Last week, NBC reported rumors that several Republican senators are prepared to “pull the plug” on the war in August unless there’s “real progress.” This week, House Republicans are looking kind of antsy, too.
A diverse collection of House Republicans has formed an ad hoc group to negotiate with the White House on a compromise Iraq spending bill, Politico’s Ryan Grim reports. The group plans to hold talks with National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, who has been working behind the scenes to cement opposition among Republicans to the spending bill that would require U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq at some point.
The group includes five Republicans, diverse in geography and ideology: Reps. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, Charles Boustany of Louisiana, Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska, Mac Thornberry of Texas and Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland. Of the five, only Gilchrest broke with his party to support a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.
Now, Gilchrest says the group will encourage the White House to compromise on negotiations with Syria and Iran and on setting a date for withdrawal from Iraq. And the group has national security bona fides that will help it be taken seriously.
Taken seriously by whom? The Bush White House? Please. Raise your hand if you expect Bush, Cheney, and Rove to entertain the suggestions of Republican lawmakers who want to see the president negotiate with Democrats before a veto. Yesterday, Bush said he’s willing to berate Dem lawmakers, but isn’t willing to listen to them. It’s safe to assume he doesn’t care what Gilchrest thinks. At least not yet.
Nevertheless, that five high-ranking House Republicans are involved with a behind-the-scenes push seems significant. Indeed, Gilchrest seems to accept the basic Democratic premise: “The president needs to let the Iraqis know we won’t be there forever.”
Forget conference committees, vetoes, benchmarks, and money — this is what the entire debate comes down to.
Indeed, this is the odd funding debate in which both sides already agree to spend the exact same amount of money on the exact same things. With money off the table, we move on to the real issue.
The president and his unwavering allies believe the war in Iraq must be open-ended. No timelines, no enforced benchmarks, no exit strategy. When Iraq can govern, sustain, and defend itself, they’ll think about bringing the troops home. When might that be? They don’t know, and frankly, don’t care. It doesn’t matter when; it matters how.
These five Republicans — not a moderate in the bunch — seem to realize this is folly. And, apparently, they’re feeling the political heat. The fact that they’re going to the White House and saying, “Hey guys, how about a little flexibility here?” points to a potential problem for the president — they’re the first cracks in the dam.
These five no longer want an open-ended commitment. If these five represent a larger group of Republicans on the Hill, the cracks in the dam could burst.
To be sure, this may not matter in the very short term. Congress will send Bush funding for the troops and Bush will veto it. If Dems can stick together, Republicans will be on the spot — stand with the unpopular president in support of a war with no end or open the door to ending the war. In March, they backed Bush. In April, they seem to be hedging.
Time will tell how this plays out, and I’m not naive enough to think there might actually be a veto-proof majority in the works. But if the veto causes a stalemate, and a large contingent of conservative Republicans start publicly calling for some kind of withdrawal timeline, the landscape will favor the Dems.
Stay tuned.