After Bush vetoes Iraq bill...then what?

[babylonsister]

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/49851/#more

After Bush vetoes Iraq bill...then what?

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 7:35 AM on March 28, 2007.


Guest post by Chris Weigant first appeared on Huffington Post.



While the legislative news on Iraq from the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives is currently good, don't be deceived into thinking that the end of the Iraq war is just around the corner. Because, by momentarily reining in the Senate Republicans, Bush is inviting the Democrats' bill to come to his desk quickly for only one reason: so he can veto it just as quickly. So Democrats need to be prepared for what comes next.

A quick review of where things stand: Nancy Pelosi proved (once again) her political acumen by getting the votes in the House to pass a supplemental funding bill that would fund the military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of the fiscal year -- to the tune of $100 billion (with about $25 billion in extra pork, to gain votes) -- but with some serious strings on how the money could be spent. The Senate will soon pass their version of roughly the same bill (theirs has slightly different strings attached). Because the two versions are different, there will be a conference committee where the language will be tweaked until a single version of the bill emerges, presumably acceptable to both houses. This bill will then have to pass both those houses all over again, after which it will finally go to Bush's desk. Where (make no mistake) it will be vetoed. Bush actually appears eager to do so. What happens after this point is where things get interesting, which is why Democrats better have a solid plan of action ready to go. Bush's veto should be seen as a certainty, because of what just happened in the Senate. Since the Democrats took over, every Senate bill on Iraq has had to face a cloture vote (where the GOP threatens to filibuster, and 60 votes are needed to continue action on the bill). The Democrats have lost all of these votes, it should be noted, by various margins. But suddenly, Senate Republicans have politely decided to not use this parliamentary tool, meaning the Iraq war bill will require only a simple majority vote.

Why the tactical change? Republicans could have elected to shut this bill down the way they've been successfully shutting down all the others. So why allow this one to go through? The only logical answer is that Bush actually...

... wants this veto, and told them to stand aside and let it through. GOP Senators were happy to do so, because it helps spread the well-deserved "obstructionist" blame around a bit. While some in the media are holding out hope that the White House will sit down like adults and work with the congressional conference committee to agree on language that Bush will actually sign, it must be said that this is deluded and wishful thinking. Because Bush wants to veto this bill -- for several political reasons. Since it would be only Bush's second veto ever (and since Iraq is a big subject anyway), it is guaranteed to be front-page news everywhere -- which conveniently pushes Alberto Gonzales' troubles off the radar screen. A veto would allow Bush to "stand up for his principles," something he just loves to do. Bush really does think history's going to vindicate him on Iraq, so he sees this as another chapter of "doing the right thing" in his memoirs. Most importantly, this sends the ball back to the Democrats' court -- Bush will veto the bill and demand a "clean" bill with just the $100 billion he needs for the war, with no strings attached. The heavy media spin from the White House will be: "Democrats must act NOW to pass a clean bill." Since the Pentagon's Iraq money is about to run out, this will put things on a very tight timetable before Republicans will start the chorus of: "Democrats are not funding the troops in the field." I'm sure Karl Rove has already thought of all this, and is currently telling the president that he can win the spin game in the media over the issue, and hence make Democrats look bad. Remember, when Newt Gingrich shut down the government, popular opinion went against Congress and for Clinton. Rove is undoubtedly counting on the same thing happening.

So Democrats better have a good fallback plan, or they better put one together real soon. Here are the options they should consider to counter Bush's veto threat:

(1) Be nice, compromise in conference committee

When the conference committee meets, politely ask the White House where the "line in the sand" truly is -- in other words, which portions of the bill would have to be removed in order for Bush to sign it. This is doomed to failure, and the only reason to attempt it is to provide political cover for Democrats -- "See, we tried to compromise, but Bush wouldn't deal." But don't expect it to work, since Bush will stand firm and demand a "clean" bill. Remember, he wants to veto this bill. This is only an acceptable option in order to pay the idea some political lip service, then move on.


more...

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Unless the dems blink first, no money to the military in Iraq.

* blames the dems and tries the proven Rovian BS of how unpatriotic this group is and why do they hate America, etc. Except nobody's listening to him.

In the meantime, * will scramble to get money from other sources. (We don't have the money anyway; the bill is just permission to borrow YET MORE money.) Iran-Contra Part Deux.

[Monkeyman]

2. The Nut Case called Bush needs to go now

[Sammy Pepys]

3. Question for the room...

When the conference committee meets, politely ask the White House where the "line in the sand" truly is -- in other words, which portions of the bill would have to be removed in order for Bush to sign it.

Does anyone think Congress would actually do something like this? They are the legislators, not the President. That would essentially grant him a line item veto.

I just can't see Congress giving him that kind of leeway. Besides, he'll just say "remove the timeline for withdrawal" and then we're back to square one.

[damntexdem]

4. Then Dems in Congress need to hold the line:

no money without strings, without benchmarks. Of course, it would be better if it were simply no money; but no money without strings will be good enough so long as Dubya won't accept it.

Meanwhile, the drumbeat needs to be: Dubya vetoed funding for the troops, and GOP senators and representatives refused to override.