After Bush Vetoes The Iraq Bill... What?

03.28.2007

HuffPo post by Chris Weigant: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/after-bush-vetoes-the-ira_b_44416.html

{snip}

Here are the options Weigant says they should consider to counter Bush's veto threat:

(1) Be nice, compromise in conference committee
When the conference committee meets, politely ask the White House where the "line in the sand" truly is -- in other words, which portions of the bill would have to be removed in order for Bush to sign it. This is doomed to failure, and the only reason to attempt it is to provide political cover for Democrats -- "See, we tried to compromise, but Bush wouldn't deal." But don't expect it to work, since Bush will stand firm and demand a "clean" bill. Remember, he wants to veto this bill. This is only an acceptable option in order to pay the idea some political lip service, then move on.

(2) Get as strongly-worded an anti-war bill out of committee as possible
Since Bush is going to veto it anyway, resist changing the bill drastically in committee. The pork can get cut if it doesn't lose Democratic votes in the House; and the timeline will probably turn into a "goal" rather than a hard and fast date, in order to get it through the Senate. The timeline for withdrawal may be set at one year (the Senate version) or 18 months (the House version). Murtha's "troop readiness" section should stay in, though. Whatever the final language, it has to pass both houses, so it can't be tinkered with too much without raising the danger of losing crucial votes. The House only passed their bill by a 218-216 margin, remember, and the Senate will also have a thin majority when they vote.

(3) The veto override vote
After Bush vetoes the bill, Democrats may hold "show" votes to override the veto. These will fail. Democrats need a two-thirds majority, and they aren't even close in either house. Since everyone already knows this, even holding this vote is optional.

(4) The hardest line possible -- tell Bush that's the only bill Congress will pass
Now comes the hard part -- what to do after the veto. There are only three options. The first is to attempt to force Bush to "blink" by telling him: "This is the only bill you're going to get, so if you don't sign it, then you don't get the $100 billion you want. Like it or lump it." This will be the most popular option amongst the left edge of the blogosphere, but it is the worst thing the Democrats could do. Just like the government shutdown in 1994 (the Gingrich - Clinton showdown), ordinary people aren't going to support Democrats if they attempt this. Yes, a large majority of people want the war to end; and yes, they want Congress to do something about it; but relatively few of them want to end the war by cutting off all funding by next month. This would endanger the troops as they leave -- because they won't have enough money and time to do so safely. And you can bet your bottom dollar that the right wing media apparatus will be pointing that out ad nauseum. Politically, this would be suicidal for the Democrats to attempt; which Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are smart enough to understand and avoid. Using it as a "well, we could do this" talking point (or threat) in interviews is about as far as Pelosi and Reid will go down this path.

(5) Pass a second (weaker) bill, but still not Bush's "clean" bill
This will be seen by the "get our troops out tomorrow" faction as wimping out. But at this point, it really should be seen as the best attainable option. If there weren't a deadline (the money running out), congressional Democrats would have the luxury of passing a whole slew of bills, taking one piece out at a time from their original bill, until Bush broke down and signed one of them. But they don't have the time to do that. The question is: what could they pass that Bush would sign, once he has already started playing the veto game? The timetables for withdrawal will likely disappear altogether, or they will be incredibly watered down: "We think it'd be a great idea if U.S. troops were out of Iraq by XX/XX/XX date," with no force behind it whatsoever. Bush may not even accept that -- he's already tossed his marker down on the issue of a timetable, so he may not back down on this one issue. The goals or milestones for the Maliki government may stay in, but again, the timetable aspect of them will probably get jettisoned, making the language vague and weak. The pork may all get chopped out of the bill here, too. But the Democrats should hold firm on Murtha's "troop readiness" language. "How can the President threaten to veto a bill that so strongly supports the troops?" is all Democrats need to say in the media to win this battle. "We even added a loophole, so Bush can send troops that are not fully trained, fully supplied, and fully rested if he personally signs off on them, so the President's hands are in no way tied by this." Whatever comes out of committee at this stage is going to disappoint many Democrats outside the Beltway, but given the deadline of the money running out and the fact that Republicans are gaining some media traction with "the surge may already be working, let's give it a few months and see," this is the best that can be realistically hoped for at this point.

(6) Back down and pass a "clean" bill
In other words, the Democrats "blink." If Bush sells his brand of spin successfully after vetoing the original bill, and the public overwhelmingly says that a clean bill is the best thing right now, then congressional Democrats may be forced into passing exactly what Bush wants -- a "clean" $100 billion appropriation with no strings attached. This would be a disaster for the Democrats, a complete rollover. They should resist the urge to give the store away and fight for some sort of compromise with the White House. Democrats may not get backed into this corner, though, however much Bush tries to push them in it. The only way Bush can successfully pull this off is if the public agrees with him. Seeing as how his poll numbers have been in the low 30s for months, this is not likely to happen. As long as the Democrats can frame the issue well, and fight back the slings and arrows of the right-wing media spin machine, the public will probably agree with their position. Two-thirds of the public wants out of Iraq in one way or another, so the public's already staked out their basic position.

his summary:

Obviously, option (2) followed by option (5) is the best that can be realistically hoped for at this point. Options (4) and (6) are both (in different ways) losers for the Democrats, and winners for the Republicans. Democrats have been doing a good job of keeping public opinion on their side, but most Americans don't want an immediate pullout, they want a responsible pullout -- one that is as safe as possible, one that is planned out, and one that funds the pullout as it happens. But giving in completely and passing a "clean" bill is going to enrage the Democratic base, so it should be avoided as well if at all possible."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/after-bush-vetoes-the-ira_b_44416.html


I hate this post. I think he's describing how to surrender to Bush.

I would prefer that Democrats just keep sending the same bill back to Bush until he bends. There's no evidence that there's going to be a political backlash for refusing to give him money until he agrees to withdraw. Both the Gallup and Pew polling in the last week show at least 60% of Americans support getting out of Iraq by 2008.

Just keep passing the same bill (if the republicans aren't going to block it) and force Bush to either accept the withdrawal bill or go without the funds he says he needs to continue.

HOW ABOUT IMPEACHING THE MOTHERFUCKER! AND ALL THE MOTHERFUCKERS HE BROUGHT WITH HIM!

Impeachment isn't on the table at the moment, unfortunately. But provoking a conflict between Congress and the White House over this issue might be the best way to get them moving in that direction. If impeachment happens it will be a struggle between the President and Congress, not the President and Democrats.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

FUCKING is used merely for emphasis in this instance.

It is emphasizing how pissed off I am that they have not even begun to do this yet. If they want to end the war, and hold people accountable for their crimes, this is the best way to do it.

Not doing it, in my mind, makes them just as culpable and complicit in the crimes of the administration

They probably need to be related to the occupation to reign him in on Iraq.

there are bigger reasons to impeach than Iraq, most important is the assault on the Constitution.

I'm just not convinced that impeachment hearings would necessarily restrain Bush in Iraq. (Clinton and Operation Desert Fox)

if we get him, and his cronies, out of office.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said during his Oval Office address to the nation . . .

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the middle east and around the world," Clinton said.

A showdown between the U.S. and Iraq six weeks ago, when again the military action was threatened, ended with Saddam Hussein's promise to give U.N. inspectors unconditional access to Iraqi facilities so they could determine if Iraq was rebuilding its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

At the time, Clinton said he "concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. I made it very clear at that time what 'unconditional cooperation' meant."

Both directly and indirectly, Clinton addressed the impeachment crisis his presidency is currently facing. He defended the timing of strikes, which his critics have questioned in light of Thursday's scheduled debate and floor vote.

He also said that Saddam Hussein should not believe that domestic troubles in the U.S. would deter the nation from taking decisive action.

"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate before the House of Representatives would distract Americans," Clinton said. "But once more the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests we will do so."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/clinton/

What are you trying to say with regard to these things?

to convict him? And what do we do in the meantime, since its not as if impeachment is going to occur overnight.

don't look to bright.

"Fifty-nine percent of respondents to the Pew poll said they wanted their congressional representative to vote for legislation requiring withdrawal of US forces from Iraq by August 2008."

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Poll_finds_Iraq_angst_weighing_on_C_03262007.html


60% in US back 2008 pullout from Iraq - 60% oppose cutting off funds to the 140,000 soldiers there

WASHINGTON: A majority of Americans favor pulling US troops out of Iraq by fall 2008, but oppose cutting off funds to the 140,000 soldiers there, according to a poll published on Tuesday.

The Gallup-USA Today poll came as Democrats were pushing a bill which ties funding for the war to a timetable to withdraw US combat troops from Iraq by August 31, 2008. Of the 1,007 people polled over the weekend, 60 percent support withdrawal from Iraq in 2008, but 61 percent opposed cutting funding for the troops in the country, which is in the grip of a violent insurgency that has killed hundreds of people a week.

Fifty-three percent of those polled believed the insurgency would grow if the number of US soldiers in the volatile capital was lowered. Troops have been there since the US led an invasion in 2003 to oust the late dictator Saddam Hussein.

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/cgi/NGoto/196268459?-1377

and anyone saying that he might hasn't been paying attention. People like Bush have to be beaten decisively and completely.

If I were advising leadership, I would suggest that they make an effort to compromise before conference for show only...knowing that it will be pointless. Send him the HR version of the bill. Dare him to veto it.

He vetoes it, then what?

Hold the veto override vote just to see where everyone is at. The veto will most likely hold.

Then what?

The article leaves out the best plan for reaching compromise or winning. Don't keep passing the same bill. Don't pass a weaker bill. Those choices would lead to varying degrees of failure.

Instead, *pass a tougher version of the HR bill*. Reduce the time for withdrawal. Make some other concessions to get more votes. Add more money and more provisions that people can agree on.

Let Bush know that each time he vetoes the bill it will get worse for him. Bush has lost this fight; there is no need to help him out by being "bipartisan".

All the Dems need to do is go on TV and tell people that Bush has to accept some compromise if he wants his occupation to continue.

Table the bill temporarily (say for a few weeks) and fire off those subpoenas for Rove and Miers. Leak yet more dirt to the press about various acts of Bush corruption, show the world some more Nixon moments. Once Bush has been suitably politically weakened, dictate to him the bill he's going to sign.

Pass an even tougher bill. Basically get the message out THIS is the compromise bill any bill likely to pass the house in the future if this one is veto'd will have even tougher time tables as the more anti-war house memembers are unlikely to compromise again.

go out there among the american people, 1 minute after he vetoes it, with ads, TV appearances, etc and tell the american public how Bush isnt supporting the troops because he refused to sign a bill to pay for them. turn the tables on his ass.

I don't know that we could get a majority vote in the Senate for a stronger bill. And while maybe a stronger bill would pick up votes from liberal Democrats who voted against the bill because it didn't cut off funding, there likely would be an offsetting loss of support from Blue Dogs.

That sixty percent against the war isn't evenly distributed amongst the populous. I'm sure that in some States and districts, its higher; and in some States and districts, even some districts with Democratic representatives, its lower.