you just pass a supplemental without conditions?’
If this compromise bill strengthens the House’s hand in winning the battle after a veto, then this is a fine bill. But is that really the case? I’m not convinced. And I think they could have got more and still passed it. What do you think?
