For most of the fall, the White House has taken a very proactive approach to opposing any congressional measure that might hinder the ability to torture detainees. In September and October, Bush said, in no uncertain terms, that he’d veto a defense appropriations bill that prohibited prisoner abuse. In response to the threat, the Senate voted 90-9 to do it anyway.
The White House stayed firm, insisting that Bush really would veto the bill if came to his desk with the provision in tact. And the Bush gang stuck to that line, right up until they pretty much accepted defeat yesterday.
The White House has all but abandoned its effort to persuade Senator John McCain to exempt Central Intelligence Agency employees from legislation barring inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners in American custody. But a top presidential aide continued to negotiate a deal on Tuesday that would offer covert officers some protection from prosecution, administration and Senate officials said. […]
White House officials and [McCain spokeswoman Eileen McMenamin] refused to discuss the negotiations, saying they were private conversations. But administration officials concede that Mr. McCain’s provision, which would also require a uniform standard on how to interrogate detainees, stands a strong chance of becoming law, despite a White House threat to veto any legislation containing it.
Two points come to mind. One, I’m glad the White House finally stopped fighting this. It was a losing battle from the beginning, both politically and legislatively. (Did anyone really think it was a good idea to send Cheney to the Hill, more than once, to lobby on behalf of torture?) Besides, even if Bush did veto the appropriations bill, there would be plenty of votes to override it, which would have been an even bigger political debacle for the Bush gang.
Two, is it me or does Congress not seem particularly intimidated by Bush veto threats?
To be sure, Bush is still on track to be the first president in nearly 180 years to serve a full term or more without vetoing a single bill. That said, he’s been rather cavalier about issuing threats — without backing them up.
It started early on. In the 2000 campaign, Bush pledged to veto a McCain-Feingold campaign-finance bill. Congress passed it anyway and the president signed it. The precedent was set — Bush will talk about vetoes, but he won’t follow through. It’s become something of a pattern.
* Bush said he’d veto any highway bill that exceeded $256 billion. Congressional Republicans passed a $286 billion bill and Bush essentially said, “Close enough.”
* Bush said he’d veto a bi-partisan measure that would expand federal funding for stem-cell research. The House responded by passing the bill anyway, while the Senate responded by adding enough co-sponsors that the bill would pass with a veto-proof majority.
* Bush said he’d veto a change to the Patriot Act that would block the Justice Department from searching library and bookstore records. The day after, the House voted 238-187 to do it anyway.
And now it’s happened again over McCain’s torture provision. It’s possible, just possible, that if the president had a little more credibility with his own party, this wouldn’t happen quite so often. Instead, Bush pretends to be a “say what I mean, mean what I say” kind of guy, but no one really believes him.