That Just About Sums It Up
From President Bush’s address tonight:
Here’s why the bill Congress passed is unacceptable. First, the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq. That withdrawal could start as early as July 1st, and it would have to start no later than October 1st regardless of the situation on the ground.
It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq. I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure, and that would be irresponsible.
Second, the bill would impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat. After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would dictate the terms under which the remaining commanders and troops could engage the enemy. That means America’s commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C. This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops.
Third, the bill is loaded with billions of dollars in non- emergency spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror. Congress should debate these spending measures on their own merits and not as a part of an emergency funding bill for our troops.
The Democratic leaders know that many in Congress disagree with their approach and that there are not enough votes to override the veto. I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war. They sent their message, and now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need.
Every single word of the above is true – hell, even if you’re against the war with all your heart and soul, you can’t deny that…though I’m sure many Bush opponents will try.
To the Democrats, I say: enough! Put together a pull-out package strong enough to be veto-proof, or admit that you can’t stop the war right now and concentrate your fire on 2008…even some very strong conservative voices are saying you’ve got a real shot to extend your margins in the next election, and even with a Republican president, increased Democratic margins in 2008 spell the end of the war.
In other words – you’ve had your shot, you’ve made your point, you don’t have the votes, let’s get on with it…
And what if you think that you’re fighting in the middle of a civil war and not fighting terrorists?
Well, what if you do? I’m not saying the Democrats aren’t sincere, but at some point, you have to realize that you’re close to having enough votes, but you aren’t quite there. Sure, you can keep working public opinion, where you’re having some considerable success, but I doubt very seriously enough Republicans will defect for a veto-proof “pull the troops” bill – that’s why I say stand aside for now, and concentrate on November, 2008 (if I, as an admittedly die-hard war supporter, may be allowed to put on my strategy hat for the opposite party for a moment)…if things don’t improve by late Summer, early Fall, then you may have an entirely different situation in terms of Republican defections, though…
Your suggestion seemed to be how could anybody argue with the President’s comments.. well, my contribution was that you could easily disagree with him if your conceptualization of war was that it is a civil war and NOT part of the “war on terror.” The majority of the congress and American people are of that opinion.
Asking not suggesting here: what about providing funding until October 2007 and requiring re-authorization at that point? Or is that too easy to spin as “underfunding the troops?”
Well, explain what part of the President’s comments I excerpted above would be false if it was a civil war and not part of the “War on Terror”. I think the comments stand true regardless of your stance on the war.
I just don’t think it’s practical to fund “until” such-and-such a date. I think the situation is too fluid to have that degree of preciseness…but I freely admit I’m not an expert on congressional budgeting…
By “not saying the Democrats aren’t sincere,” you’re being more charitable than the President. By repeatedly calling the bill’s passage a “political statement,” the obvious implication is that those who voted for it don’t think that mandating a withdrawal is the right course to take — they’re voting not from their conscience but from political considerations.
Why is it a “political statement” when Congress passes a law, but it is not a political statement when Bush vetoes it?
Well, you can be sincere about a political statement, can’t you?
President Bush starts off by saying, “It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars …..” He is referring to terrorists. I say that although he doesn’t know it, he’s really facing about a civil war i.e. the entire country including their President who according to CNN has created an “entity within his government that U.S. and Iraqi military officials say is being used to carry out an extreme Shiite agenda that is worsening the country’s sectarian divide.”
You say terrorists, I say civil war – It makes a huge difference.
Now, Scott, there is a sectarian conflict going on, and you can call that a civil war if you want – but there is NO DOUBT that there are terrorists in Iraq, too…to deny otherwise would be absurd…
And for the record, I hate the way the government is abusing it’s power in favor of the Shiites, and I’ve blogged about that very entity in the last few days…
If this bill had gotten more than token GOP support and had any chance of becoming law at all, then Peter’s comment about sincere actions might make sense.
They knew that the bill would be vetoed with zero chance of override. Yet, they did it anyway. I think the President was pretty charitable to call it merely “political”. Other, more descriptive words come to my mind.
The conflict in Iraq is not a war: we won the war four years ago. However, calling it a civil war ignores the fact that it is also a foreign occupation. Iraq is the messy combination of a civil war and the insurgency against the occupying troops.
This week’s Economist reviews a book by Sir Micheal Rose, a retired British general who was commander of their special forces and “knows a thing or two about fighting terrorists and insurgents.” He looks at Iraq through an interesting prism, by comparing it to the American revolutionaries and finds interesting parallels.
He finds similarities between King George and George Bush (both are “arrogant, ignorant, misguided, and ill-advised”). Britain, then the world’s greatest power, was defeated by American insurgents, just as we are being defeated by Iraqi insurgents. Both countries “misunderstood the nature of the problem confronting them and underestimated its scale.” Both countries failed to send sufficient troops from the outset. They relied on their strengths (British naval power and American air power) which were incapable of defeating the guerilla tactics of the insurgencies. Neither country could “wage military action without alienating the local people” or isolate the insurgents. He finds “similarities between Washington’s loss of New York in 1776 and Hussein’s loss of Baghdad.” He views Iran as the modern day equivalent of France, as the vital ally of the insurgents.
You can take historical analogies only so far, including this one. It’s an interesting argument made by someone with vast experience in counter-insurgencies. However, I think the dichotomy between war or civil war is a false one, as it does not take into account the natural desire of a population to rid itself of foreign occupiers. The enmity of the Arab population towards our invasion and occupation of Iraq (elsewhere in the issue, the Economist notes that 91% of Egyptians think is it acceptable to attack American troops there) has created a maelstrom of ill will towards us which is extraneous to both “war” and “civil war.”
Re post ten: this is hardly the first time in history that an irresistible force met an immovable object. Without a rubber stamp Congress to rely on, George Bush is no longer the sole Decider. Congress has every right to assert its constitutional prerogatives, and there is no reason they should not pass legislation which expresses their consensus simply because of a veto threat. There is now a basis for negotiation. Is your suggestion that those who voted to bring our troops home should have voted for the wrong legislation simply because Bush asks for it?
To use a different example: Republican Congresses routinely sent “partial birth abortion” bills to Clinton with the full knowledge that he would veto them, “with zero chance of override.” Were these acts sincere? Were they “political?”
Peter,
You can be both sincere and political, but there comes a time where it turns into being obstructionist. This is the second bill that congress passed regarding the war that they knew had no chance of being passed. They have made their point. Now is the time to pass a bill with compromise, one that Bush will accept or that will get enough support to overide. If another bill like this is passed then the congress will look like a bunch of do nothing ideologues, remember in some poles their approval is lower than the President’s
To use your analogy. The right made a position statement, both sincere and political, about abortion, then they moved on. Say they had spent their time only passing bills on abortion that they knew would not be passed. How would they appear? Like a bunch of right-wingers that only cared about making hay on one issue. I think the current congress is about one step away from that.
By some yes, by others, including the leadership, no. Yes.
Your analogy does not fit in any event. Despite the rhetoric of some, no warfare is involved on the partial birth abortion question.
By the way, to call this the “consensus” of Congress is a misuse of the word “consensus”. A consensus would be 90-9 or 99-1 or something like that. If it was truly the consensus of Congress, then the veto would be overridden.
Aaron: 1) If Bush wants to fund the troops, all he had to do was sign the appropriations bills. Instead, he issued a non-negotiable position and demanded that Congress simply rubber stamp it. If he is unwilling to compromise or negotiate, why should Congress simply cave and give him what he wants? Why should they ignore the mandate which they earned in the last election and given Bush the blank check he has always asked for? Bush no longer has all the cards. Your suggestion is that the will of the people and of Congress ought to be sacrificed to placate a stubborn and unyielding President.
2) I think this is the necessary first step to getting a bill which “will get enough support to override.” George Bush may want to jump off a cliff, but I’m not sure that there are enough Republicans in Congress who are willing to go with him.
Bob: the principal definition of consensus in dictionary.com is a “majority of opinion.”
So you are saying that the president should placate a stubborn and unyielding congress? How is that any different. Congress is pretty evenly divided on this issue, the latest bill passed by what 10 votes. One side has made their point, that’s great, so has the other side. Now it is time to actually get work done. You paint this issue like Bush just wants a blank check and will sign nothing less, but that congress is standing on principle and has the moral authority here. I see it as two groups of bull-headed, corrupt to the core baby kissers who only care about making useless political points to win the approval of their bases.
Maybe this is the first step, I hope it is. But if congress sends another similar bill to the white-house it will go further to proving my thesis, that neither side has any deeply held beliefs, just what is convienet at this point in time.
And don’t twist words, I did not say they should only rubber-stamp things for Bush. My point is that they are getting nothing accomplished by continually putting forth legeslation that they know will not become law. Do it once to make your point, then both sides compromise, this is headed in the opposite direction.
There have been only two pieces of Iraq-related legislation since the Democrats controlled Congress: the non-binding resolution and the spending bill. The House approved the non-binding resolution on February 16. The next day, the Senate came four votes shy of surviving cloture for the bill. That was only a few days after Bush submitted his emergency funding request (February 14).
So it’s not as if the Congress is “continually putting forth legislation that they know will not become law.” The law which was vetoed yesterday is the first and only piece of legislation regarding the “emergency funding.” Nor are they delaying the appropriations process: the time between February 14 and today is less than the time which GOP Congresses have taken to pass similar “emergency funding” requests. (Of course, there is no emergency: if the Bush administration were honest in its budgeting process, it would have requested an adequate amount of money in the annual budget, instead of continually low-balling their spending needs to avoid demonstrating how expensive the war really is).