How to respond to Bush’s veto threat

Following up on the last post, one of the benefits of today’s presidential press conference was it offered an opportunity to hear Bush’s pitch. The [tag]House[/tag] and [tag]Senate[/tag] have both approved measures that fund the war that include [tag]withdrawal[/tag] [tag]timeline[/tag]s, and we know it’s going to draw a [tag]veto[/tag]. Today, the [tag]president[/tag] laid his cards on the table.

“In a time of war, it’s irresponsible for the Democrat leadership — Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds. The bottom line is this: Congress’s failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. And others could see their loved ones headed back to the war sooner than they need to. That is unacceptable to me, and I believe it is unacceptable to the American people.

“Members of Congress say they support the troops. Now they need to show that support in deed, as well as in word. Members of Congress are entitled to their views and should express them. Yet debating these differences should not come at the expense of funding our troops.

“Congress’s most basic responsibility is to give our troops the equipment and training they need to fight our enemies and protect our nation. They’re now failing in that responsibility, and if they do not change course in the coming weeks, the price of that failure will be paid by our troops and their loved ones.”

If someone who hasn’t paid any attention at all were listening to this, they’d assume [tag]Congress[/tag] had cut funding for the military, delayed the appropriations process, and planned to deny resources to the troops. All of this — literally, every word — is complete nonsense. Every single point the president made in those three paragraphs is wrong or misleading.

The question then becomes how best for [tag]Democrats[/tag] to respond. In a pleasant surprise, I think they’ve actually learned a few things about message development.

“Democrats will send President [tag]Bush[/tag] a bill that gives our troops the resources they need and a strategy in Iraq worthy of their sacrifices,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said. “If the President vetoes this bill he will have delayed funding for troops and kept in place his strategy for failure.”

Thank you, Sen. Reid. That’s the right answer.

This morning, Bush tried aggressively to frame the debate — the troops need resources, the White House doesn’t like the way Congress would provide those resources, so therefore Congress needs to change. Why? Because the president says so.

That might even work if Bush were arguing from a position of strength, or if reality were on his side, but since neither is the case, Congress has zero incentive to go along with his nonsense.

Let’s put it another way. Here’s Bush’s approach to the current funding showdown:

1. Fully fund the troops.
2. Embrace a plan with toothless, unenforced benchmarks.
3. The [tag]war[/tag] in [tag]Iraq[/tag] must remain an open-ended commitment, indefinitely.
4. Withdrawal would be a disaster.

Here’s the Democratic approach:

1. Fully fund the troops.
2. Embrace a plan with enforced benchmarks.
3. The war in Iraq must not be open-ended.
4. The status quo is a disaster; phased withdrawal offers hope.

All the White House has left is banging on the table. Literally, that’s it. Cheney questions Dems’ patriotism, Bush pretends Congress isn’t funding the troops, and congressional Republicans hide, hoping no one asks them any questions.

The reality is, this is an easy one for the Dems. The public already agrees with them. Those three paragraphs I quoted from Bush’s press conference? Dems can take them and read them back, almost word for word, demanding the president sign the spending bill and get the troops the resources they need.

This morning was all about Bush trying to go on the offensive. It’s about shifting blame and pretending his weaknesses are strengths. Given his position, that’s crazy. Dems need to go on the offensive because they’re holding all the cards. Get on TV, hold press conferences, issue press releases, call reporters, and scream from the hilltops: “Bush is vetoing funding our troops, because he wants to stay in Iraq forever.”

The White House is convinced the public will stand behind him. Note to Dems: It’s time to show the president how wrong he is.

i have said this before in this space, as have many others. let bush veto the bill. there is no need to consider any other bill, if he doesn’t like this one, he gets nothing. let’s see how he supports the troops on that.

  • I think there’s still a healthy percentage of Americans who fear a precipitous withdrawal because of all the scare tactics Bush has laid down regarding the consequences of our pullout, so I would make sure to refer to all the military experts who say we can leave without it being the end of the world. I would remind people where that myth came from, and how Bush’s prognostication has been, well, TOTALLY 100% WRONG.

    As for the “fully fund the troops” bullet, I think it’s more accurate to say that Dems actually do that, but Bush underfunds the troops on their health care and other important benefits.

  • Get on TV, hold press conferences, issue press releases, call reporters, and scream from the hilltops: “Bush is vetoing funding our troops, because he wants to stay in Iraq forever.”

    DEMS rapid response to Repub attacks have been horrible at best…the Rahm Emanuel’s and the DLC folks dont want to appear to be Bush bashing so Dems have been overly cautious about calling this President out….well its high time to do that as troops lives are at stake….

    The ball is now in their court lets make some noise Dem Leadership

  • What about all the crap he was spewing about how the Democrats’ proposal would hurt the troops by cutting training and quality of life funding, among other things. Isn’t he the one who is sending wounded soldiers back to the war? Isn’t he the one who steadfastly opposes requirements that troops be fully trained and rested before going back? Isn’t he the one who is forcing our soldiers into multiple rotations without the required leave time in between? Do I need to mention Walter Reed? I hope the Democrats throw this right back in his face — hard.

  • I agree – let him veto it, and let it be clear that if Bush didn’t like that one, vetoing it won’t result in a weaker bill, but a stronger one. The Feingold bill will, instead of including non-binding goals for draw-downs, establish dates certain for re-deployment.

    It’s time Bush realized we are not playing by his rules, and it is imperative that the American people hear from those who crafted the bill exactly what is in it. We cannot allow someone who is completely out of touch with the will of the people, who has failed to fully equip and supply the troops in harm’s way, who has failed to fully support the veterans, who has failed to listen to his commanders, to be the one to be interpreting and explaining to the American people what is in this bill.

  • Is it just me or is he sounding more and more like a 2 year old. Democrat leadership…. we all know that snotty, juvenile insult – and he just felt the need to say it twice.

    It would be so nice if our president could act like an adult.

  • The days of Republicans simply making soothing sounds while they ease your pants down are over.

  • We got attacked by a bunch of Saudis financed by Saudis so we invaded Iraq.

    Only Congress can declare war.

    Send him his troop money with a declaration of war on Saudi Arabia.

  • It would be a big help to contact your dem reps and let them know they need to answer this crap as strongly as possible. I’ve got to believe we can build some momentum from this if we pick up the phone and let them know we want to hear them smack this nonsense down in every venue they have. Call them, email, write letters to your paper. It’s the only way we can make this stuff work for us.

  • I’d love to hear a Dem suggest that if the situation is so desperate BushBrat should be willing to dip into the $20 million “Mission Accomplished Poo-rade” fund.

    “We’ll use it to fund them over there so we can welcome them back here.”

  • Funniest line ever, from CNN’s report on this just now (I think by Ed Henry): “With Vice President Cheney looking on from behind a shrub, President Bush …..”

  • Just keep sending him the same bill. Let him find out just how toothless a veto threat is when HE’s the one who wants the money.

  • ET,

    The line was: “…it’s irresponsible for the Democrat leadership — Democratic leadership in Congress to delay.”

    Bush’s self-correcting himself was an obviously scripted line to agitate the Democrats and then appear respectable in his disagreement to many (brain dead). It’s just more clever thuggery.

  • As for how to deal with a veto, in my opinion if Bush doesn’t want the money to keep the troops in the field then Congress should appropriate a much smaller amount to bring them home. A few more months of the whining crybaby shit we saw today from Bush/Perino and there will be a national groundswell for impeachment.

  • Absolutely brilliant coverage, CB. Devastating. Withering. And good for Senator Reid.

    Bush really is (finally) coming across as a pathetic bag of liquid shit.

  • Good statement from Reid, but Dems need to be even stronger. The entire debate needs to be framed of the Dems NEEDING to intervene and provide accountability because Bush has been a colossal failure as commander in chief. This is the Dem’s best card. Bush has failed badly. Make it personal. Bush is a failure as commander in chief. If someone wants to defend his war record, let them. Otherwise, the man deserves nothing but scorn and ridicule. Even pretending this is a legitimate debate is a mistake.

    I want to hear the words Bush and failure in every leadership statement. It’s just a fact and needs to be said constantly.

  • Nicely done post, particularly the contrasting 4-point summaries of Bush and Democratic Party approaches.

  • Some of us wrote about propaganda techniques in earlier posts and CB’s first Bush quote provides an outstanding example of combining true and false statements in a way that seems to make sense, but is in fact a logical fallacy.

    Saying that it would be “irresponsible” to delay funds during a time of war would be a true statement — if that’s what was going on. Dems put this bill together more quickly than the last Republican Congress, and it DOES contain the needed funds. If anyone denies funding, it will be Bush; by vetoing the bill on the basis of conditions, he also rejects the funds.

    In his second sentence, Bush goes on to use the “bottom line” cliche, which usually indicates a summary fact is to follow — except that he follows with two claims pulled out of thin air that are in fact contradictory — but useful in that they play on emotional heartstrings. Bush follows this with how such results would be “unacceptable” — another statement that would be true IF the preceding statement to which he refers were true.

    From a propaganda standpoint, the quote is beautiful. And for all the incompetence and cluelessness we like to attribute to this WH, this kind of language does not come from monkeys pounding on typewriters. This is carefully crafted language intended to deceive the guy who is tired from a long day at work and just wants to sit down and watch the news.

  • While the hardcore left has no problem with sending Bush the same or less after he vetoes, the blue dogs will team up with the Republicans and give Bush what he wants.

    Bush is playing chicken and knows how to win because the Democrats refuse to show their cajones and stop funding now.

    Bush wins and it gives time for the surge to succeed. God bless our Constitution.

  • it’s already a fact that the troops in iraq will remain 2 months beyond their normal tour and the troops being deployed to iraq will be shipped out 1 month before there 1 year rest and recoup period.
    who is bush trying to bull shit.

  • How about all the regular ‘Carpetbagger’ readers who happen to live in Red States with Republican representatives/senators contacting their representatives, and keep bugging them with the facts. BUT… STICK to the facts without embelishing, because that’s all a republican needs, is to hold on to ONE measly exageration and your entire premise is no longer valid.

    Just wondering if there are any readers here who have the ‘elephant skin’ to endure the name calling from the right wingers if you were to post the FACTUAL information on their right wing blogs?

    It’s all nice that we seem to somewhat agree here, in the safety of our community, but how about once in a while call the right wing bloggers’ bluff by providing links to actual facts with legitimate links on their turf. I’m sure that at least a few will start doubting the lies spewed by some of the righ wingnuts.

    Just pondering, realizing that it is hard to get through the thick heads of some of them, but maybe worth a try?

  • re: Bruno @ 22. I live in a decidedly blue state, but wouldn’t be adverse to do some factual writing on right-wing blogs. Any specific ones you have in mind?

  • re: beep52 #23
    I wish I had more time to delve into all of it myself. As an example. In this thread, Harry Reid was praised for the response he had to President Bush’ tirade. I haven’t taken the time to check Harry Reid’s website to see whether he has a point by point explanation of his plan?
    I saw on the White House webpage that they had a point by point rebuke of Reid’s comment. I was shocked about the misrepresentation, but then again, I should have known.
    Maybe some tidbits of information about the dollar amounts that are funding the war and what it is designated for. Exact amounts and exact appropriations AND comparing it with the budget that Bush requested. I believe he was actually cutting some of the VA funding, etc… show the difference with what the Democrats are offering.

    Make it VERY clear that there is actually a difference between funding the war and funding the troops. Explain in detail that this plan funds the troops without funding the ill conceived war.

  • What happened to the idea (which I thought was brilliant) of sending Bush a one-month extension of funding, at exactly the level he asked for? He couldn’t veto it, because then he’d be delaying the funding, not Congress. Every month he’d have to trot out his b.s. again, and the Dem’s would have a month to debunk it, and a few more Republican candidates would see their chances evaporating and feel forced to switch positions…
     
    Month after month… by the end of 2007 every Republican presidential candidate, even McCain, would repudiate the war. How many months before every Republican candidate for any office would be demanding an end to the war?

  • Comments are closed.