The showdown between the president and Congress over funding the war in Iraq has led to a common, White House-generated myth: a veto will put the troops in jeopardy, denying them necessary resources. “Congress continues to pursue these [withdrawal] bills, and as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the field,” Bush said this week. “Funding for our forces in Iraq will begin to run out in mid-April. Members of Congress need to stop making political statements, and start providing vital funds for our troops.”
Politically, I’ve argued that this is likely to be a far bigger problem for Bush than congressional Dems, but this overlooks an important point: the myth isn’t true. The Congressional Research Service reports today that existing funds extend through July. For that matter, Slate’s Fred Kaplan explained that the disaster could be averted for even longer.
Administration officials invoke the time when President Bill Clinton vetoed the Republican Congress’ budget and House Speaker Newt Gingrich walked away, forcing the federal government to shut down — a series of events that politically tarnished the Republicans in the long run. Officials warn that the same thing will happen to the congressional Democrats if they force Bush to shut down the war.
That’s not going to happen. A story in today’s edition of the Hill outlines several ways the Pentagon could still get funds to the troops. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates could “reprogram” money from one account to another. He could shift “unobligated balances” from the operations and maintenance accounts. If worst comes to worst, he could invoke the Civil War-era Feed and Forage Act, which allows him to allocate money for the troops’ basic provisions without congressional approval.
Finally, it seems the Pentagon’s war chest won’t go bare until the beginning of June. If Bush vetoes the emergency-spending bill and Congress goes on recess till mid-April, it will be an administrative hassle but not a disaster.
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) said today, “This [CRS] study confirms that the President is once again attempting to mislead the public and create an artificial atmosphere of anxiety. He is using scare tactics to defeat bipartisan legislation that would change course in Iraq.”
Bush? Misleading scare tactics? You don’t say.
On a related note, Kaplan explained that Bush might actually benefit from the House Dems’ bill, if he’d bother to consider it on the merits.
[T]he House bill can also be read as a road map that Bush might fruitfully follow. Bush has laid out benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet; they’re pretty much the same as those laid out in the House bill. But Bush didn’t attach any penalties if the Iraqis didn’t meet them — or any rewards if they did. Without any incentives, the Iraqis will be inclined to take the easiest path — and do nothing that requires extraordinary measures or risks.
If Bush were shrewd, he would use the congressional bills themselves as potential penalties. He would thrust the documents in the faces of the Iraqi leaders and say, “This is what will happen if you guys don’t shape up. I don’t want to go this route, but the Democrats are going to make me. I’m not fully in control.”
It’s an old technique. Call it playing chicken or good cop/bad cop. Sometimes it works.
Maybe someone in the Bush administration is playing the game. Maybe some of the Democrats put forth the bill in the hopes that someone would play the game.
I wish. That would take a remarkable degree of sophistication on the part of the administration. After six years of nonsense, hopes that the Bush gang are clever enough to play an advanced diplomatic game are unfortunately misplaced.