On Tuesday, the Senate rejected a measure that would have removed withdrawal timelines from the spending measure that would fund the war in Iraq. Today, despite the president’s veto threat, the Senate passed the whole package.
Senate Democrats ignored a veto threat and pushed through a bill Thursday requiring President Bush to start withdrawing troops from “the civil war in Iraq,” dealing a rare, sharp rebuke to a wartime commander in chief.
In a mostly party line 51-47 vote, the Senate signed off on a bill providing $122 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also orders Bush to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage while setting a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008.
The vote came shortly after Bush invited all House Republicans to the White House to appear with him in a sort of pep rally to bolster his position in the continuing war policy fight.
“We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we’ve got a troop in harm’s way, we expect that troop to be fully funded,” Bush said, surrounded by Republicans on the North Portico.
Well, Mr. President, you’re in luck. The House and Senate bills fully fund the military and provide all the resources the military needs. All it requires now is your signature.
Of course, that doesn’t appear likely. Bush is willing to take a very serious gamble: veto the funding for the war and the troops, hope Americans blame Congress, and trust that Dems will back down in the face of pressure.
The president told reporters yesterday:
“Members of Congress need to stop making political statements, and start providing vital funds for our troops. They need to get that bill to my desk so I can sign it into law.
“Now, some of them believe that by delaying funding for our troops, they can force me to accept restrictions on our commanders that I believe would make withdrawal and defeat more likely. That’s not going to happen. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible.”
It’s a test for the congressional Dems’ message machine, isn’t it? They’re funding the war, giving resources to the troops, and rejecting any delays. If Bush vetoes the spending measure, it will be the president who is denying funds for our troops on the front lines.
Look at this way: in 2004, John Kerry and John Edwards had good reasons to oppose a spending measure for the war in Iraq. They believed it was a blank-check bill with no accountability, which backed a failed policy with no plans for success.
On the campaign trail, everywhere he went, Bush told backers, “I went to the United States Congress and asked for $87 billion of supplemental funding, necessary funding to support our troops in harm’s way…. Only 12 United States senators voted against the funding for our troops, two of whom were my opponent and his running mate…. Only four members of the United States Senate voted to authorize the use of force, and then voted against providing the funding necessary for our troops in combat. Two of those four were my opponent and his running mate.”
It didn’t matter why they voted against funding for the troops; it only mattered that they rejected the spending measure. To oppose a military spending bill was necessarily to stand against the men and women in uniform. Reasons for opposition were little more than weak excuses.
Three years later, it’s the president who opposes a spending bill for the troops. He wants to keep troops in Iraq, but he opposes the measure funding the troops in Iraq — because Dems included a withdrawal timeline that Americans support by a nearly two-to-one margin.
Stay tuned.