I’ve spent my morning trying to find news on the Iraq War supplemental funding bill which is currently being reconciled in a House/Senate caucus. I’ve also been discussing it with other bloggers. And, one thing I can say for certain is that the issues are complex and people are really uncertain of both what should and what will happen.
Here are the basics. The are two versions of the bill (the House version and the Senate version) which must be reconciled. Once they are reconciled into one bill, the bill must be sent back to the House and to the Senate and passed by both chambers. The House bill is much stronger than the Senate bill. In the House, progressives and newly elected anti-war Democrats insisted on strong language (and assurances that those provisions would not be stripped out in conference) as a prerequisite for support. But, in the Senate, that language was rejected by enough Democrats to prevent its inclusion in the Senate bill. So, on the face of it, inclusion of the House language in the reconciled bill will sink the bill in the Senate and exclusion of the House language will sink the bill in the House.
Someone has to blink. And it appears that the blinking will be done by the ‘anti-war liberals’ in the House.
Anti-war liberals worried about party unity are reluctant to mount opposition to war spending legislation in the House even if it does not set a firm date for troop withdrawal.
Their support would pave the way for Democratic leaders next week to send President Bush a bill that would fund the Iraq war and still call for troops to leave by March 31, 2008, albeit a non-binding withdrawal date.
The measure would be weaker than House Democrats wanted but is advocated by the Senate, where Democrats hold a slimmer majority and many party members oppose setting a firm timetable on the war.
Rather than let the bill sink, “we want to get it to the president and let him veto it,” said Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., a party liberal who opposes funding the war at all.
This strategy is predicated, however, on the President actually following thru on his promise to veto the bill. That may seem likely, but it certainly would not be smart. Counting on President Bush to do the stupid thing is probably a good bet, but not 100% of the time. To understand the battlefield we must consider the Democrats’ post-veto strategy.
A two-month spending bill to cover the costs of the Iraq war is “very likely” after President Bush vetoes the current Iraq spending bill, House Defense Appropriations Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.) said Friday…
… House Defense appropriator Jim Moran (D-Va.) said a two-month bill is intended to keep troops funded without giving the president too much latitude.
“Six months is probably too long,” Moran said. “One month — it takes longer than that to pass the thing.”…
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) a founding member of the House Out of Iraq Caucus, said she expects there will be even more pressure to withdraw troops in two months if events in Iraq continue on their current violent course.
“In two months it might be really clear how bad it is,” Woolsey said.
If you are President Bush you have the advantage of seeing the Democratic strategy clearly spelled out. He can accept the relatively weak restrictions in the Senate bill and have his funding for the war (and look like he reached out and compromised) or he can veto the bill, look increasingly isolated, and have to come back in two months in an even worse negotiating position.
No matter how stupid and stubborn you think Bush is, do you really think he is incapable of figuring out the politics here? If nothing else, this strategy hands the President the opportunity to crush opponents of continued funding of the war and relies on Bush to pass it up.
Sen. Robert Byrd summed up his column today:
We will complete work on this legislation quickly and send it to the president before the end of the month. The president will have to decide whether he will sign the bill into law or ignore the American people by holding up this legislation with a veto. If the president chooses to work with Congress, we can reach a bipartisan solution that unites the country rather than divides it, while meeting the expectations and needs of the American people.
Exactly. The only problem? The bill we’re thinking of handing him does not meet the expectations of the American people. And if the bill passes and the President signs it into law, that whole beautiful plan that Murtha, Watson, Moran, and Woolsey are counting on? It’s goes up in smoke.
Okay. So, what if the progressives in the House smell this rat and decide to oppose any version of the reconciled bill that doesn’t have the very restrictions that they were assured would not be stricken from the bill?
The bill does not pass.
What then? The two-month short-leash legislation.
It’s the same strategy but without the risk of the President actually signing the supplemental.
But that would change the narrative. It’s worth discussing how it would change the narrative. For one thing, it would be a pretty severe blow to Speaker Pelosi. She would be under pressure to pass a supplemental with Republican rather than near universal Democratic support. Could she stand up to the pressure?
I think she could. I think she would. What say you?
