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’.
