House and Senate Democrats recently passed a bill providing funds for the war in Iraq. The difference this time is that it contains strong language requiring most troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by July of 2008. Not surprisingly, Bush has threatened to veto any bill that “tells the terrorists which calendar day to circle” (paraphrased).
Now, Congress cannot stop Bush from waging war without impeaching him and removing him from office, even if it were 100% Democratic and voted that way. But Congress controls the budget. They have essentially said “we’ll give you the money as long as you leave next year”.
So if you’re Bush, what do you do? Acquiesce? Unthinkable. Scare the public and divert attention by instigating a war with Iran? Let’s hope not. The only other option is to veto the bill and claim that Democrats are “hurting the troops” and “emboldening the enemy”. That’s what he’s doing. Unfortunately for Bush, a substantial majority of the American public wants the troops home too. Bush has even claimed that he’s being forced to cut funds for up-armoring humvees, never mind that he sent them in under-armored in the first place.
But shortsighted Democrats have left him a way out: they larded up the bill with unrelated spending measures, such as spinach subsidies and funding for peanut storage. Now Bush can veto the bill claiming it was a waste of taxpayers money as well as an enemy emboldener. This way, voters can choose their reason to side with him.
Democrats should have known better. The logical response to this move is simply to cut out all the unrelated spending (”pork”) and re-submit the bill for signing or veto. This will do two things:
- Focus the issue on the withdrawal from Iraq, where Bush is weakest;
- Show a willingness to compromise. This is key when there is an impasse and inaction will invite a negative public reaction (in this case, troops not being funded if the bill is vetoed).
Let Bush stake his ground on an open-ended war. It will only get lonelier for him.
