Veto What? What Iraq Supplemental Bill Will Bush See?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:09:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Our friend (Jeralyn and mine) Markos says:

Is the supplemental perfect? Nope. But ultimately, it matters little. Bush will veto it, just like he'd veto a "tougher" bill. The would-be-emperor from the unaccountable administration has no interest in agreeing to even the most mildest of oversight requests.

But what bill will Bush see? The Senate now starts from a weak baseline - and McConnell has the filibuster power. What bill will Bush see? If he sees any bill, it will certainly be even weaker than this bill. Then Bush starts to negotiate. Markos thinks this is the end of the concessions. It is only the beginning of the "compromises."

The other interesting thing is Markos, to his credit, does not indulge in this "first step" nonsense. He knows better than that. Instead he talk about the 2008 elections:

The message being sent is that Democrats want out, Republicans want more Americans to die in Iraq. That is the clear distinction we need heading into 2008. Voters will then decide which they prefer -- pullout or escalation. And when we win that battle and hold the White House and Congress, this war is history.

See what Kos is saying, the war does not end until 2009. He thinks that is something to celebrate. Obviously I do not.

But just as importantly, Kos assumes that the politics will play favorably for a craven Dem Congress that did next to nothing to end the war.

Where will the GOP nominee be then on Iraq? This is a bad business policywise and politically. I think Kos is too clever by half on this

I strongly dissent from his analysis.

< Federal Judge Blocks Internet Porn Law | Army Inaccurately Reported Desertion Numbers >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Veto What? What Iraq Supplemental Bill Will Bush See? | 15 comments (15 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Here's my speculation (5.00 / 8) (#1)
by roboleftalk on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:30:05 PM EST

Bush gestures veto and gets a very watered down bill from the senate. Bush decides not to veto. He writes a signing statement that he will follow the law except to the extent it infringes on his constitutional powers as the unitary executive. Then he will do as he wants. To the extent the Congress finds out it is not in conformance with the bill (if it ever finds out), he'll let congress take it to court. By the time it gets anywhere, he's gone.

: I agree... (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by joliberal on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 11:01:57 PM EST

any bill that accually changes the way Bush is handling the war will be vetoed. If the bill is "soft" enough to get through the senate Bush will neuter it further untill he gets what he wants, which is no strings attached and full funding for his war of choice.

Money in an envelope (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Ben Masel on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 11:32:50 PM EST

You take the money, and trash the envelope.

How the politics will play (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Demi Moaned on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 03:57:07 AM EST

Kos assumes that the politics will play favorably for a craven Dem Congress that did next to nothing to end the war.

It was an interesting argument.

He was saying that since perception has become so far divorced from reality in the public discussion of issues and the public perception is that the Democrats are taking action to end the war, then the continuation of the war will belong wholly to the Republicans.

It may be true, though I think the Democrats are very poor at managing public perception to their advantage even when the facts support them.

But kos did seem to be saying that the MSM is, for once, framing the discussion favorably to the Democrats.

It's a bit speculative to my taste. And I think too much is at stake to expect that good things can be deferred until 2009.

I read Kos' post last night (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Edger on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 06:57:29 AM EST

after being up for 15 hours (to long for me) and I was too tired to make much sense of it or collect my thoughts enough to comment, but I fell asleep feeling about the same as your estimation of it, Big Tent. He seems to think they got "something", which is better that "nothing". What that "something might be, I have no idea.

I still can't quite figure out how he gets: "I'm actually quite proud of the progressive caucus -- it's time House progressives start flexing their muscles a little."

Flexing? Flexing? Big f'ing deal. How about actually using them?

And how he comes up with "...we can't end the war right now (and we can't, thanks to King George)" is beyond me, and seems to be buying into abdication. It's Bush's fault that they can't end the war? With all due respect to Kos, I think that's crap. There is no "can't" about it. All I'm seeing is that they can't... because they won't.

Are they so uncomfortable with the power they have that they're afraid of it? Jesus. They're acting like a 98 pound weakling scared of a gun he just had handed to him and whining "please don't rob me" to the thief demanding his wallet.

The only thing they'll get from trying to play it safe, is nothing.

Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by conchita on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 09:05:43 AM EST

A voice for the unquiet despair I woke with this morning. I didn't march over the weekend, and now after making daily calls to my rep's office (nadler - supposedly one of the good guys), I think what difference does it all make. We elect people for what? To put them in a position to work towards the next election cycle? When people like Nadler, Waters, and Lee vote for something they don't believe in and they know their constituents do not want, it destroys my faith in the process. What does it take to stand up and say NO this is wrong, and then work to change it? It doesn't help that United For Peace and Justice sent out an email early this morning asking its membership to call their reps asking for a No vote - three days late, and I wonder, didn't they get the memo? What does it take to organize a coalition that works together and can productively make change while Bush is in office? Voices like Kos that claim that substantive change is not possible under this administration are more disquieting. I can't believe that we worked that hard simply to elect people who are more concerned with getting elected again than working for us. So what then? It will be more of the same or worse. What if we put a dem in the oval office, and it is Hillary - how likely is she to stop the war. This is insane thinking. People have lost touch with reality - did the house become so caught up in drafting legislation that would garner votes that they forgot they were dealing with a war and people's lives?? Why would they want it to pass and further fund the war, the surge/escalation they were so vehemently opposed to? It leaves me cold and thinking - wtf and what next in this spiral of descent.


: What does it take to stand up and say NO? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Edger on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 09:54:01 AM EST

Well... How about a couple of quotes from a rabid capitalist?
This one is good to keep in mind I think, trying stay determined in the face of so many buying into the crap:
"When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it."
And this one might be something for Pelosi and the Democratic leadership to hang on their walls - and maybe have their noses rubbed in regularly:
"You can't build a reputation on what you're going to do."
-----
Sigh. Both quotes are from Henry Ford.

I wish there would have been (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 08:52:40 AM EST

a fight for the American people to see and a debate that would have caused all the hawks to have to step out front and be known, but I don't think that's going to happen now so raspberries. All you Dems that pushed for this though.....you just helped kill a whole bunch of people and you hardly made a squeak about it. Just because they would have been dead anyways isn't a reason to not make noise or put up a fight! Who speaks for the voiceless now? Who will be heard in their silence?

Also wanted to say thank you to BTD (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by conchita on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 09:08:04 AM EST

Thank you for the posts and for trying to create a block of sanity in this insane process. Thank you for not giving up.

: Me too! (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 09:17:51 AM EST

It's an amazing gift to be able to take in new info constantly and apply that to knowledge of the inner workings of D.C. and the conscience of a humanitarian. Then take that and apply a leadership quality voice and write it up five times a day if and when needed.

CODEPINK (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Edger on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:23:25 AM EST

Anti-war protesters arrested at Pelosi's office

Four members of the anti-war group CODEPINK were arrested outside the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) Thursday afternoon,

2009 (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by roy on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 11:30:55 AM EST

Holding the White House won't necessarily end the war anyway. Hillary is on record as saying she'd continue it:

So I think we have a remaining military as well as political mission, trying to contain the extremists.
...
But what we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of, between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region -- the ones that are going to remain for our antiterrorism mission; for our northern support mission; for our ability to respond to the Iranians; and to continue to provide support, if called for, for the Iraqis.

Of course, she's also on record with this:

If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will.

So it comes down to: when was she lying? And don't fall for merely redefining "war".

Pork? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Slado on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:21:39 PM EST

If this is some idiological battle why did the Dems decide to stuff a bunch of pork in a bill that they know won't pass?

The Dems are proving that it's buisness as usual in Washington.

Pork

: Ain't that the truth..... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by kdog on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 02:43:54 PM EST

If you wanna end this war "tomorrow"...don't waste your time paying attention to congress.
Either hit the streets hard with a million of your closest friends or get used to the war....these are your options.

Pollyanna? (none / 0) (#4)
by ron on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 12:51:21 AM EST

I was on the side of a tougher bill if only to force a bigger confrontation and I wish they could've made it happen.

I read a diary over at Kos by LithiumCola that gave me reason to not hate the bill that finally passed.

What's bothered me the most about the weak bill was that it appears to be a failure of leadership that couldn't pass a stronger one. Leaders lead so I thought Democratic leaders failed. Maybe they didn't and are simply calmly slipping Bush as much rope as he needs.

Maybe it's their estimation that turning the pot on with Bush in it rather than throwing him into a boiling pot would be more effective in the long run.

I tend to be impatient but that's often not the best tactic. I still wish they'd passed a stronger bill. Hell, I wish they'd start impeachment proceedings now and I wish they'd start up a printing press just to start printing out supoenas.

But, with this one I don't want to see it as all bad.