Would Bush veto funding for the war twice?

May 9, 2007

After the president vetoed the last congressionally-backed war-funding bill, there was widespread speculation about what Democratic lawmakers would try next. Yesterday, House Dems appeared to rally behind a new plan, which would give Bush all the funding he wants, with no withdrawal timeline — in kind of a down-payment plan.

A House Democratic proposal introduced yesterday that would give President Bush half of the money he has requested for the war effort, with a vote in July on whether to approve the rest, hinges on progress in meeting political benchmarks that Iraq has thus far found difficult to achieve.

The House measure, which could come to a vote as early as tomorrow, would substantially raise the pressure on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government to meet lagging commitments — including new laws on oil revenue and de-Baathification, constitutional revisions, provincial elections and the demobilization of militias — that Bush has said are crucial to the success of the U.S. military strategy.

Here’s the deal: Bush wants $95.5 billion right now to fund the wars. According to the House Dem plan, Bush would get $43 billion now, which would finance the war through July, and the rest would be contingent on the White House demonstrating some kind of progress in Iraq.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) came up with the plan and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said it could be brought to the floor as early as tomorrow. Even some House Republicans thought the idea had merit — Rep. Jim Gerlach (Pa.) said he saw an advantage in freeing up part of the money immediately while holding Iraqi feet to the fire. “Do we need to put things out in front of the Iraqi government that makes them realize they have to do certain things to continue the support of the American people? Absolutely,” Gerlach said.

Yesterday, the White House didn’t sound fond of the idea. Tony Snow described the approach as “bad management.” Today, the Bush gang went quite a bit further, vowing to veto the spending measure.

How many times is the president prepared to reject funding for the war? I would suggest he might pay a political price, but with a 28% approval rating, I suspect he’s at rock bottom anyway.

It’s worth repeating that Snow’s arguments that it doesn’t allow long-term planning/contracts are 100% disingenuous. It’s an “emergency supplemental” bill either way Tony! If you wanted good management and the ability to forecast long-term purchases, maybe you should have put the spending in the BUDGET.

I think it’s a good strategy for the Democrats. Forces the WH to demonstrate some kind of progress to get more money. Given what congressional republicans are saying about needing to demonstrate progress, it seems possible to override a veto.

  • When the bad management administration gives its seal of disapproval on a plan, it is by definition then not a bad management idea.

  • ‘Rock bottom’? Doubt it.

    They’re desperate for the filthy lucre. Drooling for it. Good. Please let them sweat.

  • So if they are offered half, no strings, Bush is going to stamp his little feet & veto it?
    Will he be sucking his thumb & wailing “I WANT IT ALL !”
    Like a two year old?

  • It’s all the Republicans who still hope to keep their jobs who will be sweating it if Bush vetos this one, too. Will it be enough to get them to jump his sinking ship at last? Too soon to tell but time is one thing they don’t have a lot of left.

  • Dunno…sometimes I wish somebody senior in the House of Representatives or Senate…someone recognized as an impeccable Democratic Party hawk (don’t think it’s Murtha anymore – he has been effectively swiftboated by the opposition) would float the idea that the Dem’s are going to turn off the appropriations tap period – no emergency supplemental, nada…that the supplemental Bush just vetoed was his best offer and that it’s in Bush’s court now….that it is incumbent for Bush as the Commander in Chief to safeguard the troops with the money he has and prepare for re-deployment or withdrawal…and just see how the focus groups react to it.

    Otherwise, it just boils down to which party – Republican or Democratic – is best positioning itself to avoid the blame for the Iraq debacle in the 2008 elections…

  • Bu$h dropped to 28% right after he vetoed funding. Let’s see what happens when he vetoes again. Who knows? Bu$h might be the only living thing in the entire universe that’ll make Nixon look good.

    Rock bottom, by the way, is 0%—and the Bu$hylvanian mentality includes an ample supply of fire-axes and chainsaws to cut through the bottom of the barrel when they hit that level.

    Only in Bu$hylvania….

  • “Who knows? Bu$h might be the only living thing in the entire universe that’ll make Nixon look good.”

    Too late. Have you not seen the political calculation?

    Bush minus brains = Nixon

  • Recommended discipline to a regressed toddler> Give him a time out. Set limits. Consistently enforce those limits, even when his henchmen playmates are around. Do not back down. Refuse to be victimized. If he can’t play nice, he can’t play at all.

  • Nixon had an approval rating of 23%.
    Truman bottomed out at 22%, the lowest I’m aware of.

    Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment is probably the only reason he’s ahead of Nixon.

  • Well, according to the AP, Bush will indeed veto.

    “I want it — I want it — I want it — I want it! ”
    [ You ca-a-a-a-a-a-n’t have it! ]

  • The problem is (and no, I don’t have a good solution) that, regardless of the supplementary funding, the Pentagon will continue to prosecute the war, per the president’s orders. The only net effect will be that non-direct war costs will be cut (services on military installations, for example).

    And so, we end up with our catch-22. Fund the war, and screw the soldiers by sending all of them to war, or don’t fund the war, and screw them by eliminating/streamlining training and other services on the home end…

    That’s not a doomsday thing. The pentagon has already put out guidelines as to which services will be cut on which dates (okay, I know, politics is playing its hand here too…) if funding is not approved.

    So, the big question is, how do we deal with this? Impeachment is the ONLY logical option. Anything else, and the president will keep on ignoring things, just like he has all along…

  • ***Too late.***
    ———————-BuzzMon

    Nixon’s been in the ground for a while now; he’s probably looking pretty nasty. But—he’ll look “mah-vellous” compared to Bu$h if the frat-brat keeps vetoing war funding legislation.

    Plus, I promise not to shed a single tear if NCD* gets whacked in Baghdad.

    *(NoCojonesDick)

  • The proposed (by Cheney) Iraqi Oil Law.

    Kurds 5% of profit
    Sunnis 5% of profit
    Shi’ite 15% of profit
    American Oil Companies 75% of profit

    Do you have to imagine Russian, French or Chinese Oil companies saying they will agree to rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure for only 50% of the profit to see why this stupid oil law is NEVER going to be passed?

  • Actually, doesn’t the Pentagon already have enough funding to last through to July? Wouldn’t this additional $43B add on enough money for another 3 months past that point to September?

  • they should add another clause….Bush gets all the money he asked for in TWO installments, as it is proposed… BUT… BIG BUT — If by July the news is bad, then the rest of the money will ONLY be used to bring the troops home in an orderly manner

    • Comments are closed.