When it comes to funding the war in Iraq, Dems (who enjoy public support and majority status in both chambers) feel like they have no choice but to back away from their recently passed withdrawal plan. Conversely, congressional Republicans (who have neither support nor the majority) feel like they have no choice but to back away from the White House policy.
First, the Dems.
President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.
Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president’s veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability, “transition” the U.S. military role and show “a reasonable way to end this war.”
Here’s the deal: Dems don’t have the votes to cut off funding for the war, so they feel like they have to pass something. A withdrawal timeline won’t get the president’s signature, so they’re slowly backing away from the spending bill that was vetoed. They could, of course, pass another appropriations bill with another timeline, but Dem leaders believe they’re running out of time — another veto could delay funding for troops in the field. For reasons that remain unclear, they think they’d be blamed for a funding shortfall.
At this point, we’re looking at what seems to be a trial balloon — they haven’t formally said they’ve given up on a withdrawal timeline, but in effect are saying, “If we did, what would we get?”
And in the meantime, congressional Republicans seem more and more willing to get further and further away from the president’s policy.
“Obviously, the president would prefer a straight funding bill with no benchmarks, no conditions, no reports,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). “Many of us, on both sides of the aisle, don’t see that as viable.”
Collins, who opposed Bush’s troop buildup but balked at the Democratic withdrawal plan, is working on legislation that would require Iraqis to meet certain goals to receive U.S. reconstruction aid.
Most Republicans are expected to stick with the White House until September, when the U.S. military commander in Iraq plans to deliver a major assessment of the president’s war strategy. Bush in January ordered the deployment of an additional 21,500 troops to try to stabilize Iraq.
But the call for establishing benchmarks with concrete consequences challenges the position of the president and GOP leaders, much as the Democrats did when they tried to link the same measurements with a troop withdrawal.
And it comes as some Republicans are calling on colleagues to take a more independent position on the war after years of deferring to the White House.
“We have to be engaged developing our own proposals and not just going along with what the executive branch is doing,” said Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., a Louisiana Republican who voted against the Democratic plan to force Bush to start withdrawing troops.
Rep. Jack Kingston, a Georgia Republican who has supported Bush’s war strategy even as the public has turned against it, said, “The marketplace has become ripe for a new idea.”
An article in subscription-only Roll Call suggested the split within the Republican caucus is big and getting bigger. House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (Fla.) have reportedly urged the GOP caucus to embrace a “consequences package” that would tie benchmarks for the Iraqi government to reconstruction aid. Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) opposes the policy, and it’s unclear which faction has more votes.
“We’re getting increasingly frustrated with the White House’s unwillingness to reach out to us and talk to us,” said one Republican Member. “We need to have three good months on the war or Republicans are going to jump from this White House, maybe not into the arms of [Speaker] Nancy Pelosi [D-Calif.], but they’ll be keeping their distance from the White House.”
The Member also criticized the lack of movement by Bush and his team to provide ways of measuring progress in Iraq. “I agree that no one’s won a war by announcing their surrender date, but nobody’s won a war without benchmarks and timelines.”
Dems are moving closer to the president; Republicans are moving further away from the president, and no one has any idea what the post-veto spending bill might look like. Stay tuned.
Update: Greg Sargent reports that Pelosi’s office denies the accuracy of the Post article. A Pelosi aide said, “Not true. Speaker just told members of the Democratic caucus that the story is totally untrue. We are still deciding what provisions the new bill will include.”