The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans Health and Iraq Accountability Act, better known as the Iraq War
Supplemental Bill, has passed the House by a 218-212 vote. The President (who is scheduled to speak in about five minutes) has vowed to veto this bill. That sets up a political debate, and a political debate is all about messaging. From that standpoint it is important to see how the mainstream media is reporting the passage of this bill. Looking at the Washington Post, William Branigin spins out a deeply misleading interpretation, but one that is incredibly favorable to the Democrats. Here’s the lede (emphasis mine).
The House of Representatives today passed a $124 billion emergency spending bill that sets binding benchmarks for progress in Iraq, establishes tough readiness standards for deploying U.S. troops abroad and requires the withdrawal of American combat forces from Iraq by the end of August 2008.
If you have been reading the blogs you might wonder why the benchmarks are being defined as ‘binding’. Check out the description of what the bill does (emphasis mine).
It marks the first time that the House, which shifted to Democratic control as a result of last year’s midterm elections, has set a firm deadline for pulling U.S. combat troops out of Iraq after four years of an increasingly unpopular war that has left more than 3,200 Americans dead and 24,000 wounded…
Democrats argued that Congress has the obligation to bring to a close what they called a “war without end” that never should have been waged in the first place. They said the bill in part is aimed at refocusing U.S. military on what they described as the “real war on terrorism” in Afghanistan against resurgent Taliban and al-Qaeda extremists.
The House bill includes military funding beyond the level requested by Bush, adding money for health care for returning service members and veterans in the wake of a scandal over the treatment of wounded outpatient soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
…the bill requires the Pentagon to stick to its standards for training and equipping combat troops being sent abroad. It also enforces rules that limit the tours of deployed troops to no more than 13 months and stipulate that they have to stay home for at least a year between tours.
In reality, the bill has been watered down so that the President can sign waivers to deploy troops even if they are not sufficiently trained and equipped. But the press isn’t focusing on the weaknesses of the bill. They are putting out a power message.
The Dems finally set ‘a firm deadline’ to get our troops out of Iraq. They added more money than the President wanted to take care of our wounded vets. They required that all our troops are trained and well equipped. Now the President will start the counter-spin.
The counter-spin will be that the bill included pork and that it micromanages the war. It undermines the war effort and diminishes our chances for victory.
Based on the polling data, I have to assume that the Democrats will benefit from the perception that they have done something to try to end this war and that they are taking care of the troops. Bush will not win political points in this debate.
But, the question remains…if the Senate Republicans obstruct this bill, or if the President vetoes this bill, what will the Democrats do?
In my opinion, they should do nothing. They should respond to a veto by making the bill even stronger. The President cannot say that the Dems are not funding the troops. We passed the bill to fund the troops.
What the Democrats must not do is back down from the language in this bill. The best way to do that is to hit all our talking points, relentlessly, and to threaten to add more restrictions if the President continues to show signs that he doesn’t ‘get it’.
If the Dems in the Senate go along with the House bill.
If the Dems have a backbone.
Even if those two unlikelies come to pass, Bush may realize this bill has no real obstacles to him doing what he wants for as long as he wants, so he may sign it. But that’s not likely (at least for now) with the rhetoric coming from the Republican side.
Okay, I admit, you’ve convinced me there’s a chance we don’t get an occupation funding bill.
Bush may realize this bill has no real obstacles to him doing what he wants for as long as he wants
I just listened to Murtha’s speech about this, and he said that the bill prohibits permanent bases in Iraq. I don’t know what the language is, though, so that provision may have no real teeth. Still, I don’t think Bush would like that at all.
Bush will simply say they’re temporary. Permanence is a very long time anyway: that is not a real obstacle at all.
I’m less optimistic than you are, Boo, on what this bill will accomplish in real life, but agree 100% on the next steps for Dems. Their temptation will be to “compromise” as usual, ie give away the store. The antiwar side would be well advised to start putting on the pressure now, not later, to stand up and be counted. Watery as it is, this bill could still prove to be the turning point.
If this fails, then the compromise approach failed. The anti-war caucus should be allowed a shot. If they can’t get something passed, then we should put up restrictive continuing funding measures (no more troops sent to Iraq, no expansion to Iran, etc.) on a tight schedule so Bush hasn’t the option to veto.
he doesn’t like this one?
Screw him, the next one is even tougher.
he comes at us with a knife, we come back with a gun.
It’s the only way to deal with a bully.
I think a rider to make signing statements illegal would be good too.
-C.
I love this phrasing!! I only wish the Dems. would agree with you for once.
Democrats should simply assert that the president has no veto power just as he asserted that congress has no oversight powers. Yeah, I’m feeling like a 3rd grader today.
Given your explanation, I agree that the Dems ought to do nothing if Bu$hCo vetoes the bill. We must make him the owner of this fiasco, & offer no cover for him, no support the troops cover.
That’s what it really comes down to. We can’t end the war short of impeachment, and we don’t have a big enough majority in the Senate to impeach. We are left, then, with political maneuvering that casts into sharp and unmistakable relief the bare fact that we are losing the war, and not only is the President not competent to win it, but he would rather continue to send American soldiers to pointless deaths than face his own incompetence and back down.
Bush is right — this is political theatre. And the reason he’s pissed is because this act is the denouement.
We have to keep up the message, hard, that the Democrats stand with the 70% or so of the American public that doesn’t want our Iraq war policy to be ‘surge until Bush is gone’.
We need to keep pushing the message that Dems did what they were put in office to do. And Bush stands firmly against the will of the people.
The President cannot say that the Dems are not funding the troops. We passed the bill to fund the troops.
This is the inoculation for the Democrats, and kryptonite for Bush. It will be Bush who denies the troops funding by vetoing this bill. With a stroke of his pen, the commander-in-chief will rob soldiers of material support that a Democratic Congress voted to send.
If the Dem leadership pushes this hard, Bush is exposed.
The Democrats in the House have voted money for the troops and they have attached other things that key constituents think are overdue – minimum wage increase, farm bill items, supplemental appropriation for the VA. Despite Bush’s rhetoric, there actually is very little classic pork in this legislation. Almost all of the items attached have broad popular support, especially in red states.
It has passed the House. The Senate Democrats should bring it forward as it is with no amendments. It is a budget bill. The rules of debate are different for budget bills. I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, that it can’t be filibustered. Republicans will have to give it an up-or-down vote. If the Senate Democrats hang tough.
The next move is with the Senate Republicans. The monkey of not funding the troops is now on their backs. And opposition to the minimum wage and farm bill items and additional funds for the VA.
The bill also contains language requiring that the troops be battle-ready before being sent–that means rotation, equipment, and so on. So it passes and Bush attaches a signing statement. Can you see “Bush signing statement seeks to send troops who are not battle ready” as a headline?
So our two tasks. Put pressure on Senate Democrats to pass it as is. And put pressure on Senate Republicans to break ranks and pass it as is–call it the Senate Republican Independence Act.
And I agree, if it is vetoed and a veto is not overruled, add stronger language and send it forward again. For this, we need to put the pressure on the blue dogs.
Bush needs to realize quickly that this is the best offer he is going to get.
And if he exerts executive privilege, defund (er, fail to appropriate money for) political appointees, especially in the Vice President’s office, Department of Justice and Executive Office of the President. President, Vice President, and Attorney General get a token salary. But all of their loyal suckers-up are gone. It is a matter of accountability, not politics. If they are no longer employed and become ordinary citizens, executive privilege cannot apply.
I had misgivings about this bill. But now, I think it was a high risk-high reward move.
Congressional Democrats are going to have to build the news momentum off of this to keep Bush off balance. We need to start created his reality that he has to analyze instead of responding to what he does.
We make sure our senators and reps know that if this fails then there is no funding bill whatsoever. Armando was right and now that the dems have passed a viable supplemental, if it is shot down or vetoed, use it as cover and refuse anything weaker.
This far and no farther. This is where the tide turns or it never will.