We could put the full court press on to get President Bush to sign the supplemental funding for Iraq into law, but it would be pointless. Set aside the unlikelihood of Bush flip-flopping on his promise to veto the bill. He just forced virtually the entire Republican caucus to vote against body armor and uparmored Humvees, against money for Walter Reed, against agricultural subsidies, against a hike in the minimum wage, and for an unending commitment to stay the course in Iraq. There is no way in hell that Bush can turn around and double cross them by signing this bill into law.
Yet, as Barack Obama notes:
“We are one signature away from ending the Iraq War. President Bush must listen to the will of the American people and sign this bill so that our troops can come home,” Obama said in a statement released by his office.
That is truly an accurate depiction of the situation. All Bush has to do is sign the supplemental funding bill and we will see a series of events take place. First, he will be unable to certify that Iraq is meeting the benchmarks in July, and he will have to begin drawing down the troops at that time. The troops would have to be home by the end of this year. Some troops may still remain in Iraq for the limited purposes of hunting terrorists, training Iraq security and police forces, and securing the American embassy (as they do in all countries). And, it’s true that Bush could use this provision as a loophole to maintain a large military presence, except…their are other provisions of the supplemental that will make it politically difficult to deploy troops in large numbers (like training and readiness requirements).
The bill doesn’t quite ‘end the war’ because it allows for some flexibility so that the President can use loopholes to maintain a military presence if events justify it. But the bill isn’t necessarily that much worse for allowing this flexibility. Under a mature and competent leadership, such flexibility would actually be desirable.
All of this is largely irrelevant because the President has no choice but to veto the bill after forcing his caucus to take a series of politically painful votes.
And that leaves us all with the question of what to do next. We could try to make a hopeless attempt to override the veto. I suspect that would be seen as a waste of time by the media and by most Americans. We already have the Republicans on the record several times over the supplemental. There’s not much to be gained by putting them on the record one more time.
The word is that the Democrats will begin funding the war in 2-3 month increments and force the GOP to keep coming back for more funds. However, Steny Hoyer doesn’t like that idea.
We’ll see.
What to do next, all funding for Iraq War is to be paid by the immediate tax increase called the “Patriot Tax” on the top 1% of wage earners. Then another Patriot Tax on all War Profiteers who make more than cost + 5% because earning money while Americans die is sick.
Let’s see if Bush really wants his war in Iraq or wants to represent the “have-mores”. Warrior class v. have mores..who would W pick..force him to make a decision.
Actually, I really think asking Americans to pay (dollars) for this war is a great idea. I would not limit it to the top 1% however. And I certainly wouldn’t limit it to “wage earners.” Tax the income of those living off investment income as well.
Arlen Specter’s staff has taken the phone off the hook.
Guess they don’t feel like talking to the folks that pay the bills today. I wonder why.
No, Brendan, they just don’t want to talk to you! I’m sure they recognize your number on the caller id by now.
You are probably right. At least one person there knows me by voice. I don’t even get to “My name is Brend–” and the guy sighs and says “Hello, Mr. Skwire”. I can practically see his eyes rolling as he rubs his temples and glances around the desk for an advil.
From the NYT:
Emphasis mine.
They’re afraid it’ll be seen as what it is; Bush blocking funding for the troops.
They fervently hope it is seen as “anti-climactic”.
“Hi, now that Senator Specter has voted against funding the troops in an effort to keep them there indefintiely, I was wondering if you could define what the Senator’s deifnition og ‘victory’ is?”
“Sir, senator Specter didn’t vote against fundign the troops, he doesn’t believe in timetables..”
“No, this was a FUNDING BILL. He said no to the funds because he doesn’t want to bring the troops home. So how does he define ‘victory’?”
“The Senator doesn’t believe in a timetable–“
“yes, thank you, I understand that part, but that’s not my question.”
“You want me to define victory?”
“No, I want you to tell me the Senator’s definition of “victory”?”
“I can’t do that, and he doesn’t want them there forever. He just doesn’t believe in timetables.”
“yes, which means he wants them there indefinitely. I read the bill. he voted against armor–“
“No he didn’t against a timetable.”
“You know what I’m hearing? I’m hearing who ya gonna believe baby, me or your lyin’ eyes. I READ the bill. He voted against funding because he doesn’t want the timetable to embarrass him. He’s refuses to fund the troops, including money for armor, uparmoring the humvees, minimum wage hikes, agriculture subsidies all because he’s too embarrassed by his war to bring the troops home. That’s pathetic. That’s anti-troops. Real class.”
Senator Ego.
you’re such a jerk. I luv it.
Screw hoyer. If the goopers simply continue to lie, screw them. The dems should force a supplemental every two months. Make the goopers come back over and over again.
And, did anyone hear Rep Murtha re the contractors?
He did say- 126,000 contractors in Iraq! Right? Now, how come the effing media doesn’t appear too eager to talk about that? Who the hell is paying the goddamned bill for these mercs?
Just wondering? How about some answers?
billjpa
“…And that leaves us all with the question of what to do next. We could try to make a hopeless attempt to override the veto. I suspect that would be seen as a waste of time by the media and by most Americans. We already have the Republicans on the record several times over the supplemental. There’s not much to be gained by putting them on the record one more time…”
No, dammit. That’s the mistake Democrats always make. That’s the rational response. We need to force the emotional response.
Force the Publicans to vote against this funding bill again. Rack up the score. Use the total number of times they’ve voted for continuing this godforsaken war as a cudgel on their lying souls in the next election. Don’t give them a chance to avoid making painful votes. I want to see the ads on TV with the legitimate claims that they’ve voted in favor of continuing the war 100 times, 200 times, a 1000 times.
That’s how they punish Democrats in the Congress and it’s about time we learned how to do the same. The Publicans are scum and they deserve to be treated like the scum they are.
Let him veto a perfectly good bill providing funding for a ‘war’ needlessly destroying another country in furtherance of a plan to steal oil rights. There was no reason the regular budget should not have sufficed : unless somehow ‘war’ in Iraq had unforeseeable expenses entering it’s fifth year ( Tell me another one ). Since the ‘surge’ has already exceeded the requested support, budgetary responsibility is not even on Bush’s radar ; except as a pretext for propaganda.
I have no confidence in any bill stopping die Fuhrer.
If he stops funding, he can own the problem. Nothing else seems to have a chance at stopping him.