Right Back Atcha
From Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, to President Bush over his promised veto of the Democrat’s new bill on Iraq:
Last week the House of Representatives on a bipartisan vote passed an emergency supplemental spending bill. The Senate is poised to pass its version of the bill as soon as later today. Both bills contain much needed funding for our troops and our veterans. Both bills also chart a new course forward in Iraq. Given the importance and urgency of this legislation to our troops and our security, we are quite disturbed by your insistence to veto it. Rather than work with the Congress to develop a bill you could sign, you apparently intend to follow a political strategy that would needlessly delay funding for our troops.
The bill, as you may have heard, provides $122 billion in funding for the troops as well as other necessary provisions–but also mandates a March 31, 2008 withdrawal date for U.S. forces in Iraq. Depending on how things work out, this could be a similar situation to the famous government-shutdown showdown between Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress.
When Bush vetoes the bill (a sure enough thing that I won’t bother using the word “if”), necessary funding for the troops will be put off. It will then be a game of public perception: who is cutting off funding for the troops, the Democrats or Bush? Both sides will claim that the other is being unreasonable. Each side will have an advantage: Democrats will have public opinion on their side (most Americans want us out of this war), but Bush will likely be able to depend on his bully pulpit and on a more-freindly-than-not media to get his side out to the people more.
But if Democrats play it just right, they could get the upper hand. When Bush vetoes the bill, they should stress compromise and talks, do everything they can to offer different versions of the bill, removing the pork and perhaps even modifying the withdrawal date–but not taking it out altogether. Bush has nothing really to offer back; he won’t budge on any withdrawal date, and really won’t be able to give any other compromises. As a result, the Democrats will appear to be flexible while Bush is intransigent. If the Democrats then send a modified bill, with everything they desire removed from the bill except a withdrawal date, back to Bush, and still he vetoes it, Bush could easily be seen as the baddie.
On an aside, this entire situation is sweetly ironic, in that the Democrats are using Bush’s favorite tactic against him: you’re either for our legislation, or you hate the troops. So, which is it, George?
The Dems should also stress “this bill has the money needed to keep the war going for another year and a half. Considering that the Iraq war has already gone longer than World War Two, when we managed to defeat both Nazi Germany and the militaristic Japan, surely that’s enough time for the President to get it right in Iraq or get us out.”
Or words to that effect.
Paul
Seattle, WA
Another nice post, Luis.
Paul makes an excellent post. I’d only say, don’t forget Italy. We defeated Germany, Japan and Italy too. That’s three hostile Industrial powers who’s combined industrial capacity, along with occupied France and the rest of Europe approximated our own.
At this point, I can’t imagine the public siding with Bush. But we’ll see.
I also like to see them pack in the legislation a requirement that the cost of the war not be kept on separate books. The deficit needs to be exposed. Also, force in a requirement that the media be allowed to photograph caufins etc…
What Bush is trying to avoid is accountability. Who wouldn’t. But it is the seed of corruption. Bush is the posterboy for that.
Now he’s exposed to accountability. He’ll try to avoid it. So I think you are right, the Democrats can show alot of flexibility and most likely the Republicans will reject it.