posted on April 27, 2007 07:35:04 PM new
What Happens After Bush Vetoes the Iraq Spending Bill?
By Erik Leaver, AlterNet. Posted April 26, 2007.
The American public backs a phased withdrawal, like the Democrats are proposing, but Bush isn't listening.
The showdown over Iraq that's been brewing since the November elections will finally come to a head this week as Congress sends a war-spending bill to President Bush. Though the bill authorizes $100 billion for the war, Bush has rejected its October deadline for beginning the withdrawal of combat troops, with the goal of bringing combat troops home by April 2008, and has promised to use his veto -- his second-ever use of this power -- to kill it.
On Jan. 13, during his weekly radio address, Bush challenged those who disagreed with him to offer their own plan for Iraq. Led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Congress met Bush's challenge to come up with an alternative policy.
But instead of seeking the dialogue he asked for in his own radio address, Bush and the Republicans went on the attack, calling the bill "defeatist" and "a cut and run" strategy. The truth is that the measure offers a change of course, not a 180-degree reversal. If Bush and Republicans can't agree to a plan as moderate as the one passed this week, then they really do want a war with no end.
The legislation sets a date to start rolling back Bush's escalation of 30,000 troops and calls for bringing home the rest of the combat troops. Instead of leaving the void that many of the war's bitter-enders predict, the bill would reposition roughly 20,000 to 60,000 troops for counterterrorism missions, protecting diplomats and training Iraqi troops. Finally, the measure sets benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet in order to continue receiving U.S. financial assistance.
These proposals mirror much of what was contained in the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report released last November. They are also endorsed by prominent members of the military. Writing in support of the bill this week along with five other flag officers, Maj. Gen. Mel Montano, USANG, Ret. noted, "Supporting the Iraq Supplemental Bill not only reflects the thinking of the Iraq Study Group but puts teeth to the phrase 'supporting the troops.'"
The American public also backs the proposal. A mid-April CBS poll found that 57 percent of the public thinks that the "United States should set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008."
But if Bush follows through with his threatened veto, the next steps for Congress are unclear. At this time, the leadership doesn't have the votes to override the veto; they would come up 17 votes short in the Senate and would fail by more than 70 votes in the House. Yet, congressional Democrats are reluctant to sign another blank check for the war.
One alternative floated by Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., would be to fund the war for just two or three months. Another option would be to pass similar withdrawal language with other "must pass" bills, including the defense authorization, defense appropriations and the other Iraq spending bill for the 2008 fiscal year. But unless the dynamics change between Bush and Congress, we'll just see a repeat of this same game over and over again.
Grassroots groups and coalitions, such as CodePink, United for Peace and Justice, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq and MoveOn.org, are using all of these votes to put the pressure on members in Washington and at home. In Murtha's scenario, each vote gives them the chance to organize against those opposed to bringing the troops home.
The downside of that process is that it exacerbates one of the major hurdles to changing the course -- the fact that the focus on politics has caused the effects of the policy to be overlooked and led many Republicans to circle the wagons.
The reality is that the ongoing escalation causes massive bloodshed every day in Iraq. The construction of a walled city in Baghdad is meeting with considerable resistance among locals. Daily attacks are rising -- on Monday, nine U.S. soldiers and at least 60 Iraqis lost their lives. Bush's policies in Iraq have led to the kind of human tragedy that the nation saw in the shootings at Virginia Tech, except multiplied by three every single day.
Yet, Bush still is seeking a military "victory." He has actively been seeking a "war czar" to coordinate the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Washington Post reported that at least three four-star generals have turned down the job. In the same article, Carlos Pascual, former State Department coordinator of Iraq reconstruction, noted that, by looking for a czar, the president was once again headed in the wrong direction. "An individual can't fix a failed policy," he said.
After Bush's veto, progressives in Congress need to remind their colleagues of the failed policies and push for stronger legislation. If the president is unwilling to take the moderate compromise on the table now, it is clear that more drastic measures will be needed. As each vote on the war happens, those opposed to the occupation of Iraq need to push for a full withdrawal of troops, closing the permanent bases, setting aside funds for reconstruction, and a commitment to real regional diplomacy.
That's a strategy that can keep Democrats united by moving them slowly towards the correct policy of a full and total withdrawal from Iraq, while driving a wedge between the White House and congressional Republicans, who by mid-summer won't be able to deny that the White House's latest policy tweak has failed.
See more stories tagged with: bush, veto, congress, spending, supplemental, iraq
Erik Leaver is policy outreach director for the Foreign Policy In Focus project at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C.
posted on April 27, 2007 07:48:19 PM new
That op-ed is a JOKE.
Full of lies.
The dems refused to meet and discuss some compromise. Not as your author states.
And he mentions some dem/lib plan????
What might that be? Besides SURRENDER to our enemies starting Oct 1?
But most importantly....the liberals are acting against our constitution. PERIOD.
They do NOT get to PLAY CIC. He is the ONLY ONE who IS CIC.
They can stop this war by using THEIR constitutional powers. THEY WON'T.
But they don't get to plan commander of our forces.....never have ....never will.
Once they get THAT straight....then maybe the voters aren't going to see them as HURTING OUR TROOPS by not passing a 'clean bill'. Then they can make all the proposals they wish to make.
But the FINAL decision is our CIC ALONE to make. NOT theirs.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 27, 2007 07:52:55 PM new
Democrats Refuse Bush's Invitation to Discuss War Funding Bill
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
April 11, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - Work with us on the Iraq war, Democrats are telling President Bush. Come to the White House and we'll talk, President Bush is telling Democrats. But it's not going to happen.
On Tuesday, President Bush invited Democrat leaders to meet with him at the White House next week to discuss the impasse over a war-funding bill.
Bush said the meeting would give congressional leaders a chance to report on their progress in getting an emergency spending bill to Bush's desk.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promptly issued a statement saying that Democrats are "willing to meet with the president at any time," but not if he sets "preconditions."
Bush is insisting on a "clean" bill - one that provides money for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but does not set a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals. Democrats have so far refused to give Bush what he wants.
The House bill calls for a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq by the end of August 2008, and the Senate bill sets a goal of withdrawing troops by the end of March 2008.
Democrats insist that any war funding bill should give U.S. troops "a strategy for success" - a clear exit strategy, in other words.
President Bush says he will veto any war-funding bill that forces his hand on troop withdrawals.
Democrats on Tuesday said Bush's veto threat shows he is "ignoring the clear message of the American people: We must protect our troops, hold the Iraqi government accountable, rebuild our military, provide for our veterans and bring our troops home."
Democrats say the president is asking Congress for a "blank check" to keep the war going.
"We renew our request to work with him to produce a bipartisan bill that provides our troops and our veterans with every penny they need, but in turn, demands accountability," Pelosi and Reid said in their statement.
Hurry up
In a speech to an American Legion chapter in Virginia on Tuesday, President Bush said it's been 64 days since he asked Congress for emergency war funding. But instead, the "Democrat leadership in Congress has spent the past 64 days pushing legislation that would undercut our troops, just as we're beginning to make progress in Baghdad."
Bush accused Democrats of passing bills that "substitute the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our commanders on the ground." He also noted that House Democrats loaded their bill with billions of dollars in pork barrel projects -- spending that is completely unrelated to the war.
"Now, the Democrats who pass these bills know that I'll veto them, and they know that this veto will be sustained. Yet they continue to pursue the legislation," Bush said. "And as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the field. In other words, there are consequences for delaying this money."
Bush said if Congress doesn't act in the next few days, the U.S. military will be forced to transfer $1.6 billion from other military accounts to keep funds flowing to troops in the field.
"We are at war. It is irresponsible for the Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds they need to succeed," Bush said.
President Bush also explained the consequences of delay:
"The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, recently testified that if Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-April, the Army will be forced to consider cutting back on equipment repair and quality of life initiatives for our Guard and Reserve forces. The Army will also be forced to consider curtailing some training for Guard and Reserve units here at home. This would reduce their readiness, and could delay their availability to mobilize for missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"If Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-May, the problems grow even more acute. The Army will be forced to consider slowing or even freezing funding for its depots, where the equipment our troops depend on is repaired. They will have to consider delaying or curtailing the training of some active duty forces...And the Army may also have to delay the formation of new brigade combat teams, preventing us from getting those troops into the pool of forces that are available to deploy," Bush said.
"The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated. This is unacceptable."
Bush warned Congress there is no time to waste: "It's time for them to get the job done," he said.
Bush's speech to the American Legion apparently was intended to send a message to House and Senate negotiators, who have not yet reconciled the two war funding bills.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 27, 2007 08:13:38 PM new
The American public backs a phased withdrawal
Since when?
Your demorat leaders assume the American people want a withdrawal of the troops, when in fact what most Americans want is a change in tactics,
In addition, the reason Pres Bush will veto the bill, (and there will not be enough votes to override the veto), is all the pork spending your demos have attached to the bill.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on April 27, 2007 08:24:16 PM new
That's right, Bear.
I can't begin to tell you how many articles I've read that refer to how the liberals are confused about what the American voters wanted from them.
It was less corruption....that the dems had PROMISED they'd take care of....then pelosi puts TWO liberals in leadership positions who DO have 'moral' issues against them....one is still under investigation.
Then they promised they get this budget under control.....and now with their FIRST major spending spree they want to attach MILLIONS to the war funding bill.
Then the voters NEVER EVER called for ADMITTING DEFEAT TO OUR ENEMIES. NEVER..
They wanted change....they're frustrated that the war has gone on so long.
But that frustration doesn't in any WAY, SHAPE or FORM mean the voters support our TROOPS GOING WITHOUT NECESSARY FUNDING......nor does it mean they AGREE with the liberals SURRENDER bills.
They have lost their minds....but if they don't get back on the PRO-AMERICAN side the voters will show them in '08 how they feel about ADMITTING DEFEAT TO OUR ENEMIES.
No doubt about that.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 27, 2007 08:27:02 PM new
bush hopes and prays that the maiming and deaths continue unabated so his friends can continue to profit from this war.
He treasonously keeps the funding from the troops which will result in more deaths and hardships. He's a traitorous piece of garbage.
posted on April 27, 2007 08:32:00 PM new
Why would Democrats or anyone else talk to bushit?
He's a stubborn jackass incapable of learning , thinking, reasoning, negotiating...stuck in his own pigheadedness... to the detriment of America and our troops.
posted on April 27, 2007 08:39:08 PM new
mingo,
Bush looks to me like the doctors are feeding him feel good pills. He looks and talks like he is living in a different world.
I feel sorry for his father who has been reduced to crying in public over his failed son.
How about George ruining his brother Jeb changes at running for President.
