As expected, Bush vetoed funding for the war in Iraq yesterday, only the second veto of his presidency (the first was his rejection of funding for life-saving medical research). The president delivered a four-minute speech about his motivation for the veto yesterday afternoon, with most of the predictable arguments we’ve heard before.
I found the Democrats’ response more interesting.
Democrats concede they do not have enough votes to override the veto. But, speaking in the Capitol shortly after Mr. Bush’s remarks, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, and the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said they would not be deterred from pushing the president as hard as they could to bring the troops home.
“If the president thinks by vetoing this bill he will stop us from working to change the direction of the war in Iraq, he is mistaken,” Mr. Reid said. He added, “Now he has an obligation to explain his plan to responsibly end this war.”
It was a subtle phrase, which most of the media ignored, but Reid was actually making an important political point. For years, the Republicans have argued, “Dems don’t like Bush’s war policy, but they don’t have one of their own.” Obviously, that no longer applies. Yesterday, however, Reid framed the debate in an entirely different way: “We have a plan to responsibly end the war. Where’s the Republican plan?”
I doubt that this was accidental, and I hope this is a frame Dems will pick up on. That the war needs to end no longer seems controversial; the question is how. The White House prefers an open-ended commitment that necessarily has to remain in place indefinitely. So the question for Dems to keep asking war supporters is, “Where’s your plan for an end game?”
As for congressional Republicans, they’re standing behind Bush’s veto today, but they also seem poised to bolt before the end of the summer.
The Wall Street Journal noted that “major defections” amongst the GOP ranks are all but inevitable.
Republican moderates, such as former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner of Virginia, are already demanding a greater voice in the second round of talks on war funding. Rep. Ray LaHood (R., Ill.), who has been loyal to the president, said he and other Republican lawmakers will have to reassess their support if military commander Gen. David Petraeus and the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki don’t show more progress by September.
“Republicans are going to give Bush an opportunity, but if it isn’t working in September, a lot of members will be very nervous,” Mr. LaHood said. “I think the big benchmark is September.”
“If things don’t improve,” Mr. LaHood said, “the leadership is going to come under pressure from members to go down and tell the president: ‘If you are not willing to pivot, to make some dramatic changes, you are on your own.'” (emphasis added)
September’s importance is twofold. Gen. Petraeus last week promised lawmakers that he will be able to give a fuller assessment then on his success in curbing sectarian violence in Baghdad. It is also the last month of the fiscal year, when Congress will have to deal with another $141 billion funding request by the president to help pay for the war into 2008.
The trick for Dems, then, is how to exacerbate Republican divisions. How about a short-term spending measure that expires in September?
As for all the talk about “benchmarks,” the NYT reported, “Several Republican leaders said Tuesday that they were likely to support such benchmarks, and White House aides said Tuesday that Mr. Bush, who has supported goals and benchmarks for the Iraqi government, might back such a measure — but only if the benchmarks are nonbinding.”
In other words, the White House message to Congress is, “Give us all the money we want, with no strings attached, and we’ll tell Maliki to try real hard.” It’s a persuasive pitch, isn’t it?
As for the “negotiations” — Bush is scheduled to meet with congressional leaders from both parties today — GOP lawmakers seem to realize that the president’s no-compromise position might need a little flexibility. Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) told the WaPo that “some kind of compromise has to be worked out…. That’s how it’s done. Everybody holds their nose and maybe a couple of times vomits, but you get it done.”
Stay tuned.