A “short leash” Iraq funding bill could come to a vote in the House as early as tomorrow. Karen DeYoung and Jonathan Weisman report for the Washington Post:
A House Democratic proposal introduced yesterday that would give President Bush half of the money he has requested for the war effort, with a vote in July on whether to approve the rest, hinges on progress in meeting political benchmarks that Iraq has thus far found difficult to achieve. …
…The plan would make about $43 billion of the administration’s requested $95.5 billion immediately available to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, train troops from both nations and pay for other military needs. Congress’s approval of the rest, intended to last through September, would await Iraqi passage of restructuring laws, or Bush’s ability to prove that significant progress had been made. The July vote would mark the first time a mandatory funding cutoff would come before Congress.
The article doesn’t hold out much hope that Senate Dems will go along with this, but the Post has been wrong before.
Today the President let it be known that he would veto the new House bill, too even though it makes considerable money immediately available to him with no strings attached. From the Washington Post:
President Bush would veto the new Iraq spending bill being developed by House Democrats because it includes unacceptable language restricting funding, White House press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday morning.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Snow said of the bill: “There are restrictions on funding and there are also some of the spending items that were mentioned in the first veto message that are still in the bill.”
Those “spending items” include provision for equipping state National Guard at pre-Iraq War levels. Note that the House bill does not include a timetable or any restrictions on the U.S. military; the demands it makes are specific and apply to the Iraqi government.
I don’t think he can hold his caucus together on this veto. I’m not saying the GOP would override his veto, but there will be a lot more defections.
And that’s the point. Over the past several days I’ve argued several times (most recently here) that a bill-by-bill, vote-by-vote process that peels congressional Republicans away from Bush is the only chance we’ve got to end the war before 2009. The point is to render him so isolated and unsupported he’ll have to either comply or leave office. I think this “short leash” approach has a shot of picking up substantial Republican support, because I think Republicans who face re-election next year are becoming increasingly frantic that the war will cost them their seats. Even if this bill doesn’t draw a veto-proof majority, the next one might, or the one after that. There are a number of Iraq War votes to come before Congress before the end of the year.
Note that the public overwhelmingly disapproved of Bush’s veto of the last bill.
Meanwhile, Jonathan E. Kaplan and Elana Schor write at The Hill:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is threatening to take President Bush to court if he issues a signing statement as a way of sidestepping a carefully crafted compromise Iraq war spending bill.
Pelosi recently told a group of liberal bloggers, “We can take the president to court†if he issues a signing statement, according to Kid Oakland, a blogger who covered Pelosi’s remarks for the liberal website dailykos.com.
“The president has made excessive use of signing statements and Congress is considering ways to respond to this executive-branch overreaching,†a spokesman for Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, said. “Whether through the oversight or appropriations process or by enacting new legislation, the Democratic Congress will challenge the president’s non-enforcement of the laws.â€
I say again that Bush will accept no constraints whatsoever, no matter how mild and reasonable, no matter what public opinion says. The question is, can he keep this game up for 20 more months?
How about a short leash with a choke collar for additional discipline?
maha, I think you’re right, and you’ve been right for a while now. Like you, I have no idea how long Bush can hold out, since in his world he can hold out indefinitely as long as he has sufficient will to do so. He answers to no one.
How long the republican members of congress can hold out is the real question. I bet they hate going home these days.
Bravo President Bush! The Democrats have put themselves between a rock and a hard place. He should veto any bill they pass if it deviates in the slightest way from his original proposal. This gives the Democrats a no-win choice: either they capitulate completely or they force President Bush to use emergency executive funding authority to rescue the troops from running out of ammunition in the middle of battle. Either way they face total humiliation and sideline themselves completely from any role in governing throughout the rest of the congressional term. Aw shucks, it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving bunch!
“Emergency executive funding authority”? Exactly where in the Alternative Reality Constitution is that, dear?
It is implicit in the preamble to the constitution, under the “provide for the common defense” clause, which recognizes the collective right/necessity of self-preservation. Clearly it is unacceptable for the executive to stand by helplessly, while our brave troops are slaughtered because an irresponsible legislature failed to provide for their basic necessities.
It is implicit in the preamble to the constitution, under the “provide for the common defense†clause
Sorry, dude, the Constitution explicitly gives all powers regarding appropriating funds to Congress, not the President. He has no money that Congress doesn’t give him, unless he has a bake sale.
Never argue with a person who is under the influence of Kool-Aid.. wait till they sober up before trying to reason with them.
one comment:
“while our brave troops are slaughtered because an irresponisble legislature failed to provide for their basic necessities”
Nope. There is a time and a place to provide for the basic necessities of troops in the field in an ongoing conflict, and that is in the annual spending bill.
I fully agree with Maha that we should not allow your sick worst case scenario to occur, but if it did, it would be because the president failed to ask for enough money in the right time and place.
-me
Sorry, dude, the Constitution explicitly gives all powers regarding appropriating funds to Congress, not the President. He has no money that Congress doesn’t give him, unless he has a bake sale.
This is just empty rhetoric. The police don’t have to get a search warrant to break down your front door if they see smoke pouring out of your windows. That is just common sense, no matter what the legal code specifies. The constitution can’t forsee all practical circumstances, so the preamble puts it into proper perspective. The specific clauses of the constitution as well as all subsidiary legal codes hold force only insofar as they advance the common good.
It is clearly unacceptable for our troops to be defenselessly slaughtered in Iraq and so the executive has to do whatever it has to do to prevent this from occurring. If an irresponsible partisan congress tries to interfere with this paramount necessity, then they deserve to be trampled underfoot. This is the way actual reality works.
Responsible constitutional scholars have expressed this far more eloquently than my meager abilities allow. IN particular, you should read this article by the acclaimed Harvard scholar, Harvey Mansfield:
http://opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010014
nabaletc. I hardly think “exigent circumstance” applies here, especially since Congress keeps voting to appropriate all the money Bush wants. The issue is not the money, but what Bush is doing with it. And, frankly, the Constitution says Congress makes the political decisions regarding war, not the President. The President cannot use the Army as his own personal toy. Except in cases of emergency — and a four-year-old war ain’t an emergency — he may deploy the military only with the consent of Congress.
Please note that I have a nephew in Baghdad right now, and under no circumstances do I want the troops to be “defenselessly slaughtered.” But that would only happen if Bush wills it to happen. He’s the one standing in between the troops and the will of Congress and the American people. This is supposed to be a democracy, not a dictatorship.
Regarding how “actual reality” works — son, if you ever become cognizant of “actual reality,” I ‘spect your head will explode.
The police don’t have to get a search warrant to break down your front door if they see smoke pouring out of your windows. That is just common sense
Huh?..are you talking about marijuana smoke? because if not your statement seriously flawed.
Do you go to school ,or by bus?
Swami — I assume he’s talking about an “exigent circumstance” situation.
He probably is, but to use an analogy involving a “search warrant” makes his statement so it doesn’t relate. It distorts.. and he backs ups his distortion with a claim of common sense. It’s the same thing that Bush always does.. makes an appeal to logic and common sense from a flawed statement.
Swami – let me spell it out for you. The executive is expected to abide by the spirit of the constitution and the laws, not necessarily by the letter. This is unlike the judiciary, which must be strictly constructionist. The legislature also is a deliberative branch, severely constrained by the constitution.
The executive on the other hand is the active branch of government which must react instantaneously to daily, even hourly, necessities. The executive is the only branch, which by its very nature, can embody and put into actual effect the general popular will.
Swami et al. — nabalzbbfr is crazy as hell, but he’s entertaining in a freak show kind of way. I’m inclined not to bounce him unless he gets abusive.
Dude, (nabalzbbfr) I wish and hope you are under the influence of something that will wear off. The other option (that I hate to consider) is that you are sober, and capable of using a computer and still totally out of touch with reality.
“the general popular will’ as embodied in the last election suggested that the Bush War in Iraq has gone on long enough. The attempt by Congress to start putting limits on the waste of GIs lives and taxpayer funds IS the popular will. It is also legal and VERY Constitutional. Congress could cut off all funds, but they are trying to engineer an organized redeployment that would be part of a real strategy.
Our occupation of Iraq is breeding terrorism. Like putting out a fire with kerosine. Want tofight terrorists? Enlist. Want to beat terrorists – THINK! There are strategies and tactics to undermine the popular appeal of fundamentalist Islam. The ‘average’ Muslim perceives our occupation as genocide and an oil grab and it’s that perception is fueling the opposition. WAKE UP! What we are doing is NOT WORKING!
Do drop us a note when you sober up or after the labotomy!
nabalzbbfr … Thanks, I got my head right now. I thought it would take years before we see Bush’s genius. But I was wrong.
One critical point that should be considered though..Bush appears to be saving himself at the expense of the Republican party, and at some point soon it will be everyman for himself or else cast Bush overboard like Jonah to save the ship.