‘We cannot give the president a blank check’

The meeting — the president insisted it was not a negotiation — between congressional leaders and Bush at the White House yesterday went off without a hitch. The president said he would veto anything that isn’t a blank check, while congressional Dems said they’d pass anything but a blank check.

Moving closer to a showdown over funding the war in Iraq, President Bush and congressional Democratic leaders emerged from a much-anticipated White House meeting Wednesday without progress toward ending an impasse over an emergency spending bill.

Despite Bush’s veto threat, the Democrats continued to press ahead with legislation that would force the administration to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

“We cannot give the president a blank check,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said after the meeting, which included House and Senate Republican leaders.

House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters after the chat, “We can’t pass legislation over his veto, and he can’t pass legislation that we don’t agree with.” In other words, there’s no progress to speak of.

Asked if the meeting changed anything, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said flatly: “No.” For a change, I think Boehner actually got this one right.

What happens next? Who’s going to budge? That depends largely on who you ask.

Greg Sargent spoke to a source familiar with the details of the meeting and heard that Dems were firm with the president and showed no signs of backing down.

Reid told Bush that he understood that the White House would come after Congressional Dems after the veto of the bill with everything they had; Reid vowed to respond every bit as aggressively.

“Reid talked about a recent conversation he had with a retired general where they talked about the similarities between the current situation and Vietnam,” the source relates. “He talked about how the President and Secretary of Defense [during Vietnam] knew that the war was lost but continued to press on at the cost of thousands of additional lives lost.”

“The analogy to Vietnam appeared to touch a nerve with the President. He appeared a little sensitive to it,” the source continued. “And he clearly didn’t like to hear people in the room say that the war couldn’t be won militarily.”

The WaPo, meanwhile, suggests Dems on the verge of making major concessions.

Congressional Democratic leaders are moving to make their proposed timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq “advisory” as they seek to reconcile two versions of war spending legislation into a single bill that they plan to pass next week, according to several House members.

The compromise language would keep the deadlines included in the original House bill but make them nonbinding, as the Senate version did, and would allow President Bush to waive troop-readiness standards, lawmakers said. Bush has vowed to veto legislation with timetables in it, calling it a schedule of surrender, but Democrats hope to show that they are being flexible and the president rigid by softening the terms.

Whether the votes are there for something like this remains unclear. Pelosi struggled to keep liberals on board with a withdrawal timeline that would bring troops home over the next year (the Out of Iraq Caucus, with 80 members, wants an immediate withdrawal). If congressional leaders make too many concessions, the House may struggle to pass any kind of “compromise” at all.

This is going to get ugly.

I suggest that Democrats keep repeating, “What’s the difference between Iraq and Vietnam? Answer: George Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam.”

Funny enough, and simultaneously hits Bush in two weaknesses.

  • ***The WaPo, meanwhile, suggests Dems on the verge of making major concessions.***

    I do hereby place before the blogosphere a motion to rename the WaPo the “DubyaPo.” Can I have a second? All those in favor signify by saying “aye.” Those opposed should note that Foxnoise is hiring….

    This is going to get ugly.

    Warfare usually is. Maybe it’s time for the pompous little prickly pear of Pennsylvania Avenue to discover that a new front has opened in his Iraq debacle—and it’s centered just a wee bit down the road from the WH….

  • Now I DID hear that Levin had already begun work on a new bill…

    I say if the Dems have to budge, a bit, it shouldn’t happen until the President has vetoed a bill or two. And each time make it perfectly clear, Congress has done its job—that he is getting every dollar he asks for and that the troops need, but he want no strings attached and that time has passed. He had four years of no accountability.

    His veto is “not supporting the troops”, Congress is willing to give them whatever they need.

    Oh, and I LOVE the Vietnam line.

  • ‘We cannot give the president a blank check’

    No kidding. Though it would be entertaining to watch Bush try to figure out how to fill out a blank check correctly.

  • It’s time for a showdown. Bush needs someone to publicly challenge him. Win or lose on legislation, more Americans will continue to lose patience with him.

  • “We can’t pass legislation over his veto”?

    WTF?

    Who the hell cares? The American people CLEARLY want us out of Iraq, and last time I checked Congress works for THEM.

    If anyone wants to stay in Iraq, they can go there and stay there. Personally. But the American people want our kids out of there ASAP. They have heard all the arguments. They want ACTION.

    If the Republicans want to spend their last terms in office giving the American people the middle finger, there’s not much we can do about it, and we certainly shouldn’t bend over and let them screw the American people yet again by offering up “optional timetables”. Bush would sign the bill, blow right through the timetables (citing “emergencies”) then of course the next Republican presidential lying scumbag candidate will promise a “secret plan” to win the war and get us out of Iraq.

    But are the American people are dumb enough to fall for that kind of shit? Just look at the 2004 elections for the answer to that. Look at the margins in many of the 2006 elections.

    Most Americans want the hell out of Iraq. If Dems can’t pull the plug on a war that’s this unpopular and this damaging to the USA, then they are near worthless.

    If Dems cave to the Worst President Ever, they will lose the confidence of the American people.

  • Why BushCo needs a blank check:

    The secret plan is to drown the country in debt so that it can’t afford national health care, public education, social security.

    I am surprised I am apparently the only person in America that realizes this…

    Two nice results of the secret plan:

    1) Winning the war is not necessary… funding it is.

    (Does this not explain the raging incompetence under which the war has been waged?)

    2) They can simultaneously enrich certain corporations that fund their party and employ them when they leave public office.

    (The so-called “revolving door” isn’t a door. It is the golden elevator of America’s secret aristocracy.)

  • He doesn’t want a blank check. He wants it filled in for another $100 billion. And my money’s on him getting it, too. I’m sorry, but I just don’t think the Dems have the courage of their convictions. Grrrrr.

  • “The analogy to Vietnam appeared to touch a nerve with the President. He appeared a little sensitive to it,”

    Yes, he doesn’t like to be reminded of his “service” back then.

    As to making it non-binding, do these Democratic boobs not read the polls? They are so far behind the public they are out of sight lost in the dust! 37% (in two polls now) support Asshat’s idea,61% want the Congress to set deadlines to get out. Non-binding my ass! The good people should vote no on it and let the “leaders” bend over and spread for President Asshat like they want to.

  • “The analogy to Vietnam appeared to touch a nerve with the President. He appeared a little sensitive to it,” the source continued. “And he clearly didn’t like to hear people in the room say that the war couldn’t be won militarily.”

    Why should he be sensitive to analogies to Vietnam? Having been continuously high or drunk in those years, he obviously doesn’t remember it. Otherwise we never would have been in Iraq.

  • Yes Tom, Ed, et al, but in the senate Dems have only a one vote margin, and we know who that is. Another Dem senator is absent in convalescence. Among the remaining Dems there are for sure one or two waverers — there always are, so it’s a knife-edge business trying to get any vote that contradicts the president’s Iraq stance passed. There are only very few republicans motivated to cross the floor against their president’s edict. At least, that’s my perception.

    I say this, not to make excuses for any shakiness that may actually exist on the Dem side, but to try to assess their true commitment. I don’t know, but I’m inclined to believe their commitment is currently strong and realistic. It’s the exigences of the political balance in the senate that is the problem.

    Would that be fair?

  • I don’t think it was just the analogy to Vietnam that the President is sensitive to – it’s dissent in any form. He only employs syncophants or if people do disagree with him, they have to play games to make it his idea.

  • I agree with Tom Cleaver and Racerx – let Bush veto this. See if his efforts to say the Dems aren’t funding the troops holds up. The Dems can say, No, Mr. Preznit – you’re not funding the troops.

    I have a feeling the middle ground Dems want to cave in but here’s hoping the more left-leaning (Feingold, etc) don’t want to give up this fight. I definitely hear the argument that giving the preznit his money makes this his war for the 2008 election purposes. But I also think caving could make the electorate think that it’s just politics as usual and that there’s no difference between the Dems and GOP since both sides will have given Bush what he wants (which is not what the people want).

    I say do the right thing. Tell Bush that he goes to war with the limitations that Congress puts on him. If he doesn’t like it, he can go be preznit of some other banana republic.

    This one has had enough.

  • Gates and Rice, as reported here yesterday, both said a timetable was a good thing, as it put pressure on the Iraqis to get their house in order.

    Most Americans believe that a military victory is now not possible in Iraq.

    The US military cannot sustain operations in Iraq indefinitely, and this nation’s ability to respond to any crisis in another part of the world hasn’t been this bad since the end of THE VIETNAM WAR (there’s that damn word again).

    Finally, if setting a timetable only “enboldens the enemy to lay low”, I have to ask: After four years of fighting, shouldn’t the threat from “the enemy” have been pretty much reduced considerably by now?

  • I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak.

    Politicians make no difference.

    We have bought into the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). If you would like to read how this happens please see:

    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/spyagency200703

    Through a combination of public apathy and threats by the MIC we have let the SYSTEM get too large. It is now a SYSTEMIC problem and the SYSTEM is out of control. Government and industry are merging and that is very dangerous.

    There is no conspiracy. The SYSTEM has gotten so big that those who make it up and run it day to day in industry and government simply are perpetuating their existance.

    The politicians rely on them for details and recommendations because they cannot possibly grasp the nuances of the environment and the BIG SYSTEM.

    So, the system has to go bust and then be re-scaled, fixed and re-designed to run efficiently and prudently, just like any other big machine that runs poorly or becomes obsolete or dangerous.

    This situation will right itself through trauma. I see a government ENRON on the horizon, with an associated house cleaning.

    The next president will come and go along with his appointees and politicos. The event to watch is the collapse of the MIC.

    For more details see:

    http://rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com/2006/11/inside-pentagon-procurement-from.html

  • Comments are closed.