Last week, the key legislative question in DC was whether Speaker Pelosi would be able to keep just enough House Democrats together to pass a massive bill funding the [tag]war[/tag] in [tag]Iraq[/tag], including timetables for withdrawal. When the measure passed, and Pelosi scored a major victory, it was almost considered symbolic — the Senate wouldn’t go for the House plan and the president was anxious to veto the measure, even though it fully funds the war he continues to support.
But as E. J. Dionne Jr. explained, the vote, which he described as “hugely significant,” may be part of a larger shift.
The vote is only the first of what will be many difficult roll calls potentially pitting Congress against the president on the conduct of war policy. It confirmed that power in Washington has indeed shifted. Bush and his Republican congressional allies had hoped Democrats would splinter and open the way for a pro-Bush resolution of the Iraq issue. Instead, antiwar Democrats, including Web-based groups such as MoveOn.org, discovered a common interest with their moderate colleagues.
Oddly, the president’s harsh rhetoric against the House version of the supplemental appropriations bill to finance the Iraq war may have been decisive in sealing Pelosi’s victory. “The vehemence with which the president opposed it made it clear to a lot of people that this was a change in direction and that it was significant,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of MoveOn, saw the Bush effect rallying his own antiwar membership. “Bush is our worst enemy,” Matzzie said, “and our best ally.”
Now, Van Hollen argues, Bush’s “take-it-or-leave-it” approach to the bill is also “hurting the political standing of his Republican colleagues” in Congress by forcing them to back an open-ended commitment in Iraq at a time when their constituents are demanding a different approach.
A similar dynamic is unfolding in the Senate, where it was assumed a GOP filibuster would scuttle any legislation that failed to give Bush everything he wants, exactly as he wants it. Now, the president’s open-ended, take-it-or-leave-it policy is slipping in that chamber, too.
Unwilling to do the White House’s heavy lifting on Iraq, Senate Republicans are prepared to step aside to allow language requiring troop withdrawals to reach President Bush, forcing him to face down Democratic adversaries with his veto pen.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) announced the shift in strategy yesterday, as the chamber took up a $122 billion war spending package that includes a target date of March 31, 2008, for ending most U.S. combat operations in Iraq. The provision, along with a similar House effort, represents the Democrats’ boldest challenge on the war, setting the stage for a dramatic showdown with Bush over an otherwise popular bill to keep vital military funds flowing.
There are multiple strategies and agendas at play here, but the bottom line here is that Congress will, when the smoke clears, probably pass a war-spending package that includes some kind of withdrawal language. Republicans appear reluctant to fight it, Democrats appear anxious to pass it, and the public overwhelmingly supports it.
To be sure, the House provisions almost certainly won’t stay intact, but even if any kind of timelines are included in the final package, that will represent a dramatic shift in Washington.
And what of the White House threats?
Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.), who will be one of his party’s negotiators as House and Senate appropriators sit down to hash out a compromise spending bill, suggested that a final version could include language similar to the Senate’s version setting goals for withdrawal without strict time limits.
What Republicans do not want is a presidential veto, Wamp said. That political showdown could harm the standing of both parties while dealing a real blow to the war effort.
“This is a time when we need to find a way to come together through this conference committee and find a way where the country can unite again,” Wamp said. “We need to respect each other’s opinions, and we need to avoid a presidential veto.”
The president has never been this close to standing completely alone.